Sitting of 21 April 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—
  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Regional Government
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: What the relationship would be between an elected regional assembly and the Northwest Development Agency. [166251]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): The Northwest Development. Agency would become directly accountable to the elected regional assembly rather than to central Government, but it would retain its present day-to-day operational independence. The assembly would appoint the chair and board members of the RDA, publish the regional economic strategy and set the agency's budget.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he join me in welcoming his Department's report, which was published on Monday, which recognised the contribution that our core cities strategy has made to investment and employment opportunities for cities such as Liverpool? Will he also acknowledge the role that the Northwest Development Agency has played in securing fantastic investment, certainly in my constituency, with a great impact on the sustainability of communities such as mine?
    Phil Hope: The core cities have indeed been very successful. People are returning to our cities. In 2002–03, the Northwest Development Agency created or safeguarded more than 16,700 jobs in the region. In my hon. Friend's constituency, unemployment has dropped by no less than 54 per cent. since 1997. There is, however, still much to do to reduce the economic disparities in England, and unlike the Tories, who oppose anything with the word "region" attached to it, we believe that a new elected regional assembly in the north-west will be a real champion for the people of that
    278
    region, bringing them more jobs and prosperity and giving local people democratic control over decisions and resources in their area.
    Mr. George Osborne: What did Lord Rooker mean when he said that an elected regional assembly in the north-west would have no new powers and no new money?
    Phil Hope: My noble friend Lord Rooker often speaks in the other Chamber and elsewhere forthrightly on these matters. He knows, and we know, that the powers of an elected regional assembly are widespread: they will not only have regional economic development as a major role, they will promote jobs and skills and have responsibilities for planning, housing, transport, arts, tourism, sport, fire and rescue, public health, rural regeneration, the environment, promoting the region in Europe, and sustainable development. That is the real job that regional elected assemblies will have, and unlike the Tories, we are backing them all the way.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware of the magnificent contribution that the Northwest Development Agency is making both to economic regeneration around Luneside and to the development of InfoLab at Lancaster university, which will be the hub of science-based business across the north of the north-west for many years to come. Is it not imperative for all the people of the north-west, and especially those living north of Lancaster, that we have an elected regional assembly to ensure ownership of such vital developments and proper integration of those superb regeneration initiatives throughout all the urban and rural areas of the region?
    Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the economic benefits to urban and rural areas of an elected regional assembly are there for us all to see, and we are giving the people of the north-west the choice. It seems odd to me that all the benefits that he has outlined are opposed by the Tories, who are against giving people a choice in this referendum, yet seem to wish to give them a choice in other referendums.
    Mr. Edward Davey: The Minister should listen to Lord Rooker rather more carefully. If he really wants to promote economic development in the north-west and other regions, should not more power over economic policy be devolved, for example to learning and skills councils and in regional transport policy, giving regional assemblies real power to make a difference? Is not his and the Deputy Prime Minister's timidity on regional devolution in danger of producing a no vote in the autumn referendums?
    Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman once again ploughs this furrow. I wish his party was more consistent. The Liberal Democrats support devolution, for which we are grateful, as it gives power to the people in creating democratic institutions for the regions. We look forward to getting their support on the doorstep,

    279
    backing the yes campaign—whether we in fact get it is a matter for them. I am quite clear where our party sits, and I certainly know where the Tories stand.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that there is no public demand for the proposed changes to local government resulting in the transfer of powers to regional assemblies. I feel a bit sorry for the Minister, who has to defend colleagues whose views differ from those of his Department. Does he think that she was right or wrong?
    Phil Hope: I welcome the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) to her post. I understand that she is leading her team, although we on the Government Benches get slightly confused about who in her party is doing what—no change there.
    The choice for the people of the northern regions—the north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire and Humber—is absolutely clear. Do they want their region to have a strong voice? Do they want democratic control of the resources and of the decisions made in their region? Do they want jobs and economic prosperity to come to their region through the creation of an elected regional assembly? That choice is absolutely clear, and my party supports it. I wish that the Conservative party would stand up for the north for once, rather than running it down.
    Mrs. Spelman: As the Minister will not say clearly why he thinks that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich is wrong, perhaps I may tell him why I think that she is right. Why should people in the north-west be expected to foot the bill for a costly new tier of politicians that they neither want nor need, and that will not result in one extra nurse, doctor or teacher? At a time when trust in Government politicians is at an all-time low, why is the answer to create yet more bureaucrats, more regulations and more politicians?
    Phil Hope: It seems that Conservative Front Benchers should talk to one another. The hon. Lady's colleague the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) announced on Monday that the Conservatives would scrap every single regional structure that they could find, despite the fact that Conservative councillors up and down the country are taking an active part in regional chambers and assemblies that are doing a good job. Moreover, he mentioned one or two proposals for local government, including a £2.5 billion cut in local government funding. How many nurses, teachers and police officers would that cut from front-line services? The hon. Lady needs to get a hold on her brief before she makes such an accusation in this Chamber.

    Planning (Local Accountability)
    Andrew Selous: If he will make a statement on local accountability in relation to the planning system. [166253]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): Under our plan-led system, local planning authorities are responsible for producing local plans and taking decisions on the vast majority of planning applications.
    280
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is reforming the planning system to achieve better and more up-to-date local plans, improve the processes for handling planning applications and ensure that local communities are involved in plan preparation from the outset. That will improve accountability, efficiency and effectiveness.
    Andrew Selous: Why should the East of England regional assembly—unaccountable, unloved and unelected by those who are affected—dictate development policy? Why will the Government not trust local people to take the planning decisions that affect their environment through the local councillors whom they elect?
    Keith Hill: I might point out that the East of England regional assembly, which the hon. Gentleman castigates so comprehensively, is dominated by his party. The fact is that those decisions are taken by elected representatives from his own party. However, let me say to the hon. Gentleman, who has been so persistent on this issue, that the people of south Bedfordshire for whom he speaks will benefit from the economic growth associated with the proposals for Luton airport, and that they cannot be immune from the housing consequences of that. This Government will ensure that the transport infrastructure is put in place, and we will start with brownfield We will accept no strictures from a party that, when in government, allowed developers to rampage over the countryside.
    John Mann: Can it be right that when some sandal-wearing lobbyists from London are the only objectors to new roundabouts on the A1, that automatically leads to a 12-month delay and a public inquiry, whereas when my constituent Mrs. Harvey and her councillor wish to object to a development in an adjoining property to hers, they are told that the decision will be taken by the local council on delegated authority because the Government have specified that 90 per cent. of all planning decisions must be made through delegated authority? Is that local democracy or is it not?
    Keith Hill: My hon. Friend is in fine popular—one is tempted to say even populist—vein. We are seeking to ensure that sandal-wearers from any part of the country cannot unreasonably impede planning developments. That is one of the central proposals of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. My hon. Friend is right to say that a substantial number of lower-order—if I may put it that way—planning decisions are delegated, but that is essentially a matter for local authorities and elected representatives. It is open to his local authority and councillors, I dare say at his excellent behest, to change that system if they so desire.
    Mr. James Paice: The Minister's words about local accountability and local consultation will ring pretty hollow with my constituents in the village of Cottenham, who have seen planning inspectors overrule local opinion and the local authority time and again to grant ever more Traveller permissions on greenfield sites over and above the 35 sites that have existed without dispute for many years.

    281
    [Interruption.] It is not about Travellers; it is a matter of size. Why will the Government not take heed of local opinion about the number of people who can be integrated into a local community, and why do they consistently override the local accountability that the Minister apparently praises?
    Keith Hill: I do not share the impatience of some Members with the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman. We have followed developments in Cottenham very carefully and we wholly understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman is articulating. He will understand that those matters are still the subject of planning applications and in some cases before the courts, so it is difficult for me in my quasi-judicial capacity to express a view. Let me say, however, that we are aware that existing enforcement procedures are very time consuming, which is why the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, to which I referred earlier, will introduce the option of temporary stop notices. They should be helpful in cases such as Cottenham. We will also emphasise the opportunities available to local authorities through planning guidance.
    Mr. Clive Betts: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the proposed changes to PPG6 on out-of-town shopping centres will not reduce the power of local authorities to refuse applications for them? In particular, will he assure me that developers will not have any greater ability to insist on one large single site for such developers, which naturally forces shopping centres out of town, and that local authorities will not have taken away from them their power to refuse extensions to centres such as Meadowhall in my constituency? If that were extended, it could damage not only Sheffield city centre, but Rotherham town centre and other district centres.
    Keith Hill: These matters are subject to case-by-case decision making, and it would be wrong to issue a general directive against extensions or developments in any circumstances whatever. However, my hon. Friend should understand what we have achieved since we came to power in 1997, and realise the purposes of PPG6—and, indeed, the revised PPS6—which are to continue to resist greenfield development and to protect our inner-city areas and town centres. The fact remains that, as the planning permissions granted by the Conservatives for greenfield development begin to run out, we are seeing increasing development in city centre areas. So successful has the return to the city centre been in our major cities that we are now turning our attention to the second tranche of smaller towns and cities, where we want to encourage the same revitalisation that we have seen over the past six to seven years in the larger towns.
    Mr. John Hayes: On the subject of planning and development, the Minister knows that the green belt was always intended to be a tight belt of land to prevent urban sprawl. Since 1997, however, it has been less a belt than a piece of elastic, as the green belt has expanded further into the open countryside and from the places it is supposed to protect. Given that the Library told me that answers thus far to questions on that matter have been "imprecise"—indeed, it described them as "evasive"—
    282
    will the Minister tell me how much urban sprawl has taken place since 1997 and explain to the House how many acres of inner green belt have been developed under Labour?
    Keith Hill: The answer is perfectly simple. Since the Government came to power, we have expanded the green belt by 25,000 hectares and there are plans to extend it by a further 12,000. It was the hon. Gentleman's party that allowed low-density development to destroy and concrete over our countryside, and it is the Labour Government who are committed to brownfield first. We are already achieving well above our 60 per cent. objective for development on brownfield sites, and we will continue with that purpose.

    Planning Gain
    Keith Vaz: What proposals he has to change the rules relating to planning gain. [166254]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): May I first offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on her new portfolio?
    As part of our agenda to deliver sustainable communities we are reforming the planning system, through the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, to make it fairer, faster and more predictable. The new approach will give developers the choice of either negotiating a traditional section 106 agreement or—if they want greater speed and certainty—to pay a fixed charge, thus avoiding lengthy negotiations. That will give the local authority greater resources to spend on new community facilities, infrastructure improvements and affordable homes.
    Keith Vaz: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware that last year Tesco made profits of £69,000 a minute. May I draw his attention to planning issues involving Tesco in the Hamilton area of my constituency, where it has put up a megastore but given only a paltry sum as part of the planning gain? Tesco also appears to be blocking the establishment of an independent chemist in the area and cannot even collect its own trolleys. Will my right hon. Friend look at that case to ensure that the rules governing planning gain are fair to local communities and local authorities?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that I have no power to collect trolleys. The issue that he mentions was not called in and is therefore a matter for the local authority and Tesco. However, I congratulate Tesco on providing more in-town retail shopping. In 1979, there were 150 out-of-town shopping areas, but that increased under the Conservatives to 1,100. We have changed the trend, and last year, for the first time, in-town shopping increased, with the consequent reduction in poverty and improvement in jobs.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Given that many people think that section 106 agreements challenge the integrity of the planning system, because they involve the granting of planning permission in exchange for money, will the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that any alternative to that system in

    283
    the planning Bill will earmark any money collected for specific projects, which should begin as soon as practically possible?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a sound point, and it is one that we have made in debates in this House and in the other place. It will be written into the Bill. Planning gain can be in money or in kind, such as in affordable housing or other facilities that might benefit the community. We have provided advice on the issue, but the hon. Gentleman makes a sound point and we intend to follow it up.

    Green Belt
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on green belt policy. [166255]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): None: it is a fully devolved matter.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend recognise the problem of some exceedingly prosperous and well managed firms somehow getting permission to put up offices and big buildings in green belt areas and then not quite keeping to the undertakings on the environment that they gave to get the permission?
    Yvette Cooper: Companies certainly need to recognise their responsibilities towards the environment, the green belt and the planning system. It is possible for local planning authorities in England to put conditions on planning permissions, and if those conditions are violated, it is up to them to take enforcement action.

    Emergency Services (London)
    Roger Casale: What assessment he has made of the state of readiness of the fire service and other emergency services to deal with catastrophic events in London. [166256]
    The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Following the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001, a multi-agency team was set up to carry out an urgent and comprehensive review of London preparedness. Its report has formed the basis of the work of the London Resilience forum, which I chair with the Mayor of London as my deputy. The role of the forum is to ensure that London is as well prepared as possible to respond to a major attack or incident. The state of readiness of the emergency services is continually evaluated and tested through a series of exercises.
    Roger Casale: All hon. Members will surely feel an abiding sense of horror at the sheer destructive force of the recent terrorist atrocities in Madrid. What lessons have been learned in this country from that attack, and what further steps have been taken to prepare London for a similar scale attack?
    Mr. Raynsford: I share my hon. Friend's horror at the appalling incidents in Madrid. Since the atrocity there, the Metropolitan police, Transport for London and other London front-line agencies have been in regular contact with their counterparts in Madrid to learn lessons and find out what more London could do both to prevent an attack and to respond to any consequences. We have also launched an awareness campaign, which had been planned before the Madrid attack and which has been very visible indeed on the London underground and in other transport locations in London, highlighting the need for awareness and preparedness. That is all part of the work that we are doing to ensure that we are as well prepared as we possibly can be.
    Angela Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): In the recent Madrid bombings, the Red Cross played a very prominent role, particularly in the humanitarian aspect of helping people after that atrocity. What discussions has the Minister had with the Red Cross in this country to take advantage of its network of people across the country who can come into the community if there is a parallel incident in London?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady that the Red Cross and other voluntary agencies are regularly contacted by the London Resilience forum. Indeed, the voluntary sector is regularly represented as part of the planning in that forum to ensure the coordination of all those who would have a role to play in the event of any such incident.

    Public Planning Inquiries
    Tony Baldry: How many public planning inquiries he has ordered in the last 12 months. [166257]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): Altogether, arrangements were made for 2,163 public inquiries, mostly at the request of the parties, into appeals and other matters submitted under the Town and Country Planning Acts.
    Tony Baldry: Of the Bicester accommodation centre, the then Minister for Citizenship and Immigration said at the Dispatch Box that the Government would abide by the outcome of any public inquiry, and went on to say that that would be both fair and democratic. The public inquiry took place; the inspector ruled on planning grounds that the development should not go ahead. The Deputy Prime Minister metaphorically put up two fingers to that and said that, because it was Government policy, the development would go ahead regardless. What on earth is the point of holding a public inquiry if the Government intend to take absolutely no notice of its outcome? What is either fair or democratic about that—or is it just as worthless as all the rest of the Government's big conversation?
    Keith Hill: I must inform the hon. Gentleman that there was nothing extraordinary about the procedure adopted in the Bicester case. On average, the

    285
    First Secretary of State disagrees with inspectors' recommendations in about 10 per cent. of cases. Last year, the figure was 31 out of 330 applications and appeals. In the Bicester case, the reasons for the First Secretary of State's decision are set out in his decision letter of 18 August 2003. There is nothing further to add to the reasons given in that decision. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order.

    New Deal for Communities
    Jim Dobbin: What progress there has been on the New Deal for Communities programme; and if he will make a statement. [166258]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): In the new deal for communities, we are investing more than £2 billion in 39 of our most deprived communities. After just four years, we have already seen significant achievements: employment in the NDC areas is down by 7 per cent., which is faster than the national average; pass rates for pupils who achieve five or more GCSEs are up by 5 per cent., which is higher than the national average; and crime is down by 14 per cent. That is a fantastic achievement, which the National Audit Office has called "pleasing", and it has made a real difference to people's lives. I am sure that the House will want to congratulate the 50,000 ordinary people who have been involved in achieving that success.
    Jim Dobbin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of "Heart of Heywood", which is the new deal for communities programme in my constituency? It has just purchased five state-of-the-art buses to transport unemployed people to areas that are difficult to reach. Other plans in the pipeline include a new primary school and a community campus, which will deliver services from the police, housing authorities, the local library and other agencies, and a new health connections centre supported by the primary care trust, social services and Sure Start. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that all NDC projects throughout the country are well supported because they are helping to regenerate the poorer communities in our society?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. My Ministers and I have visited the majority of NDCs, and we continue to do so. Indeed, I shall visit Shoreditch NDC on 28 May My hon. Friend will be aware that I visited his constituency a couple of weeks ago, when I announced the £53 million investment in a pathfinder scheme for Rochdale and Oldham. I am certainly aware of the achievements of those in his NDC, and they are to be congratulated on them. They join the rank of successful NDCs, which we are proud of, and it shows that people have the money and they can make a difference—but if people vote for the Tories, they will slash those programmes in the future.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Chris Bryant (Rhondda): If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before announcing my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in expressing condolences to the families of those Iraqis, including children, who were tragically murdered in a series of explosions in Basra this morning. I understand also that four British soldiers were wounded in the attacks, and our thoughts are with them and their families. Let us be clear. The majority of Iraqi people want a stable and democratic Iraq; these terrorists want to stop them. We—all of us in the international community—have to join that majority in Iraq to make sure that the terrorists do not succeed and that democracy prevails. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
    This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Chris Bryant: Unemployment in the Rhondda is at a historic low of 4.1 per cent. but one in four people is on incapacity benefit. If we are going to get more people off benefits and into work, we need a strong local national health service. Will the Prime Minister guarantee us the funds that we need not only for our new local hospital at Llwynypia but for more new GPs and a stronger primary health care service so that we can put behind us once and for all the Tory legacy of a demoralised and underfunded national health service?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to be able to say to my hon. Friend that not only has unemployment fallen substantially and not merely are there about 1.75 million more jobs in the British economy today, but, as a result of the announcement today for the national health service, there will be 25,000 additional operations. These are, it is true, with private-sector contractors, but they are within the national health service framework and they will be free at the point of use—no patients passport for them. They will allow us to make sure that the record of improving the national health service in this country by a programme of investment and reform is maintained.
    Mr. Michael Howard: May I associate myself completely with the condolences that the Prime Minister has expressed to the families of those Iraqis who so tragically lost their lives this morning in Basra? As he said, our thoughts also go to the families of the British soldiers who were wounded in those attacks. May I also associate myself with the remainder of his remarks about Iraq and about the need for us to safeguard the position of the majority of the Iraqi people and to see out the commitments that we have entered into notwithstanding the difficulties that we face?

    287
    Mr. Speaker, you can always tell when the Government are in trouble. They call on the hon. Gentleman and they start singing "Help me, Rhondda. Help, help me Rhondda." [Laughter.]
    The Prime Minister recently sent a personal memo to all members of his Cabinet and, as it happens, I have a copy here. It says:
    "Too often … change has been initiated in ignorance of the risks and of what might be done to deal with them. In future we need to ensure that risks have been adequately considered before we make policy announcements".
    When he wrote that, what exactly did he have in mind?
    The Prime Minister: In deciding on this we studied very carefully the record of a previous Minister, and we decided that one thing we really wanted to avoid was being in the position of introducing anything quite as disastrous as the poll tax, opposition to the minimum wage or the social chapter, or a million extra unemployed—in other words, to be as little like him as possible.
    Mr. Howard: The memo was not sent to me; I am not on the circulation list. It was sent to members of the right hon. Gentleman's Cabinet. It is about his Government, his policies and his failure to make sure that risks are adequately considered before policy announcements are made.
    The Prime Minister was not prepared to tell us what he had in mind, so let me see whether I can help him. When did the Cabinet reverse its policy and decide to hold a referendum on the European constitution?
    The Prime Minister: We announced our policy on the referendum yesterday. [Interruption.
    Yes, it is important that we consider carefully any risks in relation to a policy, and we have considered carefully the following risks. We have considered how it is important to make sure that we maintain the best economic record of any Government in many years; we have considered how we keep unemployment down, inflation down and interest rates down and how we keep employment up; we have considered how we maintain the biggest ever investment in health, education, and law and order; and we have considered the very serious risk that all that would not happen if there were a Tory Government.
    Mr. Howard: The whole country will have seen that once again the Prime Minister has failed to answer a simple, direct question. I am in a helpful mood this afternoon, so I will help him again. We know that the Cabinet was not consulted because the Foreign Secretary told us so last night. From the grandeur of the Foreign Office, he made this authoritative statement:
    "This is a reflection really of, of where we are in terms of, not of spin as some people suggest, but in terms of how we have to live in a much more open society, open culture, and twenty four hour news. Would that it would have been possible to have delayed the announcement until Thursday so it could have been formally discussed in Cabinet but as it turned out it simply wasn't possible".
    That is what the Prime Minister means by Cabinet government: he performs a huge policy U-turn; he leaks it to the newspapers, and then he tells the Cabinet that there is no time left for them to make a decision.
    288
    With or without the Cabinet, let me ask the Prime Minister this question to see to what extent he has followed the advice that he gave to his colleagues in his personal memo and to what extent he has thought the matter through. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Leader of the Opposition speak.
    Mr. Howard: If the Prime Minister is still in office when the referendum takes place, and there is a no vote, will he veto the constitution or will he renegotiate it?
    The Prime Minister: We will be in exactly the same position as, for example, Ireland after its rejection, the first time round, of the Nice treaty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh yes, this is an important point. That means that if we were in government, we would sit down and discuss the way forward with other European countries. That is what Ireland did after its rejection of the Nice treaty, and that is what would happen if we were in government.
    Let me put the question back to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Perhaps he would just confirm that if he were in government his position would be to reject any constitutional treaty whatever. If we were in government, we could, although this would be a serious issue, sit down and plan out the way forward with other countries. However, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were in office, he would be saying that he was not prepared to accept any constitutional treaty, and that is why he would then be left with a choice of other countries going forward and Britain being in a different relationship with the European Union.
    Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister has failed to answer a simple and straightforward question. I did not ask him whether he was going to sit down and plan the way forward, but asked a very simple question. Will he veto the treaty in the event of a no vote or will he seek to renegotiate it? Which would it be?
    The Prime Minister: If there is a no vote, the treaty cannot be ratified on that basis, which is why we, who support the principle of a constitutional treaty, would then have to sit down with the others and work out the way forward. [Interruption.] But that is a completely different position—let the right hon. and learned Gentleman get up and confirm it—from that of a Government who say that they will not accept any constitutional treaty. Perhaps he would confirm that that is his position.
    Hon. Members: Answer!
    Mr. Howard: We are against a constitution for the European Union, because countries have constitutions and nation states make treaties with each other. That is our position. I think that the Prime Minister has confirmed—I will give him a chance to confirm it directly—what we have been saying all along. If this treaty—this constitution—does not proceed as a consequence of a no vote in this country. Britain would remain a full participating member of the European Union. Will he confirm that that is the case?
    The Prime Minister: If the constitution is rejected in a referendum, of course, the position remains that we then have to work out the way forward with the other countries. Until then, the status quo remains. As for rejecting any constitutional treaty, let me point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this is a treaty, not a constitution absent from a treaty. It is the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. In other words, it is a treaty agreed in the same way as Maastricht or any other treaty between the European Union members. It is a constitutional treaty. [Interruption.] This is extremely important. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he would reject any constitution, does he mean that he would reject any constitutional treaty?
    Mr. Howard: I have set out our position with absolute clarity. [Interruption.] If the Prime Minister wants to find out more about our position—
    The Prime Minister: I do.
    Mr. Howard: He says that he wants to find out more about our position. Yesterday, he said:
    "let the battle be joined."—[Official Report, 20 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 157.]
    I cannot wait. I make this challenge to the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] As soon as the constitution is agreed, will he take part in a televised debate with me in which we can explore all these issues? Will he accept that challenge? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: The debate that we will have is here in the House. When it is agreed in this House, we will have a debate in the country. To go back to the heart of the point—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Prime Minister answer. [Interruption.] Order. I do not want anyone shouting.
    The Prime Minister: We are having a televised debate now, I rather think, unless we are silent on the television cameras. Just so that we understand his position, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reject in entirety any constitutional treaty? Let us have the debate. We are on television now, so will he answer yes or no? I shall tell him what I think he is trying to do. He is trying to suggest to one part of his party that he rejects the whole idea of a constitutional treaty, but he is keeping open his freedom of manoeuvre in case he wants to negotiate amendments to the existing treaty. It is an obvious distinction—amendments to the existing treaty or no treaty at all? Which is it? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: May I tell the Prime Minister that I am delighted that he has changed his mind and decided to put the issue of the European constitution to the British people? Does he agree that what is good for Europe is also good for Wales? In light of the Richard commission report, if there are any plans to give primary legislative powers to the Welsh Assembly, does he agree that that should be a decision of the Welsh people, not of politicians?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for her opening remarks. We will consider the Richard report
    290
    carefully and we will consider any representations on it carefully. We will make our decisions on it and any consequential policies as a result of that consultation.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I associate myself and my colleagues with the expression of condolences that the Prime Minister so properly made? Scores of Iraqi civilians have lost their lives as a result of the latest outrage, and reports from the Ministry of Defence confirm that several British troops have been very seriously injured. This is a timely reminder for us all of the escalating violence throughout Iraq as we build towards the 30 June deadline. Given that the United States confirmed last week that it is to deploy a further 20,000 of its forces into Iraq, is the Prime Minister satisfied, as things stand in Basra, that there are sufficient levels of British troops to manage the situation? Has he had requests for more, and does he have any plans to deploy more British troops or equipment into the area?
    The Prime Minister: We are satisfied that we have sufficient troops in Basra. We do not have plans to increase the number. Of course, we always have to keep that situation under review, but at present the British troops are managing extremely well down there. The attacks today indicate that the terrorists are becoming sufficiently desperate that they are prepared to attack the most defenceless people they can find, simply in order to create maximum chaos. The feedback that we are getting from ordinary Iraqi people in Basra, as one might expect, is intense anger towards those who are killing wholly innocent civilians.
    Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Prime Minister for that clarification on the British troops. May I ask him a further question, concerning their status? After the 30 June handover, what will be the formal relationship between the British troops and the new Iraqi authority, and between the British troops and the American powers in Iraq? What will be the legal status? Is that likely to be addressed or spelled out in any further United Nations Security Council resolution?
    The Prime Minister: That may well be the case. There are two separate issues. The first is the new security agreement that we want to draw up with the incoming Iraqi Government. We are talking about that and negotiating with people now. The second issue is what the hierarchy and chain of command will be. Again, we are discussing that. It will be important to make sure in whatever discussions we have that British troops are properly protected—in other words, in doing everything we can to sustain and help the new Iraqi Government, we will have to be careful that the position of British troops and the orders that can be given to them are clear. We will have to help the new Iraqi Administration with such matters.
    Our view at present is that in all likelihood a new United Nations Security Council resolution will allow us to deal with both the political and the security aspects and, I hope, on a reasonably consensual basis. I very much welcome what Japan and South Korea have just announced with regard to their troops. It is extremely important to realise that we have more than 30 coalition countries in Iraq. I believe there is a huge amount of

    291
    good will in the international community, irrespective of what people thought about the war, to try to help the people of Iraq on their way to the democratic state that it is obvious the majority of them want.
    Mr. Clive Soley: In view of the continuing and crass invasion of privacy of David and Victoria Beckham, and in view of the judges' concerns about making privacy law on a case by case basis, are there not two rather simple options available to us? One is to make the Press Complaints Commission code of conduct enforceable in law, which would give a toothless body some teeth. The alternative is to enable the editors and owners of newspapers to come before bodies of people here, in the Palace of Westminster, which represents the people, to take questions about their private and public lives.
    The Prime Minister: I think that what my hon. Friend suggests—perhaps I shall not continue. I say simply that I am sure that this debate will continue. I have no thoughts to offer on it myself, except that I hope that everyone understands that occasionally when people's privacy is invaded in this way, it causes great distress to people, and I do not always think that it is really in the public interest.
    Mr. Hugo SwireIn the light of yesterday's first report of the Independent Monitoring Commission, which side of this new security screen does the Prime Minister think that Sinn Fein should in future sit?
    The Prime Minister: We have supported the Independent Monitoring Commission report; after all, we established that body. We will act upon it. Anything in relation to this House is, of course, a matter for this House, but as far as the Government are concerned, we will implement the proposals and recommendations that the IMC makes.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the release of Mordechai Vanunu and commit our Government to increasing our efforts to promote a nuclear weapons-free zone throughout the middle east?
    The Prime Minister: This is obviously an issue, in respect of Mr. Vanunu, on which we have been in discussions and received information over a long period. In respect of a nuclear-free middle east, yes, of course, everyone wants to see that, but what is important is that we recognise that in order to achieve that, Israel is going to have to be sure that it is surrounded by countries that do not wish it ill. That is why it is important that we try to make progress in the middle east peace process.
    Mr. David Amess: Now that my constituent, Mahjid Nawaz, has been sentenced to five years in prison in Egypt, together with constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and of the hon. Members for East Ham (Mr. Timms) and for West Ham (Mr. Banks), all on the basis of confessions under duress, will the Prime Minister now make a plea for clemency to
    292
    President Mubarak? As a matter of urgency, will he please meet colleagues to discuss what will eventually be proved to be a very serious miscarriage of justice?
    The Prime Minister: I do not want to prejudge the outcome of any consideration of those cases. As I have made clear before, we will consider any further action when we have received a transcript of the judge's summation of the verdict. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary says, however, that he is very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to discuss the case. I hope that we can find a way forward, while respecting entirely, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would want to do, the real anxiety of the Egyptian Government and people about acts of terrorism.
    Martin Linton: Will my right hon. Friend tell Ariel Sharon that, yes, Israeli withdrawal from Gaza would be a step forward and that, yes, he has every right to expect Palestinian leaders to do everything in their power to stop suicide bombers, but that moderate Palestinian leaders will have no chance if Israel is allowed to continue to create what President Bush called new realities on the ground? It is this constant encroachment on Palestinian land that stokes up the hatred that perpetuates the conflict and is the recruiting sergeant for yet more suicide bombers.
    The Prime Minister: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes and the moderate way in which he expresses it. If there is disengagement from Gaza and the west bank, that will be the first removal of settlements for a very long time indeed, and that is important. However, it is also important that we do not create new realities on the ground, but it is for that reason that I believe that the best chance that we have of avoiding that is to make sure that, when the disengagement happens, the Palestinian Authority has the wherewithal in economic, political and security terms, as I said on Monday, to fill the vacuum and ensure that we can move properly back into the road map process, which should lead in the end to what we all want to see—two states: an Israel confident of its security, and a viable Palestinian state.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: While I fully support the principle of European Union enlargement, may I ask the Prime Minister to comment on the fact that Latvia, which has a population of 2.3 million as compared with Wales's 2.9 million, will have more than twice as many Members of the European Parliament representing it? Furthermore, Malta, whose population is a seventh as large as that of Wales, will have five MEPs, compared with Wales's four. How can he justify this?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that asking for extra MEPs is always the best solution. Latvia stands on its own, while Wales is obviously part of the United Kingdom. There are various geographical and numerical ways to divide up countries, but compared to other countries of a similar size—we consider the matter on a UK basis—the UK is properly and adequately represented in the European Parliament.
    Tony Lloyd: On rip-off Britain, is my right hon. Friend aware that the clearing banks are believed to hold some £15 billion in assets from people whose accounts they cannot trace? Given that those banks absorb those assets into their profits, is there not an overwhelming case for a windfall tax to take away the gains from that exercise in corporate greed? Perhaps some of that money should be deployed to prop up people in failed pension schemes such as Allied Steel and Wire, whose futures have been jeopardised by corporate incompetence within the private sector.
    The Prime Minister: I think that my right hon. Friend will acknowledge that there are two separate issues. First, on unclaimed assets, we support the efforts of the British Bankers Association, the Building Societies Association and National Savings and Investments either to try to reunite owners with their assets or to make sure that that money is used in a different way, although those bodies have fiduciary obligations to their various stakeholders. Secondly. we are actively considering the position of people who, having been forced to contribute to occupational pension schemes, find that all the money that they have invested yields absolutely nothing. We are examining what we can do in such special cases, and, in the context of the current debate on pension protection issues and legislation, I hope that we can come forward with the solution.
    Mr. A. J. Beith(LD): Is the Prime Minister aware of the imminent announcement by the Ministry of Defence that may move most operations conducted from RAF Bulmer in my constituency to Lincolnshire, in which case at least £15 million would have to be spent to replace the facilities, some of which have been recently completed, at RAF Bulmer? Given that the move would not result in a gain in RAF operational effectiveness, will he take an urgent personal look at the questionable figures for potential savings on which the proposed move is based? It flies in the face of regional policy to take £20 million out of Northumberland's economy
    The Prime Minister: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern, because RAF Bulmer is important to his constituency. The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, wrote to him indicating that it would be £131 million cheaper in terms of net present value to move the units based at Bulmer. I know that that point is disputed, but the House will understand that the Ministry of Defence must constantly balance hon. Members' desires to keep units in their own constituencies with the need to keep military capability and military spending under review and to make sure
    294
    that funds are used efficiently and effectively. I am happy to examine the matter, but I do so without a commitment or guarantee.
    Vera Baird: From September, children of 16 will, for the first time, be entitled to cash payments—education maintenance allowances—to stay on at school. Historically, we have disincentivised them, because, of all the options open to them, school is the only one that does not pay. The scheme is yet another excellent idea, and it would undoubtedly come under the hammer if the Opposition got their hands on it. Youth skill levels are currently poor, and we have the lowest staying on rates in Europe. Does the Prime Minister believe that the measure will make a real difference?
    The Prime Minister: The measure will make a real difference, and the pilots indicate that more young people will stay on at school as a result of the allowance. Labour Members certainly think that it is important to encourage young people to stay on and study after the age of 16, and the measure must be considered alongside the substantial extra investment in education. The scheme has been widened to include the whole of the 16 to 19-year-old bracket, and some 300,000 young people will benefit. We must also ensure that vocational skills increase by expanding the vocational skills route, which is part of making sure that we get the educated work force that this country needs.
    Mr. William Cash: Will the Prime Minister accept, in relation to his earlier remarks with regard to the nature of the treaty and constitution, that in fact, under the proposed constitution, all the existing treaties will be revoked and reapplied with the existing acquis communautaire under the primacy of a new constitution? Will he therefore accept that that, as the House of Lords has already said in a report, is a fundamental change?
    The Prime Minister: It is a constitutional treaty, and it is therefore a treaty in the same way that the other treaties are treaties. The hon. Gentleman is right, of course, in saying that many of the provisions in the earlier treaties are bound into this one. That is absolutely right—a significant part of it simply replicates the existing treaty basis. That is the position that I was putting to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). The hon. Gentleman of course has a very clear position on this—he wants to change fundamentally the existing nature of the relationship between Britain and the European Union. That is right, is it not? He certainly does not want any constitutional treaty at all.
    Mr. Cash indicated assent.
    The Prime Minister: The question is whether his right hon. and learned Friend is in the same position. What is interesting about today is that now we are actually debating the detail.

Fireworks (Amendment)
12.31 pm
Mr. George Howarth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Fireworks Act 2003.
Last autumn, problems were caused on Merseyside and elsewhere, including in my constituency, by a large number of incidents involving imported fireworks, many of which came from China. In particular, fireworks were used to attack fire crews, buses carrying people, and private property. There were even attacks on pillar boxes, and on more than one occasion the lid was blown off—one can imagine the force required, given that they are made of cast iron. Some attacks terrorised elderly people to the extent that they were afraid to go out of their houses during that period. Perhaps most worryingly of all, there is evidence that the materials from those imported fireworks were being used by people involved in organised crime to further the interests of the so-called businesses that they engage in. Clearly, there is a serious problem.
Before I go any further, I should say that I am indebted to the Merseyside police, the Merseyside fire and rescue service, Mr. John Woodhead, who is chairman of the British Fireworks Association, Knowsley borough council and many others for the advice and assistance that they have given me in preparing the Bill—although I should say that any faults are mine alone. I am also in consultation with the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), and his Department about the detail of the Bill, and I hope that at some point he will feel able to support me in my endeavours.
The purpose of the Bill, which borrows heavily from the thinking of Merseyside police and the Merseyside fire and rescue service, is to introduce proper and workable controls to regulate the importation of fireworks from abroad. The Bill seeks to amend the excellent Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) introduced last year by requiring importers of fireworks to notify the proper authorities—in most cases, Customs and Excise and the trading standards authorities—of the impending arrival
296
of consignments. It will require them to demonstrate that those consignments will be taken to and opened up only on licensed storage sites and to give prior notice to the appropriate authority about where the fireworks will be sold. The measure also provides that fireworks must be supplied only to those with adequate registered storage facilities. The provisions will enable the authorities to get a proper grip on this growing and worrying problem.
I hoped that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would be present because I intended to direct my next observations at him. I accept that the ten-minute rule procedure does not allow time for proper scrutiny of Bills. I have therefore undertaken to make arrangements for informal pre-legislative scrutiny during three sittings in the second week of May. Any hon. Member, member of the public or representative of any organisation who wishes to give evidence or make representations can do so to the committee that I shall set up. It is an informal procedure and I give a further undertaking that serious note will be taken of any representations. If appropriate, I am more than willing to make proper amendments to the Bill.
I believe that it is important to apply pre-legislative scrutiny not only to Government Bills—that increasingly happens—but to private Members' measures. It gives us an opportunity to ensure that a measure is properly and fully considered.
The Bill is necessary to protect the public from the irresponsible and dangerous misuse of highly explosive materials. The term "fireworks" understates them. The measure is sensible and timely, and I hope that it will acquire the necessary support for it to be enacted.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Howarth, Janet Anderson, Mr. Joe Benton, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Alan Meale, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Dr. John Pugh, Mr. Bill Tynan and Sir Nicholas Winterton.

FIREWORKS (AMENDMENT)
accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Fireworks Act 2003: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 June, and to be printed [Bill 91].
Opposition Day
[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Doctors' Hours
  Mr. Speaker: We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. I inform hon. Members that there is a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench Members' speeches and that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  12.38 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the forthcoming implementation of the European Working Time Directive (EWTD) in relation to junior hospital doctors; further notes the changes to General Practitioner out-of-hours services following the implementation of the new GP contract; is concerned by the British Medical Association's estimate that, from August 2004, the EWTD requirements could lose the NHS the equivalent of 3,700 junior doctors; is alarmed by the failure of Ministers to quantify adequately the likely demands of the EWTD in medical manpower and money costs; is further alarmed by the Government's complacency over the `SIMAP/Jaeger' judgements made by the European Court of Justice and the disproportionate impact they will have on smaller hospitals; notes that cost estimates for GP out-of-hours cover are rising yet the extent of cover is likely to decline; deplores the failure by Ministers to anticipate the impact that the new GP contract will have on community hospitals and notes with alarm that several are already under threat; and wishes to see the implementation of out-of-hours cover in a form that maintains a GP-led service in which the high standards of care and accessibility traditionally associated with primary care in England are maintained.
  We would have had an opportunity to discuss the subject before the recess, on the eighth allotted day, but the competition among Departments to register incompetence meant that, on that occasion, the Home Office outdid the Department of Health. However, we have moved on to the Department of Health. While the Government are obsessed with Europe, the Opposition are putting the national health service at the forefront of our concerns.
  Today's motion addresses two issues: the impact of the further implementation of the European working time directive, specifically in relation to junior doctors; and the implementation of the out-of-hours services component of the new GP contract Those two distinct issues are obviously related, and they disclose common concerns. Although there have been positive intentions throughout, the measures are having perverse practical effects, and even when such effects have been identified, Ministers have failed to act to clarify or, if necessary, amend the proposals. Where it has not been possible or appropriate to amend them, Ministers have failed to give the necessary support for the service to implement the changes, in the face of mounting evidence of the problems and associated costs. Not only are the Government showing a lack of support; they are showing a degree of complacency a b Alt the impact of the changes.
  So, the charge is one of a lack of competence. It is not one of a lack of positive intentions, but, in practice, the Government are not delivering on what they have said they will deliver on. That is the problem with this Government. In the light of what my right hon. and
  298
  learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was saying at Prime Minister's Question Time earlier, it is clear that the Government did not assess the risks involved and respond to them before they introduced and sought to implement these policies.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the Government have tried in regard to this issue, they have had one hand tied behind their back, because when Ministers have gone to the European Parliament to seek the support of socialist MEPs on this issue, they have received absolutely none—from their own MEPs in Brussels?
  Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend is right, and I pay tribute to the work that he has done in drawing attention to the impact of the working time directive.
  On 8 April, the House of Lords European Union Committee set out its conclusions on the Commission's review. The Committee reiterated its conclusion that the voluntary individual opt-out should be retained. That is important not only for business interests, which my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) represents so splendidly, but for the NHS. Ministers accept that it is important for the NHS that the voluntary opt-out be retained, but on 3 September last year, the Labour MEPs in the European Parliament turned out and voted to abolish the UK's voluntary opt-out. On 11 February this year, the Labour MEPs voted against that opt-out and against what appeared to be the stated policy of this Government.
  However, when my hon. Friend, the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry challenged his opposite number on this matter, she simply would not say that she was going to deal with those Labour MEPs, or that we could feel confident that they would support the UK interest in any future changes to be made to the working time directive. Those MEPs do not support the UK interest, and voters will need to know that on 10 June this year. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to make that point.
  Before I address the issue of the working time directive, I want to make it clear that we are not questioning the principle—far from it; we support it—of reducing junior doctors' hours to a level that is consistent with patient safety and the best interests of the doctors themselves. I shall not reiterate the history of this issue; it is well known to some hon. Members, especially to those Conservative Members who have experience of introducing the new deal on doctors' hours. I suspect that the introduction of reduced hours for junior doctors would be achieved in the best interest of the health service without the intervention of the European working time directive. However, we have to deal with the directive, and it is causing inflexibilities.
  The agreement was reached on junior doctors in May 2000. In October 2000, there was the so-called SIMAP judgment relating to primary care doctors in Spain, the effect of which was to define the nature of working time when one is resident and on call, and, in effect, to treat all the time that one is on the premises and available for work as working time, regardless of whether one is working or asleep. I know that it was not the Government's intention to treat the time that one is asleep as working time, but that is the practical effect of

  299
  that judgment. It was April 2002 before the Department invited pilot studies from around the country to see how the implementation of the working time directive could be achieved, and July 2003 before Governments collectively, or a number of member state Governments, approached the Commission to try to secure changes in consequence of the SIMAP judgment and its adverse effects on health care in particular.
  In October 2003, the so-called Jaeger case made it even more clear that all the time during which one was resident and on call would be treated as working time. In particular, it added the further inflexibility and adverse effect that compensatory rest for the time worked on call, including while non-resident and on call, would need to be compensated for immediately—in effect, before the following period of work. To give my hon. Friends a sense of what that means in practice, an NHS doctor—a senior registrar or consultant—who is non-resident and on call, and who is called up several times during the night, either to go to the hospital or to take consultations over the telephone about patients, must be compensated with additional rest before commencing their next period of work. Of course, the chances are that before they commence their clinic or operating list the following morning, they will have to have compensatory rest. Evidently, as Ministers understand, problems will ensue for hospitals from having arbitrary and, in effect, overnight changes in their operating lists and clinic rotas.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting and important points. I apologise for missing the first few moments of his speech, and I wonder whether he has already put his remarks in the context of the Government's unprecedented 33 per cent. improvement in investment in primary care. Will he move on to that and establish the proper context for this debate eventually?
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's contribution. I have not talked about primary care yet, and I will do so later.
  On investment in hospital services, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point, because all the issues that I am discussing have implications—not only the working time directive but "Agenda for Change" and the implementation of the consultants contract, which I shall mention briefly later. The combination of those changes not only imposes significant financial and managerial challenges for the NHS, but those financial challenges may obviate—this will worry Labour Back Benchers—the resources that the Government so trumpet in terms of growth in activity in the NHS. I have spoken to a number of chief executives of a range of hospital trusts, whom I have asked how much more it will cost them in this financial year, 2004–05, to deliver the same activity as in the preceding financial year. The answers vary, but the average is between 8 and 9 per cent. extra. In the context of what the hon. Gentleman asserts are unprecedented increases in the amount of money available—we agree absolutely that more money must be available for the NHS—that shows the importance of managing and introducing changes in a
  300
  way that delivers growth in activity and investment with reform. That is what the Prime Minister says—I heard him say it again at Prime Minister's questions—but he spends the money and does not deliver the reform.
  Mr. Dawson: Is it not also about delivering improvements in the quality of services and ensuring that primary care trusts manage their services much more effectively in the future?
  Mr. Lansley: I have no disagreement with the hon. Gentleman, but I think that as we proceed it will become clear that managing the system depends more on enabling hospitals to make changes effectively than on relying on the Government, who have done abjectly little to help hospitals implement the working time directive in a timely fashion.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that when he spoke of an 8 or 9 per cent. increase, he was referring only to the implications of the directive and not to the implications for community hospitals of the GPs' contract, which is likely to involve a further huge expenditure?
  Mr. Lansley: I was talking about the increase in costs for acute trusts. As Amy hon. Friend will know from his constituency experience—and from his constituent Dr. Holden, who speaks for the British Medical Association on these matters—if GPs were compensated fully for their work in community hospitals and for the quality of that work, there would be a substantial additional cost. The Government do not propose to meet that cost, but it raises serious issues for community hospitals.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: Does the hon. Gentleman think that consultants who are called out during the night and whose sleep is therefore very disturbed should have a break afterwards? Would he expect an airline pilot who has been asked to do an extra shift and fly to America to work his normal shift in the morning? Would he expect a pilot who has just flown for eight hours to fly for a further eight hours, or would he prefer that pilot to have a rest after flying across the Atlantic in the middle of the night before flying back the next morning?
  Mr. Lansley: I think we should work with consultants on a flexible, agreed and negotiated basis, as has been happening increasingly. Yes, compensatory rest is desirable, but it is certainly not desirable for it to be granted as a legal requirement before the next period of work, as that would result directly in adverse consequences for operating lists and for clinics. There may be a case for it in some circumstances, but it will depend on the extent of the interruption during the night.
  The whole structure in the NHS is being driven not by flexible local negotiations, as it should be, but on the basis of European Court of Justice judgments about the circumstances of an individual German doctor, which do not strike me as relevant to the way in which we manage the health service.
  Dr. Stoate: So the hon. Gentleman is saying that if a consultant surgeon has to operate in the middle of the night it is okay for him to proceed with his morning operating session, although it would certainly not be okay for an airline pilot who has flown for an extra session to fly a plane the following morning. I would not want to be the patient of a doctor who had been out in the middle of the night and was expected to carry on as normal without a proper rest period.
  Mr. Lansley: I respect the hon. Gentleman's professional expertise, but he has moved the goalposts. I was talking about non-resident on-call doctors. It is very unlikely that night surgery would not have been allowed for in rotas relating to clinics or operating lists for the following day, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows from his experience.
  We may all agree that the working time directive should not be imposed on us. The Government at least seem to agree with that, but what have they done about it? In a recent response to the House of Lords European Union Committee, the BMA commented that the implementation of the directive could involve the equivalent of 3,700 junior doctors from August 2004, and that the implementation of the 48-hour limit in 2009 could involve the equivalent of between 4,300 and 9,900. In its evidence to the Committee, the Royal College of Physicians said:
  "in its present shape and form, compliance will have serious longterm effects for continuity of care, patient safety, and the education and training of doctors."
  The BMA said:
  "The BMA considers that the requirement made in the Jaeger judgement that compensatory rest should be taken before returning to work has huge service and workforce planning implications and is likely to be unworkable and in most cases unnecessary."
  In January this year—nearly four years after the agreement on junior doctors, more than three years after the SIMAP judgment and months after the Jaeger judgment—the Minister of State, the tight hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), told the Royal College of Surgeons:
  "Complying with the Working Time Directive need be neither costly nor a burden."
  That is odd, given that the Minister told the European Standing Committee on 24 March:
  "We indicated at the end of last year a worst-case scenario of between 6,000 and 12,000 additional doctors"
  and
  "The cost in relation to doctors would be between £380 million and £780 million."—[Official Report, European Standing Committee C, 24 March 2004; c. 15–19.]
  We must see that alongside the Government's allocation of £46 million over three years for specific action to help implement the directive.
  I recall the Minister sending the NHS this message in January: "Do not worry, it is not a problem, you can do it, it will not cost much—just get on and do it." At the same time, Ministers knew that according to the worst-case scenario thousands more doctors and hundreds of millions of pounds would be required. In evidence to the Commission, they said that the implementation of the Jaeger judgment would cost tens of millions. They knew there was a problem, but they did not tell the NHS what they proposed to do about it.
  302
  In its evidence to the House of Lords European Union Committee, the BMA said of the pilot studies:
  "proposals for these pilots were not initiated until April 2002, about four years after the implementation of the EWTD and less than 2 years before the extension of the Directive to junior doctors. The final results … are unlikely to be in time to aid the implementation of the EWTD for junior doctors."
  In fact, I suspect that the final evaluations will come in around November.
  That is fine, is it not? If hospital consultant posts are to be changed in time for implementation in August 2004, design for that change should really have started in August 2003. If junior doctor rotas are to be changed and additional junior doctors recruited, the process should already have started: no less than a six-month lead time is required. We are already in the period during which hospitals should have taken action to achieve compliance with the directive.
  The medical profession has done more than Ministers and the Department in initiating the "hospital at night" programme, which the Minister will no doubt describe to us. The BMA, to its credit, has been pushing for years to secure action and awareness. On 25 February, Jim Johnson, its chairman, said:
  "it seems that the government has only just grasped the potential impact of these changes. Too little has been done too late."
  That, I am afraid, is the sorry story of the working time directive.
  Mr. Mark Francois: My hon. Friend referred to the debate on 24 March in the European Standing Committee. I was present and, as the Minister will recall, he and I crossed swords quite actively over this issue. He admitted that it did not apply solely to doctors, but would require additional staff in other categories. As can be seen in column 13 of the Hansard report, he acknowledged that extra nurses in a number of categories would be needed. However, the £780 million figure that he gave the Committee was only the NHS estimate of the additional cost for doctors. When other staff are included, the estimate will be even greater. The Minister promised to provide the figure on the day, but failed to do so. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if the Minister honoured that commitment today and gave us the total figure?
  Mr. Lansley: Perhaps the Minister will take up that question. The estimates have indeed related to doctors. My personal view is that the scope of "Agenda for Change" should enable the nursing profession to be compliant with the working time directive without substantial additional costs. My argument rests on the implications for doctors' hours and the costs to the NHS.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about "Agenda for Change", which he prayed in aid in relation to supporting the NHS in meeting our obligations under the working time directive—but is not his party opposed to "Agenda for Change"? Did not the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) make it clear when he was appointed as shadow spokesman that he was against national pay bargaining for the NHS?
  Mr. Lansley: No, he did not say that. He is in favour of NHS trusts and foundation trusts having the freedom to respond locally—through pay, if necessary, as well as other conditions of service—to their particular needs. Is it the Minister's view that hospitals should not have that freedom? If so, let him say so. I said to him in the Standing Committee that considered the Health and Social Care Bill last year that we support "Agenda for Change" and the ability of nurses, in particular, to be supported in extending their role and to have their work reflected in their rewards, and it is entirely appropriate for that to be negotiated. Review bodies provide a national pay framework, and it is in the interest of NHS trusts that they should do so, but that is a framework, not a straitjacket. Is the Minister saying that the Government want to put the NHS in a national pay straitjacket?
  Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman knows, because he does his homework, that "Agenda for Change" incorporates an element of flexibility in meeting local pay terms. That has always been the case. The Government have always supported "Agenda for Change". The issue is whether the Opposition do. The hon. Member for West Suffolk made it clear in his first interview as shadow public services spokesman that the Conservative Opposition are against "Agenda for Change" precisely because it is a national pay agreement and he would prefer to revert to local trust contracts. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that this is one further aspect of his health policy reforms that he has abandoned, we would welcome that news.
  Mr. Lansley: I am not having any of that. We have made it clear throughout that we favour hospitals having the freedom to manage themselves and respond to their particular needs. If the Minister is against that, let us put that on the record. I am not having the suggestion that by allowing that freedom we necessarily abandon either pay review bodies or "Agenda for Change". There is nothing that my hon. Friend or I have said that would suggest that an incoming Conservative Government—before too long, we hope—will abandon or reverse "Agenda for Change", but it must be regarded as a framework rather than a straitjacket.
  There are practical implications. Managers at a district general hospital told my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison)—he may refer to this in more detail later—that, being in deficit, they cannot afford to pay staff to be treated as working while they are sleeping, so they have to move to full shift working, and to some extent from doctors to nurse practitioners. That may be entirely acceptable, but if staff on full shifts are not then fully employed, the activity needs to be increased to ensure that they are.
  The hospital managers said:
  "this may require the closure of some units and the transfer of work to units with spare capacity. This will affect many of the medical low volume specialties where there is a requirement to have residential specialist staff".
  Hospital at night can achieve many things, but there cannot necessarily be cross-cover, for example between non-paediatric and paediatric staff. Cross-cover is not possible on obstetrics, if people are not obstetric-trained and experienced, or on anaesthetics. Some rotas simply have to be staffed with those specialists. If the hospital
  304
  cannot scale up from the five doctors that it has now to the arguably nine or 10 that will be required for a full shift a few years hence, those units will close.
  Mr. Andrew Turnerrose—
  Mr. Lansley: I see that someone who may have direct experience of this in his constituency would like to intervene.
  Mr. Turner: There are some hospitals that cannot attract greater volume because the distances or the means of travel are too difficult, but for the very same reason cannot be closed. How are they supposed to survive within the same budget and yet meet "Agenda for Change"?
  Mr. Lansley: That is an important point. The directive will bear harshly on some specialties and in some remote areas. The Isle of Wight has special problems that will have to be managed.
  Our prospective parliamentary candidate in Southport, Mark Bigley, reports:
  "The Hospital Trust says they cannot run A&E services at Southport due to the impact of the EWTD on junior doctors' hours."
  There may be a complementarity between what local people want there and what my hon. Friend wants on the Isle of Wight. They know that centres of excellence and major specialties may have to be concentrated— perhaps in Southampton, in my hon. Friend's case—but they want access to stabilisation and treatment more locally and accessibly, so that large numbers of people do not have to be referred a great distance away for routine treatment.
  My colleague in Enfield, North referred me to the health hospitals review document of Barnet and Chase Farm hospitals, which says:
  "Neither the doctors nor the funding is available for the hospitals simply to 'grow' their teams out of this problem."
  That may bear on maternity, for example, or obstetrics.
  I do not know the precise circumstances, because it is in Scotland, but even today The Herald reports:
  "New rules cutting the number of hours worked by junior doctors and consultants, which make staffing multiple maternity hospitals more difficult are threatening units across Scotland."
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: Before the hon. Gentleman goes through the complete list of prospective Conservative parliamentary candidates—at least some of them know where the constituency is, which is not the case in Hall Green, as I noticed from a recent visit—can he tell us how he will square these demands for additional funding with the fact that his party voted against the 1 per cent. national insurance increase? How can he reconcile that? It is a fundamental question.
  Mr. Lansley: With respect, it is not fundamental to the implementation of the working time directive. We have committed ourselves to the resources for the NHS, to support not only reform but the additional transitional costs, which the Government are clearly not

  305
  doing, when one compares the costs that they anticipate for the working time directive with the £46 million that the Minister has promised.
  When we had a modest one-and-a-half hour debate on GP contracts—one of the major changes in the NHS—on the back of the Health and Social Care Bill last July, the Minister made a statement in response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), who told me that he wished to be here today but had to attend an important meeting with a constituent and so sends his apologies. The Minister said to my hon. Friend:
  "I know from my work as a constituency MP that our constituents place a high premium on around-the-clock access to a GP, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is a defining characteristic of our primary care services "—[Official Report, 8 July 2003: Vol. 408, c. 1050.]
  That is the promise from this Government, but what is the reality? A shift to emergency nurse practitioners and paramedics. Perhaps that is acceptable, because it is appropriate care. A shift to NHS Direct's handling the calls. Perhaps that is fine too, although it turns out that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) said in a reply to me that she had no estimate of how many primary care trusts were going to ask NHS Direct to handle their calls for out-of-hours services, so quite how NHS Direct will be able to staff up to provide that service, I do not know. However, as a consequence of a shift to NHS Direct's handling the calls, do we shift from risk management by GPs to risk management by the NHS Direct clinical assessment software? That is not the same GP service that people thought that they had before.
  Everywhere that I have gone around the country, people have told me that they expect that their GP out-of-hours service will be run with fewer GPs. In one place that I visited recently, I was told that roughly speaking, the point would come where a GP sat in a centre and never really went out on call because there would not be enough GPs available in the service to enable them to travel around the country; they would have to sit in one place. Will this be a GP-led service? That is the issue.
  What do GPs themselves say? In January, the health journal Pulse surveyed 1,168—
  Mr. Hutton: That is where the Opposition get this from.
  Mr. Lansley: I am not aware of any evidence that the Government have asked GPs what their concerns are, or responded to them. We are at least doing that.
  Mr. Hutton: They voted for this.
  Mr. Lansley: Yes, they voted for it. We have no dispute with the GP contract in principle: it is a good framework. Quality and outcomes in replacement of item of service is a good framework, but we are talking today about the implications for and the management of the out-of-hours service, and it would be helpful if the Minister would focus on that, rather than trying to divert attention from the issue, is all that the Government have done throughout the debate.
  What did Pulse say? Of 1,168 GPs, 83 per cent. intended to opt out, and the actual figure will probably be higher. Although 51 per cent. said that they would
  306
  work out-of-hours shifts, only 12 per cent. anticipated working significantly more than the amount necessary to recover the money that they would lose by opting out. That implies a substantial reduction in GP availability for out-of-hours services. What did the Gps—not the Conservative Opposition—think would be the consequence? Some 92 per cent. said that more patients would be seen in accident and emergency. Accident and emergency departments in many places are already seeing up to double-digit percentage increases in admittances. Some 90 per cent. of GPs expected their Monday morning work load to climb. Some 72 per cent. said that patients would get more inappropriate advice and poorer quality care, and 62 per cent. thought that patients would be less safe. That is being said not by me, but by GPs themselves.
  Sandra Gidley: The hon. Gentleman is raising an important subject, but is he not being a little simplistic? At the moment, many GPs choose to contract out of the system, and out-of-hours care is frequently provided by providers such as Primecare. That has already caused huge problems in various parts of the country. Is it not a little simplistic just to blame the changes on the GP contract, when many GPs are not taking those responsibilities on themselves at the moment?
  Mr. Lansley: I plead guilty to the charge of simplicity, and it is kind of the hon. Lady to levy it at me. I am normally accused of talking too much about the detail—the Minister would accuse me of that. However, I do not share the hon. Lady's sentiment. GP co-ops and GP-led services are delivering a good service in many places across the country—I think in the balance of them. In my view, it would be better for us and for the Government if they made it clear that, although the individual obligation on GPs to provide out-of-hours cover to their own list was removed, there was none the less the expectation, in the context of the GP contract as a whole, that co-operative systems led by GPs would be developed. Letting GPs design the local out-of-hours services—
  Dr. Stoaterose—
  Mr. Lansley: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman twice, so I shall now try to conclude because there are other hon. Members who are clearly itching to contribute to our discussions.
  We have a contract, much of which is good, but the Government have not focused on the problems. We are moving away from precisely what the Government promised. The Minister promised 24-hour access to a GP service, but what we will have will not necessarily be a GP service, and will perhaps not even be GP led or GP managed in effect. The perverse results go on, including the cancellation of Saturday surgeries. I do not know what proportion of surgeries that involves. but one PCT told me that even before the start of the contract, 60 per cent. of Saturday morning services had gone. I suspect that the figure across the country is at least that.

  307
  The Government have not commissioned GPs in community hospitals. My hon. Friends will know that many GPs look after beds in community hospitals and provide services to minor injuries units there. They are integral to the continuation of those local, accessible services. The Government publish documents telling us how important community hospitals are, which we know from personal experience. They provide step-up care for patients and step-down care from hospitals, and deal with the problems of delayed transfer of care from hospitals. However, the Government have not put in place a framework to enable PCTs to carry out that commissioning. I spoke to one chief executive of a PCT, who had better be nameless—for the sake of clarity, this was not the PCT in my constituency—who said that community hospitals were something that the Government had put in a box marked "too difficult".
  That is the story of the working time directive and the GP out-of-hours service. The Government have failed to act on the working time directive, and if they do not act now, they might fail to deal with the implementation problems of the consultants' contract. Will the Minister ensure that things that could be done, such as commencing negotiations immediately on the staff grade and associate specialists, will be done?
  The Government failed to prepare for the out-of-hours changes. The Audit Commission has demonstrated how many complex changes are occurring at once and how important good financial management is, but that also requires leadership from the Department and Ministers. The costs escalate. It seems that the GP out-of-hours service will cost nearly double what it has cost until now, but most PCTs will receive only 60 or 70 per cent. of the additional cost, and many cannot afford the rest. They are therefore having to make cost-driven changes to the GP out-of-hours service.
  Complacency is written through the Government amendment like sugar writing through a stick of rock. No reference is made to the new deal, or to the fact that we are reducing junior doctors' hours. There is no reference to the impossibility of compliance by August 2004 or the need for urgent interim action, as recommended by the House of Lords. We need urgent action not only by the European Commission, but by the Government to decide what will happen in August 2004 if the Commission has not delivered a satisfactory solution to the SIMAP and Jaeger problems.
  There is no reference in the Government amendment to the implications for smaller hospitals or for sub-specialties. It contains no reference to GPs' concerns about out-of-hours services, no reference to the loss of Saturday morning surgeries, no reference to the threat to community hospitals and no reference to the issues that the Government have found too difficult. They do not want to deal with the issues that are too difficult; they have handed them out to the service without the resources or support to make things happen. If the Government find this matter all too difficult, we have an answer: step aside and let us deal with it.
  1.18 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the overall aims of the European Working Time Directive (EWTD) to ensure humane working hours for doctors in training; further welcomes the Government's lobbying of the European Commission and other EU Member States which has resulted in the Commission's giving assurances that they will bring forward legislative proposals on the EWTD before the summer; notes the dramatic reduction in the hours of doctors in training which means that 95 per cent. of them now work for 56 hours or fewer; congratulates the Government on the increases in workforce numbers and medical school places, which mean there are now almost 7,000 more consultants and 55,000 more nurses than there were in 1907, and that 6,030 students entered medical school in England in autumn 2003; welcomes the work being done in the National Health Service in implementing new ways of working that contribute to modernising and improving services and meeting the obligations of the Directive; and joins the Chairman of the BMA's General Practitioners Committee in welcoming the new GP contract as being 'better for patients and better for everyone working in general practice' and notes that it will allow primary care trusts to offer patients a safe, high quality service, with care delivered by the most appropriate professional, through better use of more joined-up services."
  The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has brought to the House's attention his hon. Friends' concerns about the new contract for GPs, the provision of out-of-hours services and the implementation of the European working time directive. He is perfectly entitled to do that, and I give him credit for the way in which he presented his case. However, he has not set out the one thing that we are entitled to expect from him: his alternative. For example, are the Conservatives in favour of the new contractual arrangements covering the provision of out-of-hours services, yes or no? Those have been supported by 80 per cent. of GPs. Would they have agreed to the changes themselves? Sadly, no one is any the wiser. Do they believe that junior doctors should be covered by the provisions of the European working time directive? Will they commit themselves to match the expansion in the number of doctors, nurses and allied health professionals that the NHS is seeking to recruit over the next four years? It seems not.
  On all those questions, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire had nothing to contribute, except for his usual diet of doom and gloom, mixed with a new element and exciting addition to the menu— sanctimonious hot air. The House should have heard from him this afternoon answers to all the basic questions I mentioned, but predictably, all we had was his familiar recycled rhetoric—and pretty indigestible stuff it was, too.
  First, let me deal with his concerns about the European working time directive, which is where he started his detailed remarks. The Government strongly support the need for employees to enjoy fair standards of employment protection, whether in the NHS or anywhere else. In respect of the NHS, an obvious importance should be attached to ensuring that frontline staff work reasonable hours and have proper rest periods. The working time directive is a crucial part of that framework. It establishes minimum entitlements for employees as well as providing for the right of individuals to choose to work longer hours if they want

  309
  to. I therefore believe that it helps to support the important objective of British competitiveness, as well as the employment rights of British workers.
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Every Member in the House would agree that doctors working in the NHS must be employed on terms that ensure high-quality care to patients, and that their hours of work are part of that equation. That is uncontroversial. The question for the Minister is whether his task, as the representative of the doctors' employer, has been made easier or more difficult by the introduction of the European working time directive as interpreted through the two judgments. As an employer seeking to deliver agreed objectives, is his task easier or more difficult?
  Mr. Hutton: It has been made immeasurably more difficult. I have acknowledged that on previous occasions, as the right hon. Gentleman, who reads all my press releases on the Department's website, would confirm. There is nothing new about that. I shall develop my concerns about the SIMAP/Jaeger judgments in a few moments, but it is obvious for anyone who observes these issues that the European Court's interpretations of the definition of working time—and, crucially, in the Jaeger case, of when compensatory rest should be taken —have made matters immeasurably worse. In fact, on the Jaeger case, the UK Government made representations to the European Court, arguing for precisely the opposite interpretation of the directive. Sadly, we lost that argument in the Court, but I do not believe that we have lost it in the wider court of opinion among the Council of Ministers and the Commission—a point to which I shall return.
  It is clear not only from today's debate but from all previous debates on these matters that there is a disagreement between Government and Opposition about the terms of the directive and whether we should provide for these rights in law at all. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire has made it clear that he believes that we should not. For the sake of making progress on the substantive issues. I shall not develop arguments about that particular issue today, although it is worth pointing out that all the negotiations surrounding the wording of the directive took place under the leadership—if that is the right word—of the previous Conservative Administration.
  On at least one point, however, there is likely to be general agreement across the House and outside it—that implementing the European working time directive in the light of recent decisions of the European Court of Justice presents a very considerable challenge to the NHS and particularly to specialties such as paediatrics and obstetrics. The NHS is taking action at a number of different levels to respond to that challenge. In the course of my remarks, I want to set out how we are attempting to achieve that in more detail, but it might be helpful if I first set out the general principles that we have been following.
  First, our priority must be to implement the directive in a way that maintains both the quality and accessibility of NHS services. Our response will not be based on the assumption that we will have to restrict access to vital health care services. which would be contrary to the wider public interest, and disproportionate. That is why we have ruled out that approach.
  310
  We are committed instead to maintaining and improving local access to services and have published guidance aimed at ensuring that that principle is fully reflected in local NHS decision making. The focus of the guidance is on redesigning services—not relocating them—around the needs of local populations. The NHS, in implementing the directive, needs fully to develop the contributions of different hospitals and primary, intermediate and social care providers as part of a sensible and integrated approach.
  Secondly, in implementing the directive, we must not substitute tired consultants for tired junior doctors because that would benefit neither doctors nor patients. Instead, we need to look carefully, as we have, at the contribution that the whole NHS work force can make in helping to reduce the hours that junior doctors currently work. The EWTD is not therefore just about the hours that doctors work, but goes much wider and deeper.
  Thirdly, as we make progress in implementing the directive—and we are—we need to maintain and, where possible, improve the quality of junior doctor training, helping to ensure that the doctors of the future are as well equipped as possible to meet the challenges of a lifetime of professional practice. So in meeting the requirements of the directive—clearly the obligation of the NHS—we must be careful not to compromise on the standards of medical education and training. That, too, would not be in the long-term interests of doctors or patients.
  In all those areas, work is already well advanced and I will spell out the progress that has been made. I reject the Opposition's suggestion that little or nothing has been done. They would say that, but the opposite is true. The Department has worked closely with the Academy of the Medical Royal Colleges, individual royal colleges, the BMA—whom I met again this morning to discuss the issue—the NHS Confederation and other organisations to put in place the necessary reforms to help the NHS to implement the directive sensibly. We will continue to do so, working closely with the professions to effect sensible and effective solutions to the very real challenges posed by the directive. Those measures have been backed up by additional investment to help accelerate the necessary changes.
  It is true that we do not accept the interpretation that the European Court has recently placed on the meaning of the directive, either in relation to the definition of working time or when periods of compensatory rest should be taken. As I said earlier when the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) asked me to confirm it—I do so freely again—the decisions of the Court in both cases have made implementing the directive considerably more onerous and difficult for the NHS. That is true not just of the NHS in Britain, but for every health care provider across the EU. The SIMAP decision will have a particularly serious impact on the NHS, as it directly affects the pattern of resident on-call rotas worked by junior doctors. It does so, as the hon.

  311
  Member for South Cambridgeshire rightly said, by requiring periods of time spent asleep but on call to count as working time.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The Minister acknowledges that the judgment has made it worse for all health services in the EU, so why cannot and has not the Council of Ministers changed it?
  Mr. Hutton: We are working precisely to achieve that. If the hon. Gentleman can hold on to his hat for a moment, I will set out precisely the level of progress made at the European Commission and Council of Ministers level.
  As I was saying, the judgment has a particularly serious impact on resident on-call time. Given the existing pattern of resident on-call working in the NHS, it will be difficult to comply with that interpretation unless we employ thousands of additional doctors and radically change working practices and on-call rota arrangements. On the Jaeger case, I agree completely with the BMA that, in relation to when compensatory rest should be taken, the ruling is unworkable and unnecessary. Again, we argued in the European Court for a different outcome.
  As I have said, these cases have raised concerns right across the European Union. It is not just Britain and the NHS that will face difficulties in implementing the decisions. With the exception of Greece and Lithuania, all member states and all the accession countries have expressed their support for a review of those aspects of the directive. Together with the Health Ministers of Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, I raised our concerns over the impact of the rulings with the Commission last July.
  In January, the Commission began a consultation on amending the directive to deal with, among other things, the impact of the SIMAP/Jaeger rulings. On 4 March, European Employment Ministers, at their meeting in Brussels, recognised the need for changes to the directive on both of those matters. The Irish presidency concluded that
  "the key message from our discussions today is that an urgent European Union solution is needed to address the impact of the recent European Court of Justice rulings."
  On 17 March, Commissioner Dimas wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, referring expressly to the SIMAP/Jaeger judgments. He commented:
  "I am aware of the practical difficulties experienced by the health sector in particular. As the commission indicated at the March Employment Council, I intend to bring forward legislative proposals on the working time directive before the summer."
  We very much welcome that acceptance on the part of the Commission that the directive needs to be amended.
  We have responded to the Commission giving details of the changes that we are seeking to the directive, and many other member states have done the same. Copies of these documents are available in the Library, and I assume that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) has familiarised himself with them. We will clearly need the support of other member states who have expressed their concerns over the two recent rulings. The proposals for change need to be taken
  312
  forward as quickly as possible, because 1 August is looming. We will keep the House fully informed of developments in that area.
  In the meantime, good progress has been made in reducing junior doctors' hours. Our strategy has been twofold. We have sought first to develop an employment contract for doctors in training that reflects the requirements of the Directive and, secondly, to increase the size of the workforce substantially. We have achieved both.
  The new contract for doctors in training was successfully negotiated with the medical profession and put into effect in December 2000. The arrangements limit the maximum weekly working hours of doctors in training to 56, which is less than the 58 hours specified in the directive—
  Mr. Lansley: The new deal.
  Mr. Hutton: Yes, the new deal. The arrangements also specify necessary daily and weekly rest requirements. To support the introduction of the contract, we invested in excess of £150 million over the first three years to implement the contract.
  Mr. Bellingham: What would the Minister's attitude be if junior doctors wished to opt out of the working time directive, perhaps because of shortages or particular problems in a hospital?
  Mr. Hutton: Under the terms of the directive, junior doctors are able to express such a preference. It is not the job of Ministers to say to individual doctors who wish to exercise that right whether they should or should not do so. That would be contrary to the spirit, letter and intent of the directive, because it is an individual choice for members of staff in the NHS and elsewhere. I fully support the retention of an opt-out in the directive, for the reasons that I gave earlier. It preserves flexibility, which all employment protection measures need if they are to work sensibly and not place unnecessary or unforeseen burdens on business or public services. It also allows us to keep our competitive edge, which is crucial in the context of the European Union. The Government's position on the opt-out has been made clear and I hope that I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's concern.
  As a result of the new contract for junior doctors, there has been a substantial fall in the number of hours that junior doctors are working. It is also pertinent to remember that the hours that junior doctors work are self-certified, so it is not my figures—which is just as well—that show that but those of junior doctors themselves.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: People who work longer hours have been required to be more open and honest, but is it possible that some junior doctors have not returned full details of the hours that they have worked out of a concern to keep the medical profession going and provide proper care for patients?
  Mr. Hutton: That is always a possibility and I would not rule that out in every individual case, but it is worth bearing it in mind that the statistics that we collect on

  313
  the hours that junior doctors work are certified by them and they are paid a premium for working more than the minimum hours specified in the new deal. I strongly suspect that the figures are as accurate as we could hope them to be.
  In March 2001, immediately after implementation of the contract began, only 55 per cent. of doctors in training were compliant with the new deal requirements. However, latest figures show that 83.6 per cent. of all junior doctor posts are now fully compliant with the new contract, with 95 per cent. of all doctors in training compliant with the weekly limit on working hours. Substantial progress has been made on the part of the directive concerning maximum working hours. Regrettably, I did not hear any acknowledgement of that in the remarks of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire.
  We have also rapidly expanded the number of doctors working in the NHS. There are more than 7,000 more doctors in training working in the NHS today than was the case in 1997, when the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) was in charge. The number of associate and staff grade doctors has also increased by more than 3,300.
  The expansion in the NHS work force is not confined to junior doctors. The number of consultant posts has increased by more than 7,000 since 1997, which represents an increase of 34 per cent., and we are making progress on increasing the number of doctors by a further 15,000 by 2008, over the 2001 baseline figure. That means that not only are we moving rapidly towards a consultant-delivered service, but we have substantially more specialist registrars to provide high-quality services and reduce further the work load of existing doctors in training. We have also met the target for an additional 1,000 specialist registrar posts 18 months ahead of schedule, and expect more to be established over the coming months.
  To maintain those increases we are also training a record number of medical students. Medical school intake in England has increased by 2,281 since 1997, representing a 60 per cent. increase. More than 6,000 students entered medical school in England in autumn 2003—the highest number ever recorded. The Government achieved their target of increasing the number of medical students by more than 2,000 places two years earlier than anticipated.
  We have similarly increased the number of non-medical staff working in the NHS. Between September 1997 and 2003, the number of qualified allied health professionals rose by nearly 11,000, exceeding NHS plan targets. By the end of September 2003, more than 16,300 former nurses, midwives and health visitors had returned to work in the NHS since February 1999. In total, there are an additional 67,500 more nurses working in the NHS today than in 1997. All those increases will help the NHS in meeting its obligations under the working time directive.
  I am sorry to have to say that, in relation to consultants and nurses, my amendment understates the actual numbers of additional staff that have been recruited. [Interruption.] I shall not withdraw the amendment, but at least on this occasion no one can accuse us of spin.
  Rob Marris: My right hon. Friend has put his finger on the crux of the
  314
  problem. The negotiations on the working time directive were concluded in early 1993 by the then Conservative Government, who messed things up. They did not foresee the problems that would be caused by the legal judgments or that would result for the training of medical staff. This Government are now sorting out those problems, given the length of time that it takes to train doctors and consultants.
  Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I am glad that he feels that I have got to the crux of the matter, although I believe that I am about to come to that—
  Mr. McLoughlin: About time.
  Mr. Hutton: The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire took 40 minutes to reach no particular point, so if hon. Members will be patient, I may be able to score at least one home run. That is all that I hope to do.
  Recruiting more doctors, although essential, will not, by itself, be enough. The rapid and extensive growth in doctor numbers represents a massive achievement for the NHS, which comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Rochford—
  Mr. Francois: Rayleigh.
  Mr. Hutton: I apologise. That is where my sister lives. I do not think that she voted for the hon. Gentleman, although I had better check that. I doubt whether we could recruit the many thousands of additional doctors needed to meet the effect of the SIMAP and Jaeger rulings if our only response to the directive was to replicate existing patterns of working by junior doctors. That relates to the discussion about costings that we had in the European Standing Committee.
  The costings that we provided for the European Standing Committee were based on the assumption that the response was based solely on recruiting additional junior doctors and staff-grade doctors—those who are not consultants, but are not in recognised training posts. Although one cannot be 100 per cent. accurate, the cost of employing doctors is generally higher than the costs of recruiting additional nursing staff, and that was the point made by the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), when he summarised the debate in the European Standing Committee.
  I am sorry if the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) felt that we had not provided him with the costings, but my hon. Friend was making the point that, if we need fewer doctors but more nurses, the overall cost of compliance is likely to be less than those figures, not more. By the look on the hon. Gentleman's face, I am still struggling to get that point across to him.
  Mr. Lansley: If the Minister is making that argument, why does paragraph 3.1 of the UK response to the Commission on SIMAP and Jaeger say:
  "The cost of recruiting several thousands of extra … doctors … would run to hundreds of millions of pounds per annum"?

  315
  It continues:
  "The alternatives to employing additional doctors, as set out above, are likely to cost approximately the same as recruiting more doctors."
  That is completely contrary to the point that the Minister is making.
  Mr. Hutton: No, with great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that to be the case. The point that I am trying to make today—
  Mr. Lansley: That is what it says.
  Mr. Hutton: No, it does not say that.
  Mr. Lansley: It does.
  Mr. Hutton: If the hon. Gentleman wants to reconfirm the point, I will certainly give the Floor to him again.
  Mr. Lansley: I was quoting one of the papers supplied to European Standing Committee—the UK response of 27 February 2004 to the Commission questionnaire. The question from the Commission was:
  "Please specify, as precisely as possible, the additional costs directly attributable to the SiMAP and Jaeger case law."
  The Government said:
  "The cost of recruiting the several thousand extra middle grade doctors required for the UK would run to hundreds of millions of pounds per annum. This includes on-costs, overheads and training costs. The alternatives to employing additional doctors, as set out above, are likely to cost approximately the same as recruiting more doctors."
  That is not the point that the Minister is making.
  Mr. Hutton: It is. The costs are approximately the same; we are not saying that they would be in addition to the all-doctors option. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman obviously cannot digest the point that I am making—by the sound of it, nor can other Conservative Members.
  The options are the all-doctors solution, which we cost, and other options that involve the substitution of additional health care staff. Of course there will be costs, but, clearly, as we are not pursuing the all-doctors solution, they will not be those of the all-doctors solution. I do not want to labour my point any further, but, in general, the costs of employing nurses tend to be less than those of employing doctors—so, for obvious reasons, I do not want to go on any further about that issue.
  Mr. Francois: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hutton: No, I will not; I have dealt with that point. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make a speech and we all look forward with bated breath to his comments.
  Mr. Francois: Will the Minister give way, because he owes me a letter that I was promised?
  Mr. Hutton: No, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
  It does not. make sense to pursue the option of recruiting additional doctors as the only response—
  Mr. Francois: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a serious point. When we debated this matter in the European Standing Committee, the Minister had to leave the sitting before the end. There were reasons for that and we did not quibble, but the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), who remained to the end, made an offer, as reported at column 34 of Hansard, that the Minister would write to me specifically on that matter to lay out the Government's case. I have that copy of Hansard here. I have not received that letter. That is the point on which I am seeking to persuade the Minister to give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but ministerial answers to hon. Members' questions are not matters for the Chair.
  Mr. Hutton: I would certainly want to apologise if there has been any discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman in not receiving a reply from me. I will arrange for him to receive a proper response. I apologise to him if he has not yet had one.
  We need to expand the NHS work force, but our response to the directive must be focused on a wider array of fronts if we are to succeed in meeting the challenge that it presents. The crux of my difference with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) will agree—is that we need to re-examine the traditional ways of working, which have often placed too much of a burden on doctors in training, leading to long hours and sometimes unacceptable working patterns.
  New models of care and new ways of working are already being developed in many hospitals that utilise the potential of all staff, such as greater use of multidisciplinary team working. That will involve more staff working differently—staff working more flexibly to enhance patient care and improve NHS productivity. Those are precisely the sort of changes that the NHS should be making irrespective of the requirements of the working time directive, because they will allow hospitals to lessen the individual burden on some staff, while making the delivery of services more efficient.
  That work is being taken forward by 32 NHS trusts, which have been developing new roles in delivering NHS services since 2002, to meet the requirements of the directive. In fact, one of the trusts is in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, at Papworth hospital, which has been making significant progress. I am sure that that trust has kept him briefed. Some trusts, including that at Papworth, have tested new roles for non-medical staff, such as extending traditional roles for nurses and therapists and creating some entirely new roles. Some NHS trusts are developing new working patterns for doctors in training and others have changed the way that consultants work. Some have combined those approaches with changing

  317
  the way that a service is delivered, taking the opportunity to streamline the service and improve the standard of care.
  For smaller district general hospitals—about which many right hon. and hon. Members will be concerned—the work of those 32 NHS trusts has shown that compliance with the directive can be achieved by a combination of such changes to working patterns, including full shift working for senior house officers and expanding roles for additional stall.
  Four NHS trusts—Homerton, which is now a foundation trust, Liverpool, Wirral and Morecambe Bay—are leading the work on the hospital-at-night project, which is considering different ways to provide acute care during unsocial hours. I think that the hon. Gentleman said that the British Medical Association devised the hospital-at-night project.
  Mr. Lansley: I said that the medical profession initiated it.
  Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, but that is not strictly the case, as I am sure, with hindsight, he will be aware. The hospital-at-night concept was jointly devised by the postgraduate deans, the Department of Health and the BMA. It has been co-ordinated by the Department of Health, and we are very happy to have the BMA's support.
  The hospital-at-night model proposes one or more multidisciplinary teams working in the hospital over night that, between them, have the full range of skills and competencies to meet patients immediate needs. That is why the agreement on cross-cover that we have reached, to which I referred earlier, with the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges is so important. It will help to establish the right focus on patient safety and good clinical governance needed to underpin any such change.
  The work of the 32 NHS trusts involved in helping us to implement the working time directive shows—in a sense, this is the hub of the difficulty—that there is certainly no one-size-fits-all solution The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire assumed, for most of his remarks, that there was a solution and that the only reason why the NHS was having difficulties was that the Government had not told them the solution to the working time directive problem.
  The changes that are taking place in those 32 NHS trusts are replicable, but because every trust will have different circumstances, a different population to serve and a different work force to deploy, it will have to reach a view itself, based on its own experiences, about the kind of measure that it needs to adopt. Those 32 trusts have shown what can be done, and it is now clearly the job of the trusts that are not yet fully compliant to take the appropriate action to secure the maximum possible compliance. That is why I was particularly pleased that the House of Lords European Union Committee chose to highlight the positive progress—those were its words—of all the pilot sites in its recent report into the Commission's review of the working time directive, published on 8 April, two weeks ago. I have to tell the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire that the comments of the European Union Committee stand in stark contrast to the assessment that he provided to the House about what is going on in the NHS today.
  318
  The different solutions that are being developed in those pilot sites—both on what works and, clearly, what does not work—are being systematically shared with the rest of the NHS. We are providing targeted support to strategic health authorities to help them to identify the solutions that will help the trusts in their own areas and to get those solutions into every organisation that needs them.
  We have been reviewing the way that we train junior doctors to find out whether we can make the arrangements more efficient and effective. In parallel with implementing the working time directive for doctors in training, we are gearing up for a major reform of training itself. The modernising medical careers initiative will introduce better managed and better structured training programmes for junior doctors.
  It is clear that we in this country take much longer to train our doctors than is taken elsewhere, not because they get more training here, but because their training is not always well supported and, frankly, not always very well organised. That is why the modernising medical careers strategy is being introduced It will see us take a specialty-by-specialty approach to streamlining training, but it is clearly not a quick fix that will have an impact by 1 August. However, it is part of the Government's objective to build a better training environment for junior doctors. The initial phase will come on stream next year and we will develop the initiative with the academy, the BMA, the Royal College of Nursing, the NHS and others over the next few years alongside implementation of the working time directive to ensure that better training and decent hours are embedded side by side as we progress to the later stages of the directive's implementation.
  The role of the Department, which was the focus of the remarks of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, is simply to support the NHS in meeting the legal requirements of the directive. That is precisely what we have been doing and we are doing this in the widest possible collaboration with the professional and regulatory bodies, NHS employers and those responsible for professional education and training. Measures that will help the NHS meet the requirements of the directive are being put in place and they are being implemented as we speak. I express my thanks and appreciation for the hard work of NHS staff up and down the country who are committed to this endeavour.
  Meeting the new requirements that recent case law in the European Court of Justice has imposed on us will be a considerable challenge for the NHS. I cannot assert that every shift worked by every NHS employee after 1 August will be fully compliant in all respects with every aspect of the directive. The decision in Jaeger alone makes that virtually impossible to achieve. That is why we are working actively to seek amendments to the directive and secure them at the earliest possible opportunity and why we are fully committed to retaining the use of the opt-out under the directive.
  The new contract for GPs was the second focus of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As I understand it, the essence of his argument and the motion is that the extent of GP out-of-hours services will decline as a result of the

  319
  new contract. That claim is entirely without foundation. It ignores both the statutory duties of primary care trusts to ensure the provision of out-of-hours services and the reality on the ground. In making his argument, he completely disregarded the new national quality standards that all out-of-hours service providers will be required to meet. They were introduced by this Government and are designed to deliver precisely the service that he now says that he wants to see in place.
  Laura Moffatt: I am pleased that the House has got back to debating the quality of care for patients, which is the focus of the Government's amendment. I was concerned that all we seemed to be worried about was the way in which the contract is to be implemented. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the views expressed by a local GP? Dr. Amit Bhargava took the trouble to write to our local newspaper to explain to people in Crawley how important the GP contracts are and what changes they will involve. It is important that we move forward and provide a range of services for people and Dr. Bhargava congratulated the Government on taking the steps to do that. We need to return to that issue.
  Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution because it introduces a different perspective from that provided by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. I shall return to his assessment shortly.
  The other problem with the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that they reflected a profound misunderstanding of the new contract. They gave rise to the obvious questions about what changes he would introduce to the new contract if he is as concerned about the situation as he claims to be. As in all the main arguments that he deployed, we heard absolutely nothing of substance from him.
  As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the new contracts are designed, in part at least, to deal with the long-standing concerns of GPs about the onerous nature of their statutory obligation to organise the delivery of out-of-hours services themselves. Under legislation agreed by the House last year, that obligation has been transferred to primary care trusts. It has not been dispensed with or evaporated; it is still there and is now the responsibility of PCTs where it properly belongs.
  As I do on many occasions, I agree strongly with Dr. John Chisholm, the chairman of the BMA's general practitioners committee, who, on the new contract and the existing responsibility of GPs, said:
  "The current 24-hour responsibility has deterred many young doctors from pursuing a career in general practice and has contributed to the current shortage of Gps"
  Mr. McLoughlin: The Whitworth hospital in Darley Dale in my constituency provides a first-class service. It is a community hospital staffed by GPs and has a minor casualty unit that serves more than 8,000 patients each year. Does the Minister believe that the new GP contract reflects the work that the local GPs do and is there any danger that the services that I have described could be under threat?
  Mr. Hutton: I do not want to see any threat to such services. The new GP contract has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the work of GPs in community hospitals. That is secondary care, which has never been covered under the terms of their employment in primary medical services. The activity in secondary care that the hon. Gentleman describes has nothing to do with the primary medical services contracts of GPs, but I shall deal with that point in a minute because it is another one about which the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire was not particularly well informed.
  The changes do not mean the end of out-of-hours cover. We know already that GPs will continue to be involved in delivering these services. We have made extra investment available to provide for that—something that the hon. Gentleman and the motion now seem to be concerned about. As he knows, GP practices are required to give proper notice of their wish to opt out so that appropriate alternative contractual arrangements can be made.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he drew some of his information from Pulse. I do not whether he has seen it, but I have a story that appears under the headline "Smooth start for first out-of-hours services after GP opt-outs". Perhaps he has simply not had the chance to see it or perhaps he decided not to use the story for reasons that others will speculate upon.
  Dr. Stoate: My right hon. Friend is being too modest about the achievements of the new GP contract. John Chisholm, in particular, is so enthusiastic about it because, for the first time, it allows GPs to broaden the range of services that they offer, to ensure that patients can be seen within 24 hours of request when that is considered necessary and to offer a new range of services that are currently carried out in the secondary sector. It has been shown many times that patients would far rather be treated by their own GP locally. Clearly, if GPs are to provide so much extra during the daytime to enhance patients' services, they will have to be able to rely on other professionals such as pharmacists, paramedics, nurses and other health personnel to take some of the burden off them for the services that might best be provided by other people anyway. The whole point is the enhancement of services and the integration of different skills within the health service to ensure that patients get a better deal throughout the entire patient experience and not just when they attend a GP's surgery.
  Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I can now dispense with what is left of my speech. I am sure that that is probably what everyone wants me to do. He is right. With respect to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, he did not address those aspects of the reforms in any substance. In hindsight, I am sure that he would want to reflect upon that.
  We should also put the issue into its proper context, because the hon. Gentleman failed to do that. At present, fewer than 5 per cent. of GPs provide their own out-of-hours cover, Most practices have already delegated that function, prior to the new contract, to GP co-ops or have contracts with private providers, but that

  321
  has not stopped GPs deciding to work additional out-of-hours shifts. I believe that that will continue to be the case.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) is not here, because I was struck by the comments of one GP on the Isle of Wight recently. His practice recently decided to opt out of its statutory out-of-hours responsibilities, but he, along with his colleagues, is working additional out-of-hours shifts. That is being made possible because of the extra investment that we are making in those services.
  Sandra Gidley: I had quite a lot of sympathy for the Minister's arguments until he said, because of the extra investment that we are making in these services". I have spoken to the three primary care trusts covering my constituency and they all say that they are having to find extra money to introduce the type of service that they think the public expect and deserve. The amount that will be clawed back from GPs themselves will cover only about half the cost of the services that have been designed, and those services have been cut from the original gold-plated services. Will he assure me that, if my local primary care trusts need extra resources, something will be available?
  Mr. Hutton: It is always good, in these debates, to hear from a Liberal Democrat because clearly, for Liberal Democrats, there is no such thing as an NHS budget. On out-of-hours services, the hon. Lady is right: to opt out, a practice has to pay a proportion of its income back to the primary care trust, but that is only half of the investment available to trusts to fund out-of-hours services. We have doubled, in overall terms, the investment going into those services, and we have ring-fenced that money. It is one of the very few parts of the NHS budget that is ring-fenced, and that is precisely to avoid the difficulty, which the hon. Lady and others will, I am sure, speak about in a minute, of PCTs not having additional investment. It is up to trusts to make effective use of the resources that we have given them.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) that we should make wider use of specialist nurses, and we should integrate out-of-hours services with walk-in centres and accident and emergency ambulance services. That is not a step backwards, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire implied, but exactly the opposite. Out-of-hours services will continue to make full use of the services of GPs. The contractual vehicle will be different, but that is what GPs and the BMA have asked us to provide. We are working with them and with the National Association of GP Cooperatives to ensure that the new arrangements work well and in the interests of patients.
  I am not at all clear what the hon. Gentleman's position is. His motive, however, is crystal clear: to undermine public confidence in the arrangements that are being made by PCTs to provide out-of-hours cover. To give him some credit—I want to be even-handed—he has not wasted any time in setting about that task. The contract only came into operation three weeks ago, and only 10 per cent. of trusts have so far taken on responsibilities for out-of-hours services from their GP practices. He certainly got his shroud-waving in at the earliest opportunity.
  322
  On community hospitals, the hon. Gentleman completely missed the point. The new contract for GPs has no bearing on the arrangements whereby GPs may provide medical cover for patients occupying beds in community hospitals; neither were those arrangements covered by the previous contract. Changes to the out-of-hours obligations in the new contract are therefore nothing to do with any instances where there may be a local dispute about payment for such cover.
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: Will the Minister reflect on Warminster, where wards in the cottage hospital have closed because GPs have withdrawn their services, having taken the view that. although they are very happy to provide cover in the hospital as a bolt-on extra to their out-of-hours contractual obligations, they will certainly not do so in the absence of those obligations? That is happening right across the country. I am surprised that he does not know that.
  Mr. Hutton: No, it is not happening right across the country. There certainly was a problem in Warminster, and there have been problems in one or two other community hospitals—I acknowledge that. However, they are not to do with the out-of-hours arrangements under the new contract. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), will address that point in her winding-up speech, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want further to reflect on his arguments.
  Agreements that GPs may have with a community hospital are separate from their primary medical services contract and it has always been up to PCTs to decide locally how to commission that work as part of their broader commissioning strategy. The doctors and dentists review body itself expressed the view that the matter should form part of the wider review of staff and associate specialist grades that the Department is committed to undertaking. That is very much in line with how we would like to proceed. From 1 October, that will be a matter for the new NHS employers organisation.
  The Opposition's case is misplaced, misinformed, opportunistic and completely devoid of any practical alternatives to the path that we are pursuing, on both the working time directive and the provisions of out-of-hours services. It is not clear to me or, I suspect, anyone who heard the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire whether the Opposition are in favour of the new contracts for GPs, whether they support the provisions in the contracts for out-of-hours services, or whether junior doctors should be covered by the directive. In that sense the hon. Gentleman was at least consistent in ensuring that his arguments lacked any substance, any sense of proportion or any recognition of what is happening on the ground. That is another reason why my right hon. and hon. Friends should reject the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  2.4 pm
  Mr. Paul Burstow: I start by referring to a speech that the Minister of State gave in January at a gathering organised by the Royal College of Surgeons. He said—[Interruption.] That is

  323
  not this particular quote; I am afraid that the Minister of State will have to listen because this is a new quote from that interesting speech. On the working time directive, he said:
  "We have all analysed the size and scale of the difficulties ahead of us. They are real and obvious. But we need to do more than this. And we need to start taking the necessary steps now to secure implementation."
  The deadline for introducing the maximum average working time of 58 hours per week is 1 August. In January, only months before the directive has its full effect, the Minister was talking to a gathering of medical professionals about starting to take the necessary steps to secure implementation, which beggars belief.
  Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman would have made a fair debating point if we had taken no action prior to my making that speech to the Royal College of Surgeons. I hope that he is prepared to be fair and acknowledge that.
  Mr. Burstow: That was a very early intervention, and I hope to explore in a little more detail some of the steps, and their adequacy, that the Government have taken since the working time directive first appeared on the horizon in 1998 and they made a commitment to implement it over the following few years. I take no lessons from the Minister at this stage, but I am sure that if he does not agree with other things that I have to say he will take the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and intervene.
  The January speech is proof, if proof were needed, of the dither and delay that was exposed, and dealt with in detail, in the examination by the House of Lords European Union Committee. I shall outline my reasons for that conclusion. It is not as if the directive has come out of the blue. The Minister and his colleagues have had five years to grapple with its implications for the NHS. Ministers have known about the SIMAP judgment since October 2000. The NHS is now having to deal with the interactions of a whole series of decisions taken by this Government over the past five years. Both the GP and consultant contracts start to kick in just when the directive begins to bite. In combination, those three major changes have a huge effect on the medical work force and their capacity to sustain current levels of activity and, indeed, to deliver ever higher standards.
  In their submission to the European Commission the Government stated that the UK requires between 6,250 and 12,550 more doctors to comply with the directive— a lot of extra doctors. The Minister outlined, both in his speech and in the amendment to the motion, the Government's progress on recruiting and training more doctors. The BMA says that compliance with the directive will result in the loss of the full-time equivalent of 3,700 junior doctors. I know that that figure is contested, but the Minister did not, in his speech, demonstrate why it is not an accurate assessment.
  All that has to be seen against a backdrop of the poor, even non-existent, work force planning of the 1980s and 1990s and the legacy cost of neglect and under-investment by an earlier Administration. The failure of the last Conservative Government to expand medical
  324
  training places and the current Government's decision to stick to Conservative spending plans for their first two years in office have undoubtedly exacerbated capacity constraints and the Government's ability to be in the right position to ensure full compliance with the directive by August. Even now, the Royal College of Physicians says that there are insufficient junior doctors in training. Some might say, "Of course it would say that," but it is nevertheless worrying that it flags that as a serious concern.
  I agree with the Minister that the answer to the working time directive is not simply more doctors; it is about doing things differently. The hospital at night project, which has been discussed across the Dispatch Box, is one measure that needs to be taken. Whether it was suggested by the BMA or the royal colleges, or whether it was a Government initiative, does not much matter; it is what comes out of it that matters and whether it delivers the additional capacity to allow us to deal with the consequences of the directive
  The 32 pilot schemes that are being trialled through the country provide opportunities to innovate and experiment in different ways of working. to manage demand and so on. However, although local initiatives such as the ones that are being implemented to change the skill mix, expanding the roles of nurses, midwives, therapists, pharmacists and others, point a way forward, and although there has undoubtedly been an improvement in the work force size over the last few years, the most recent work force survey suggests that we still have shortages of midwives and some of the key therapist roles that are key to making a reality of the individual initiatives being implemented throughout the country. Such initiatives have a part to play, but it is far from clear whether they can be implemented across the NHS before the 1 August deadline. The Royal College of Physicians said that its survey showed substantial scepticism about whether the introduction of nurse practitioners would enable hospitals to cope with fewer doctors. Indeed, the House of Lords European Union Committee argued in its recent report on the directive that although the Government are testing new ways of working in their pilot schemes, invitations for proposals, as we have heard, were not issued until April 2002, four years after the directive was first implemented. The,results are unlikely to be ready by August, and the Committee concluded that it would take up to two years for successful schemes to be fully implemented across the NHS. Effectively, there will be a further two years of non-compliance with the directive, so it would be useful if the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) confirmed whether the Government agree with the Committee's conclusion and whether it will be two more years before the learning from the pilots is applied across the NHS.
  The Committee went on to report that no more than 50 hospitals will be in a position to implement the methods trialled in the pilots. Do the Government accept that conclusion and, if not, why not? How do their conclusions differ from the Committee's? The Government acknowledged in their submission to the European Commission that the alternatives, as we have heard in today's debate, may not cost more than employing extra doctors but will certainly cost as much, so it is not a cheaper option for the NHS to get round

  325
  the problem with upskilling, changes and skill mixes. In its brief for today's debate, the NHS Confederation states that it will not be possible for many NHS organisations to meet the compliance requirements by August 2004. The Government clearly agree, given what the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) told the House today. Indeed, the confederation goes on to warn that some trusts will not be able to provide safe medical care in some specialties if they introduce compliant rotas. Trusts face an invidious choice between damaging patient care and failing to comply with the directive. The confederation urges the Government not to adopt a punitive approach when dealing with non-compliance. It would be useful if the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central explained in her reply to the debate how the Government intend to deal with trusts that are not in compliance with the directive, not least because the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness said that many trusts will not be compliant. Presumably, those trusts will be dealt with case by case.
  According to the Royal College of Physicians, six out of 10 hospitals still do not have the 10 middle-grade staff necessary for a compliant rota. More worrying still, almost four out of 10 hospitals say that they have fewer than eight middle-grade staff, so they are well short of what is needed to deliver compliant rotas. In the speech that the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness made in January he said that
  "there should now be a process in place in every NHS Trust and PCT that allows these issues to be fully explored and discussed."
  Why, in January, did the right hon. Gentleman think it necessary to say that such a process should be in place? Surely it should have been in place for a long time.
  The Government have issued inadequate and vague guidance to hospitals on the implementation of the directive. To start to develop a road map just months before the deadline for implementation is breathtakingly incompetent. Ministers say that the directive could have been complied with were it not for the European Court rulings in the SIMAP and Jaeger judgments. The SIMAP judgment, however, was made in October 2000, and dealt with the issue of what is meant by working time. That was further complicated last summer, as the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness said, by the Jaeger judgment, which gave an unworkable definition of when compensatory rest should be taken. The European Commission made a welcome announcement on 4 March that it would propose legislation to deal with the problem, but the Minister of State did not explain the timetable for the legislation. It will be proposed by the summer, but the European election will inevitably cause a hiatus. It is speculated that it could be two more years before we have a legislative solution that gets us off the hook. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister spelt out the timetable.
  The motion also deals with community hospitals and the link between their capacity and time GP contract. The right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness was right that there is not a direct causal link between the GP contract and the issues affecting community hospitals, but there is undoubtedly some interaction that is causing GPs who work in community hospitals to abandon that work. There are 400 community hospitals in the United Kingdom that provide 10,000 beds and rely on about
  326
  4,000 GPs to provide key services. Those hospitals are crucial to the system. They provide a safety valve for district general hospitals, and are increasingly becoming centres for rehabilitation and intermediate care. There is a genuine possibility that the new GP contract will have the unintended effect of causing GPs to withdraw from work in community hospitals, as has already happened in Bolsover, Clay Cross and, as we have heard, Warminster. Wherever that happens, salaried medical staff are used as an alternative, but when they take on GP roles in community hospitals they are subject to the working time directive, so costs increase. That has not been factored into the Government's costings, and is connected to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) about the inadequacy of resources to implement changes in the contract.
  Will the Minister explain why her Welsh and Scottish counterparts have embarked on negotiations on community hospitals? They are more concerned about the issue than the Government in England, and have started negotiations to ensure continuity of care and to enable GPs to continue to fulfil that role. There is no similar process, however, in England to avoid the fallout after 1 January next year. Will the Minister therefore explain what negotiations are planned in England to deal with the problem of GPs deciding to give up working in community hospitals, and when those negotiations will start? If the problem is not resolved it will compound the pressures on district hospitals.
  The new consultant contract, which aligns pay with sessions worked, is a welcome innovation in the NHS. However, the Government appear to have underestimated the amount of work that consultants have undertaken in their costings, plans and implementation of change. If those hours are not funded, they will not be worked. If they are not worked, the extra consultants trumpeted in the amendment will not provide extra services, and the Government will merely be treading water as a consequence.
  Mr. Hutton: I apologise for intervening on the hon. Gentleman, but there are some things that I must correct. The British Medical Association agreed the funding envelope for the consultant contract.
  Mr. Burstow: That was not part of my argument, but I am grateful for that additional information. I do not think that I uttered "BMA" at all in the context of the consultant contract. There appears to have been an underestimate of the work done by consultants. The BMA may have agreed to something, but that does not necessarily invalidate my assertion and the evidence in the Health Service Journal and other journals that this growing problem is causing severe budgetary problems, especially at year-end. Strategic health authorities put it at the top of their list of financial pressures. The right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness may say that the contract is fully funded. but time will tell. I hope that the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central will explain that the Government are satisfied that there is no mismatch between consultants' historic work load and the work load that they will undertake under the new contract, as that may well have a serious impact in future.
  In conclusion, there is very little time in which to implement the working time directive. The scale of the task, as has been outlined, is huge. Ministers have had

  327
  ample time to plan and prepare for the implementation of the directive, but have failed to realise the impact of a range of measures that they are implementing this year on the working time directive. As a result, Ministers will have to rely on the hard work, professionalism and good will of front-line staff to get them out of a hole that they dug and that they will now expect the staff to bail them out of.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, which applies from now.
  2.20 pm
  Mr. Kerry Pollard (St. Albans) (Lab): I welcome the debate and feel reassured that doctors' hours in the NHS are being reduced. When I or any member of my family or any constituent of mine needs to be treated through a scheduled operation or as an emergency, the last thing I want is for them to be treated by a tired doctor. Even though doctors are dedicated to the task in hand, when they get tired they might not be as sharp as they could be. We must remember that it takes seven years to train a doctor, and probably as long to open a medical training school. I am pleased that a medical training school has been opened in my region, the east of England, at Norwich, and will no doubt be turning out doctors very quickly.
  We have excellent GPs in St. Albans. My own practice, Midway surgery, sees patients within 48 hours. It carries out minor operations and runs many clinics. Another, the Kedia practice, has just had a brand-new surgery built that will provide state of the art services to the people of London Colney, a village in my constituency. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Minister to see whether he can come to open the new surgery shortly. In addition, we operate a collective stand-by service in St. Albans, StaDoc, which covers the whole constituency. It is hoped that this group will provide doctor cover to enhance the service at the minor injuries unit at our city hospital, which is nurse-led and is wonderful. I visit the place regularly. Staff there can deal with all but the most serious injuries, and they deal with them in minutes, not hours.
  Many people seem to delight in knocking our health service. Recently, our local newspaper did so on its front page with banner headlines attacking the failure to meet accident and emergency targets for waiting times. One week later I discovered that, on average, 5 per cent. of people booked in for operations do not turn up. They do not ring up to let the hospital know; they just do not bother to attend. That appeared on page 17 of the local paper with a modest headline and received little coverage.
  As I said, having been given an appointment for treatment, some people do not turn up. They give no reason and no advance warning. A leading surgeon told me that he had known the rate to be as high as 25 per cent., but the average was about 5 per cent. In the day surgery unit, which does 100 operations each week, 5 per
  328
  cent. is the equivalent of two and a half weeks of operations not carried out when theatre space had been allocated and clinical staff were ready to operate. That is a waste of resources. If those operations had been performed, many people could have been taken off the waiting list.
  Measures are in hand to ensure that, as far as possible, the figure of 5 per cent. is reduced. For example, hospital staff ring the patient, where possible, a few days before the due day to ensure that the patient will turn up. In addition, a list is being compiled of people who can be called at short notice to fill possible vacancies. It is still outrageous that people who have been examined, had an operating slot scheduled and had preparatory work done do not show up. There is a two-way bargain, with the health service scheduling operations and doing preparatory work. The patient's side of the bargain is to turn up on the right day at the right time, ready for the operation.
  I recently spent a morning in our city hospital day surgery unit, where I was told about the non-attendance. I was due to meet the morning list of patients and follow one patient from pre-med to operation, post-operative care and then home. The patient chosen was a young man who had been suffering extensive back pain for some time. He was programmed for a cortisone injection in his spinal area. That sounds simple, but it is fraught with danger. The man had a local anaesthetic and was fully conscious through the entire procedure. The nurse responsible chatted to him throughout, reassuring him. The whole procedure was facilitated by the use of X-ray photography to enable precise positioning of the injection site. That meant that all of us had to wear lead aprons, which are extremely heavy.
  The surgeon and the anaesthetist explained the whole procedure to me in detail throughout the operation. The procedure did not take long but was carried out very carefully indeed—an impressive performance, nothing like "ER" or "Casualty". I observed the patient in recovery and joined him later back in the ward, where he had some tea and toast and was then discharged. I have spoken to him since and he tells me that his back pain is much eased. As well as being a recently appointed fellow of the Royal College of Midwives, I now feel emboldened to apply to become a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons.
  Emboldened by the Minister speaking about his sister, I want to mention my mum, who will be 84 next Monday. I wish her many happy returns. For the past two years, she has spent much time in and out of hospital, and in the main has been treated very well.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is very interesting. Is he soon going to get on to the subject of doctors' hours?
  Mr. Pollard: I may well do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, now that you point it out. Doctors' hours are extremely important and my right hon. Friend the Minister alluded to the steps that will need to be taken so that we have the right number of doctors. We need more training places, and I am pleased to say that we are working with the university of Hertfordshire to try to set up a medical training school there, which will ensure

  329
  that we get the right number of doctors. I know that the university vice-chancellor, Professor Tim Wilson, and his team are keen to provide such a facility. With the large new state of the art hospital, which we hope will be built in Hatfield, close to the university, we should be able to link the two together—a new hospital and a medical training school to provide the doctors we need, to ensure that we can comply with the working time directive, and to ensure that operations are carried out properly, doctors are not too tired, and a full and efficient service is available to our constituents as patients.
  2.26 pm
  Mr. William Hague: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. I do not intend to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and the Minister down all the wider issues, or to bring up any relatives, as the House will be relieved to hear. I want to make a brief and simple point about the problems of rural areas. Of course, I have in mind my constituency, Richmond in Yorkshire, and issues that have arisen in Wensleydale in my constituency. I know that the Minister who is to reply to the debate, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), knows Yorkshire, so she may well be able to visualise the area about which I am talking.
  I fear that changes in GPs' hours and possibly the working time directive, which I shall mention briefly, impact particularly hard on rural areas. Health service resources are spread more thinly and, of course, GPs are spread more thinly in those areas. I am referring to very rural areas—in my constituency, the top end of Wensleydale, where ambulances do not arrive as rapidly as they do in the rest of the country. Everybody understands that that is a problem and something is being done about it, but it will probably continue to be a problem. The accident and emergency department of the hospital in Northallerton is over 40 miles away for my constituents—an hour's drive and more, in many cases, and much more in bad weather and difficult road conditions.
  My constituents feel remote from the health service in any case, so GP practices are particularly important in such an area —disproportionately so. People feel they rely on GPs even more than in the rest of the country. They rely on them heavily because there are more elderly people than in the country as a whole. Vast numbers of tourists come in and quadruple the size of the population, which is not usually taken into account, as far as I can see, in the way that resources are deployed. Many people work with machinery on farms, and roads are particularly winding and difficult, so there are more accidents than in the country as a whole. The reliance on GP services in those areas is considerable.
  The contract that has been agreed, which has many merits, which is right in principle—as everybody has said—and which is important for the recruitment of GPs into the health service, applies as much to rural areas as to everywhere else. I make no criticism of the local doctors who are taking part in the contract, which will lead to new out-of-hours arrangements. I make no criticism of the local trust, the Hambleton and Richmondshire primary care trust, which is doing its utmost to work with the new situation and has assured
  330
  people that it believes there will be no reduction in the quality of their out-of-hours service. Nevertheless, it is unarguable that that is a major challenge for the trust. I do not believe that when these things are negotiated between the British Medical Association, GPs and the Department of Health, and when they are considered in the Department, the needs of very sparsely populated rural areas are considered.
  Let us consider what the situation means in practice for my constituents. If they live in upper Wensleydale, they have to telephone the local surgery and get another number to telephone York or Catterick. That is like telling someone who lives in central London that if they think that they need a doctor in the night, they must telephone Northampton and a doctor might be able to come from Luton. The same sort of distance and travelling time are involved, except that in this case there are hills in the way. There is often heavy snow on them in winter, and fog or ice can make journeys almost impossible. In those circumstances, it is not surprising that people are anxious about the implementation of the new contract.
  As I said, the primary care trust is doing its utmost to make the arrangements work and is putting resources into that. Four-wheel-drive vehicles are being purchased with every type of cell phone and satellite navigation. That is the subject of some local cynicism, as the locals all know where the telephones will not work and that satellite navigation can reliably deliver people to a field at the top of Wensleydale and will not necessarily bear any relation to where the houses are. With all the technology available on earth, finding a cottage on top of the dales on a dark night in bad weather is still an extremely difficult thing to do. People are worried that the doctors who know the immediate locality will not be attending them in the night, and that if doctors are called out to make a 30-mile journey and a 60-mile round trip, they will not be available to other people at the same time.
  The anxiety about this matter in rural areas is wholly understandable. There is a good deal of resentment. Last week, a farmer put it to me that if he has a sheep that is ill in the night, it will be attended to by a vet who lives locally—vets are still a principal part of our community in the Yorkshire dales—and who already knows the medical history of that sheep and its relations, whereas if one of his family is ill in the night, that service will certainly no longer be available. That is how people regard the situation, which is understandable, even though great efforts are being made to ensure that an out-of-hours service works for that part of the country. I reiterate that I am making no criticism of all the people who are trying to make that service work.
  We do not know how the issue will work out. The Minister pointed out extremely fairly that we are in the early days of these new out-of-hours services. That is certainly the case with regard to how they will apply to remote areas such as upper Wensleydale. The jury is out and we do not know how the services will work. In the past 10 days, there has been some controversy in my constituency about how they are working. There is dissatisfaction about the fact that, on a bank holiday such as Easter Monday, large numbers of tourists visit the area, but in an out-of-hours time. When people have road accidents after 6 o'clock, the local GP service is not available to them, and neither are the air ambulances for

  331
  which we have raised large sums at charitable occasions in my constituency precisely because of the remote nature of the locations.
  There is a feeling that access to health care has been reduced. I hope that that feeling will prove to be misplaced, but it is the feeling and suspicion of many of my constituents in areas such as Wensleydale. When these matters are considered in future, the needs of sparsely populated rural areas must be given greater weight. The people who live in such areas have paid their taxes and national insurance. Yes, they understand that there are difficulties in providing services in particularly remote rural areas, but they are entitled to have their particular needs taken into account. When the application of general rules and agreements starts to mean that care and resources are more thinly spread geographically, the needs of sparsely populated areas really come into play.
  Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and for the tone of his remarks, with which I have a great deal of sympathy. He might not be aware that we have recently announced some additional resources for primary care trusts serving constituencies such as his, in rural areas where out-of-hours service providers will undoubtedly face additional costs. We are trying very hard to ensure that those additional costs are reflected in the allocations.
  Mr. Hague: Yes, I am aware of that. I do not know whether the Minister was in the Chamber when I spoke about the resources going into vehicles, cell phones and satellite navigation. Those resources are certainly being deployed. We do not know whether they will be sufficient to deal with the task, but it is necessary to have additional resources for sparsely populated rural areas, and I think that it is necessary to consider whether exactly the same rules should be applied to such areas in negotiating contracts and working hours or whether exceptions should be made.
  The working time directive leads to a wider debate that I do not want to go into, except by joining many people in the country in expressing astonishment that the European Union should make any such rules at all. I do not see why it is in the interests of people living in France, Germany or Italy to regulate the working hours of doctors in this country, and I do not see why such decisions should be made in any other place than this country. When the Minister has to come to the House and say how much the Government are trying to fight court judgments that we all agree are manifestly not in the interests of this country, it shows how much power has passed to unaccountable institutions. That is a wider debate, however; the Prime Minister wants us to have it in great detail over the next 18 months, and we will enjoy that.
  My point about the working time directive is simply that it is another of the forces that makes things more difficult for sparsely populated areas. The Minister spoke about the small hospital trusts and the attention that has been given to them, and recognised that the problem is more difficult for them. In terms of rotas, it is more difficult for hospitals that have access to a limited number of consultants and junior doctors to cope with
  332
  such issues. He is trying to give them particular help, but my point is that such issues accumulate over the years. Changes in the training requirements that may be set by royal colleges and agreed with the Department of Health have made things more difficult for small hospitals. It continually becomes more difficult for small hospitals to continue their existence. I am not being alarmist about that—there is no threat whatever to the Friarage hospital in Northallerton—but I know that it gets harder every year for people to run a small hospital. That requires either that exceptions be made or that greater resources be given to such hospitals.
  Notwithstanding the point that the Minister has just made, account of population sparsity is not systematically taken in the allocation of health service resources. If we are to continue to apply sweeping national or supranational rules to situations that are unusual and needs that are difficult to satisfy many miles from the nearest hospital, we will have to take into account in funding allocations the needs of the particular rural areas involved.
  I hope that that will be borne in mind in future. I do not think that any changes can be made to the contract now and I am not proposing any such changes. Obviously, that contract is signed and done, so I am not saying that any immediate action can be taken. However, I think that we will have to address these issues and that the Department of Health should be conscious that, when it considers matters from an urban and suburban point of view, as is often the tendency in Whitehall and in this House in what is mainly an urban and suburban country, we need to give increasing attention to the particular problems of rural areas.
  2.38 pm
  Dr. Howard Stoate: It is always a pleasure to take part in health debates, especially because, as the House knows, I still carry on a certain amount of medical practice myself.
  We are debating a very serious issue and, as the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) rightly highlighted, it will cause a certain amount of anxiety among constituents. I acknowledge his point about thinly populated rural areas where services are sometimes difficult to provide. None the less, debates such as this give us the opportunity to debate some of the issues in public so that people can be reassured about what the Government are doing to address them.
  We have to balance the needs of service provision—ensuring that patients have access to appropriately trained, alert and awake medical personnel of all types, specialties and subjects—against the need for training requirements of a high standard and teaching requirements to ensure that personnel pass on their knowledge to others, as well as the need to ensure that they can carry out research and have a decent family and out-of-work life. All those things require a delicate balance that it is sometimes very difficult to achieve. Of course, we must also ensure that we balance all those issues against financial management and the best possible use of resources for the taxpayer.
  This afternoon, we have talked extensively about the new GP contract, which I welcome and which, for the first time, allows GPs to provide a wide range of evidence-based services. One of the main advantages of

  333
  the new GP contract compared with the old GP contract is the enhanced, additional services that GPs can provide. The evidence-based services are based on evaluated research and proper evidence, so GPs can be sure that when they carry out, for example, diabetes care, care for people with hypertension or care for people with Alzheimer's, it is based on research-based evidence, and they can be sure that the care is worth while. That improves GPs' morale enormously, because they know their work has a measurable benefit and a measurable outcome.
  The old GP contract was full of what the people who wrote it may have perceived to be good ideas, but the ideas were not evidence-based. Many GPs found the contract extremely difficult to understand, and they often felt that they were wasting their time, which had a serious deleterious effect on the morale and recruitment of GPs. During my career as a GP, I noticed recruitment falling, with fewer good quality young people coming forward to be GPs. Young doctors often said that they could not understand the way general practice was going, that a GP's work was not based on sound science and that becoming a GP did not seem to be a good career progression, and they therefore turned away from general practice into the hospital sector, which was regrettable.
  The new GP contract has improved morale and recruitment, and John Chisholm, who chairs the GP committee of the British Medical Association, is enthusiastic that it will produce the GP recruitment drive that we need. The BMA rightly points out that the country is short of GPs, and there is serious under-recruitment for general practice. It is vital that we attract the best quality graduates into general practice as a career choice—and, for the first time in many years, the new GP contract provides hope that that will be the case.
  If GPs are to provide enhanced services during the day to allow patients to see them within 24 hours, where they feel that that is necessary, and to access services within their communities in GP surgeries, we must use other health professionals to fill in the gaps. It is not credible that we can expand the work load indefinitely without asking other health professionals to share it. I am pleased that we are working on a new pharmacy contract, which will allow pharmacists to take away much of the burden currently carried by Gps.
  Pharmacists are highly motivated, highly trained professionals, who do not always use their skills to the best of their abilities because the current pharmacy contract does not allow them to do so. The pharmacy work force will be acknowledged by the new contract that Ministers are currently negotiating with the profession, which will add enormous extra depth to the health care provision. The new contract will apply equally to out-of-hours and in-hours services because many pharmacists already provide an extended-hours service at weekends and in the evenings, and they are accessible without an appointment simply by patients dropping in to see them. That is one more strand of improved health care provision to which we can look forward.
  I am also pleased that the BMA has negotiated a new consultant contract with the Government. I am concerned that many trusts have not yet implemented the new consultant contract, and I have recently met
  334
  BMA members who share my concern that there are serious local implementation issues. Some trusts have not taken up the new consultant contract in the right way, and I would like to know what the Minister can do to make sure that the new consultant contract is developed to the maximum and that all consultants will benefit from it. The consultant contract allows extra resources and more productive career development patterns for consultants, but it requires local negotiation.
  If we look back a few years, we can see what the medical work force used to be like. I was a junior doctor not that many years ago—it is certainly within living memory. When I was a junior houseman, I worked a "one in two", which meant that my contract for a fortnight was 208 hours—one week I worked 136 hours, and the following week I worked a mere 72 hours. Those were my contracted hours, but the work often overran because of sickness, holidays or study leave, so the situation was even worse than that. When I was a junior doctor, a one-in-two contract was the norm, and most doctors were working those hours. I am pleased that those days are long gone because I do not want to see such contracts again.
  Even when I was a junior GP, I was expected to work a full night shift, which often meant getting out of bed several times during the night, and to get into work at 8 o'clock in the morning to carry out a full morning surgery. It was unrealistic to expect doctors to undergo such pressure and provide good care to patients. After a night on call, for example, I was on a ward round in the morning and was confronted by the consultant, who said, "Would you like to explain this new patient who arrived last night?" I said, "What new patient?" He said, "This one in this bed." I said, "I am sorry. I have not seen this patient before." The nurse jabbed me in the ribs and handed me the notes. I had clerked in the patient during the night—I had made extensive notes that turned out to be quite good—but I could not recollect the case in the morning because I wax so tired. That sort of thing is clearly bad for patient care, and I am glad that those days are long gone. Things have moved on tremendously in the health service, and I am pleased that doctors' hours now allow them to undergo the right training and research and to have lives of their own, which ensures that they are not overtired and do not potentially put patient care at risk.
  I should like to address one or two local issues in my constituency. Yesterday, I visited my local hospital, the Darent Valley hospital in Dartford, to witness the opening of the first new operating theatre of its type in the country. It is called OR1, and it is a state of the art, brand new, fully automated, computerised operating theatre, where the entire range of medical instruments and equipment hangs from the ceiling and the consultant has a fully computerised control panel. While the world's media watched via a video link to the hospital's postgraduate centre, Mike Parker, the surgeon, carried out an operation with the new equipment while Andrew McIrvine, his colleague, relayed information to us in the postgraduate centre as we watched an interesting operation to remove a patient's gall bladder.
  The new equipment is fantastic, and it is wonderful to see Dartford at the forefront of the process, because the technology is brand new and Darent Valley hospital is

  335
  the first hospital in the country to use it. The resources, commitment and investment are going into the health service, and future patients will benefit from that. I am sure that such equipment will be installed in hospitals around the country because of the Government's investment.
  There have been enormous improvements in NHS training and patient care, and there have also been improvements in general practice. Many general practices are being rebuilt to improve access to care for patients, and many GPs are taking on extra medical and nursing staff to allow them to provide extra care. However, the work force's needs must be balanced against patients' needs and taxpayers' needs to ensure that we get best value. Adjusting the skill mix to use the right profession in the right way is clearly the bedrock of ensuring the delivery of best quality care.
  I welcome new initiatives such as the GP contracts, and I welcome the working time directive, which allows us to rethink how we provide medical care in this country. The working time directive is a challenge and, as the Minister says, it presents significant problems in some parts of the country. I am sure that all hon. Members recognise that there are difficulties in some areas and that the new arrangements must be bedded in before we can make the best use of them.
  The situation has improved so much in the past few years. We look forward to sustained growth, development and investment, which will allow hospitals to improve their facilities, and GPs and pharmacists to improve their range of services, which must be the way forward to ensure that everybody in this country has increased health care and life expectancy. I welcome the debate, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to address the House this afternoon, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
  2.48 pm
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Most of what I have to say this afternoon concerns junior doctors' hours, but before moving on to that question, I must say that I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) has just said. In particular, I agree that it will be possible to develop primary care under the new general medical services contract.
  One might have hoped that he would take a view back into history, to before 1997 in his remarks about making out-of-hours services more flexible so as to reflect the needs of the medical profession, as well as of the patient; the development of a more flexible local definition of what general medical services means, including local contracting through the practice management system; the development of a broader range for pharmacists; and the development of services that are available through GP surgeries. The development of primary care did not begin miraculously in 1997, or even, I hasten to add, in 1979—it has been carried through by Governments of all political complexions over a long period, and is an important success story for the national health service, whatever the political label of the Government at its head at any particular moment in time. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said, but he is not entitled to claim exclusive credit for the process as one that started on 1 May 1997.
  336
  That is a broadly non-partisan comment. I hope that what I am about to say about junior doctors' hours is also non-partisan, but I suspect that it will lead to rather less agreement across the Floor of the House. Anyone who has attended health service debates over many years knows that the whole subject of junior doctors' hours in the NHS is a very long-standing issue. In the period before 1990, in particular, and cumulatively over several years, it got seriously out of control. There is no argument about the fact that the position before the introduction of the new deal could not be defended in the modern world. Doctors were being asked to work in circumstances that did not provide high-quality training for them or high-quality care for their patients.
  I was a junior Minister when the new deal was signed and Secretary of State for two years during its implementation. That process started in 1991 and went on regardless of the change of Government that took place in 1997. The commitment first to recognise that there was a real problem with junior doctors' hours, then to do something about it, was shared across the political divide. More importantly from the point of view of both doctor and patient. it was being addressed by the health service as employers and by doctors' representative organisations—the British Medical Association and the royal colleges—without the need for a legislative framework to oblige them to do so. The situation had clearly become insupportable—action needed to be taken, and it was.
  That is why I asked the Minister whether he felt that the adoption of the legislative framework of the working time directive makes the delivery of the shared objective of better management of doctors' hours easier or more difficult. As there was a clear commitment to do something about it, and action was being taken by the employer in agreement with the profession, I genuinely do not understand why the Government see no conflict between delivering that desirable objective—which is shared across the House—and the adoption of a legislative framework that, as the Minister recognises, makes it more difficult for him to do so.
  In understanding that conundrum, it is important to understand why addressing the issue of junior doctors' hours is extremely difficult for the health service management and for the training authorities of the royal colleges. If it were simply a matter of saying, "People should not work ridiculous hours—let's change the law and do something about it," it is reasonable to assume that somebody would have done something about it before the situation got as serious as it had by the late 1980s.
  There are difficulties in ensuring that the medical work force have sufficiently diverse training to deal with the wide range of circumstances that they will need to be able to cope with in their professional practice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) talked about the difficulties involved in delivering medical cover in community hospitals. That applies not only to very remote rural areas, but in relation to, for example, the delivery of maternity services and minor accident cover in community hospitals, which is an issue that regularly arises in the life of a health Minister. That is compounded by the— entirely benign—move in the medical profession towards increasingly specific sub-specialisms.

  337
  All those factors make it hard to deliver a proper training regime for doctors alongside a commitment to reduce working hours. The fact that the issue is complex and difficult, and is recognised as such, adds extra point to the question of why it is necessary to introduce a legislative framework that complicates the delivery of a shared, if admittedly difficult, policy objective, given that the only result of introducing that framework is to make the delivery of the objective even more difficult. The Minister stressed that we should not seek to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach, but that is precisely the result of introducing an unnecessary legislative framework, because history demonstrates that the issue was being resolved before that framework, which will make it more difficult, was introduced.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks said, the difficulty is compounded by the fact that we are talking not only about a legislative framework but about a legislative framework that is being introduced in a European context. That means that the Government as the employer cannot ultimately introduce the changes that are necessary to make the policy deliverable. It is worth remembering that the working time directive was introduced by the authorities in Brussels under the single market legislation because it was felt to be necessary to deliver a single market. It is perverse to imagine that the free movement of goods and services around the European Union is promoted by confusing the problem with the delivery of junior doctors' hours in our, or indeed anybody else's, health service. That is why I do not understand why the Government welcome the introduction of a legislative straitjacket the result of which is to make the delivery of their policy objective, which I share, more difficult.
  The Government are entitled to some sympathy, given that—to employ the much-used cliché—we are where we are. We have a legislative framework, and the Government have to try to obey the law and to deliver their policy objectives within the health service. They have to try to square that circle. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) pointed out that the legislative framework has been in existence since 2000, and we are now talking about August 2004, but we have a very unclear idea about how the circle is to be squared—we are simply asked to rely on the words of the Minister, who is sure that it will be all right on the night.
  It really is not good enough to say that that European working time directive might have been okay, but the problem was compounded by the S1MAP judgment. The SIMAP judgment concerned the definition of the phrase "working time" as it applies in the medical profession, and it was about a very simple question: does time that is spent on call count as working time? One does not have to know much about the history of this issue to know that that question goes to the heart of the management of doctors' hours during their training. That is what all the arguments were about throughout the 1980s and 1990s. In 2000, legislation was introduced, as far as we know without active disagreement by the Government, on the extension of the working time directive to cover the medical profession, but without having decided, and leaving it to the courts to decide, the fundamental question of whether "working time" refers to time on call or time treating patients. It is a pretty
  338
  broad-brush measure. Although it deals with extending working time legislation to junior doctors' hours, it does not define working time.
  The charge against the Government is that they were content to allow the measure to be introduced without properly considering the implications and the definition at its heart. It has been in force, complete with the interpretative judgment, for three and a half years, and we still await any clear idea about the way in which the Government intend to interpret it. They have been caught asleep on the watch during an important health service development and consequently patients are at risk.
  3 pm
  Mr. Adrian Bailey: I welcome this debate. The issues that it raises are serious issues that local health care professionals have drawn to my attention, and we now have a welcome opportunity to discuss them in the Chamber.
  Having said that, I think that the motion is alarmist and concentrates narrowly on specific aspects of the subject. It is designed not to shed light but to cloud the positive benefits that have accrued from the Government's health policies and to spread an impression of impending doom and gloom. It also reflects one significant failure in Government health policy—the inability to cure the parliamentary Conservative party's collective amnesia about its record in government.
  There is a debate about the robustness of the British Medical Association statistics, but let us assume that they are robust. Conservative Members' reaction to them, as reflected in the motion, is out of all proportion when compared with the predicament in which they left the health service in 1997, when there were 224,000 fewer staff, including 60,000 fewer nurses and 19,000 fewer doctors. The amendment outlines other figures, which I am told are understated and therefore not spun. To continue the cricketing metaphor, it is a question of reverse spin. Even on the Opposition's gloomiest prognostications, the staffing and ability in the NHS to meet the challenges that the debate covers are hugely improved since the Government came to power in 1997.
  Let us consider one or two specific matters. General medical services contracts and the European working time directive and its impact on junior hospital doctors' hours have been discussed. Although I do not contest the difficulties that those policies may cause in some circumstances, their overall thrust accords with recognised priorities that have existed, as some Opposition Members said, for a long time. The effect in reducing junior hospital doctors' hours and giving general practitioners betters hours, more flexible working and greater reward will hugely enhance the attractiveness of the medical profession to would-be trainees and help to realise the Government's objectives for the doctor provision that is necessary for the nation's growing health needs.
  I was surprised by the weight that the Opposition attached in the motion to out-of-hours services. In my discussions with my local primary care trust, the issue has not been raised. The gloomy forebodings in the motion do not appear to be reflected in reactions on the ground. I checked with my local doctors' surgery and was told that the service would continue as it had done previously and that there would be no deterioration.

  339
  My constituency is in a traditional inner-city area, Sandwell, which has historically suffered a range of health problems. Even now, life expectancy is considerably below average and the area has historically been provided with too few doctors. However, if one examines what is happening on the ground, the motion does no justice to the true picture in an area that has suffered from under-provision and deals with a greater range of health problems than the average. My surgery, which is less than 300 yards from where I live, is expanding. It is due to have two extra doctors, is extending its premises and will become a university training centre.
  The Neptune health centre in the middle of Tipton deals with one of our most deprived communities. It intends to take on a range of services that the local acute hospital previously provided. The Tipton care organisation and the Great Bridge partnership for health have pioneered new, joined-up and flexible working, which has involved GPs working with physicians' assistants and a range of nursing support. That has meant taking on roles and responsibilities that only specialist doctors undertook hitherto. In Sandwell, there is a pioneering flexibility in the provision of health care, which, by having multi-skilled groups dealing with a much wider range of health needs than under the former model, epitomises the Government's approach.
  The motion fails to convey exactly what is happening on the ground and is therefore misleading. The Minister and all hon. Members can cite statistics, but they do not do justice to what is happening, either. When talking to local health professionals in my area, I have been impressed not so much by statistics as by the almost evangelical spirit that they have displayed in meeting the sort of challenges that the area presents, and by the way in which the new structures, working methods and funding have boosted their morale. They recognise that measures such as the European working time directive are a challenge and that there are problems in recruiting doctors. Such problems have always existed in my area and the retirement of the first generation of Asian doctors will present further problems.
  However, health professionals not only recognise the problems but know that they can deal with them. The potential funding exists and there is an opportunity to make the case to meet the challenges ahead. I have been hugely impressed by the way in which they have sought to embrace the Government's agenda. Consequently, health care is improving in my locality.
  The European working time directive presents challenges and the European Court of Justice judgment creates difficulties. However, the extra funding, staffing, new ways of working and missionary zeal that I have noticed in so many local health care professionals means that the challenges will be met. The health care professionals are much better placed to do that through the Government's policies. We should reject the motion because it fails to recognise that that is the reality on the ground.
  3.10 pm
  Dr. Richard Taylor: My one fear and regret about this debate is that I might not be as welcome as I believe that I am at the moment to sit on
  340
  this side of the House after I have said what I am going to say, and that the kind Opposition Whips who alerted me to the debate might not do so again.
  I had an Adjournment debate on this very subject last November and the Minister who responded was all too aware of the worries resulting from the European working time directive. Also in November, the all-party group on local hospitals held a meeting which was addressed by the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). We were impressed by the amount of work that he had done on this matter and the urgency with which he viewed the situation. I am, therefore, slightly encouraged, as I was encouraged by some of the things that the Minister said.
  The Minister said that the Department of Health was giving priority, when implementing the working time directive, to maintaining quality and access to care. That is crucial. He also said that redesign—not relocation—would take place around the needs of local people. He added that we must not substitute tired consultants for tired junior doctors. I sympathise with the comments made by the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate). I was a junior doctor rather before he was. He was on a one-in-two rota, but I was on a one-in-one rota at a hospital that used to exist about half a mile from here. That really went far beyond a joke. I did not just forget things like he did—I actually cracked up in the middle of the job. It is therefore essential that we do not substitute tired consultants for tired juniors, and that we take note of the working hours involved.
  The Minister also said that the role of the Department was to support the NHS to meet the requirements of the directive. I want to take a few minutes to emphasise that I believe that the Government have another supremely important role to play. They have to take the part of citizens and patients, in some cases almost against the doctors. I want to draw to the attention of the House a letter in a recent edition of the British Medical Journal from a Scottish consultant neurosurgeon who was writing on the ills that afflict the NHS. He wrote:
  "These include the new deal, the consultants' contract, the general practitioners contract, the European Working Time Directive—all man-made artefacts and all preoccupied with the welfare of doctors, not patients."
  I want to bring that letter to the attention of the Government so that they can be aware of how some people might look at the changes and to note some of the snags involved, some of which have already been mentioned today and on other occasions. They are worth mentioning. The first—and, to me, the biggest— involves the risk to the continuity of care. With full-shift systems, the same doctor never looks after a patient for any length of time, and, given the pressure of work, handover processes can sometimes be rushed. Continuity of care is therefore crucial.
  The second snag involves training. Junior doctors, particularly surgeons, and trainers are questioning whether the reduced hours are giving them enough exposure to the practical procedures and operations in which they have to be supremely competent when they achieve consultant status.
  The third involves lifestyle. The Royal College of Physicians recently studied 57 hospitals across England and Wales, and found that 63 per cent. of the medical

  341
  specialist registrars on full shifts were working seven nights in a row. That cannot be comfortable for family life and it is not popular. Certainly, trainee obstetricians have found cover on full shifts very unpopular. Particular problems have been raised in relation to anaesthetics, obstetrics and paediatrics, which are services that cannot be covered in hospital at night by a generic doctor. Those specialisms pose extra problems. The answers obviously involve employing more doctors and the Government have given us figures to prove the numbers that are coming on stream. We have also heard a lot about doing things differently and there are some very good plans in that respect.
  It appeared from what the Minister said in his opening remarks—I hope that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) will confirm this—that the review being carried out in Europe might well lead to some delay in the implementation of the changes. The British Medical Association warns that, even if there is a suggestion of delay, implementing legislation to bring it about could cause further delay. The NHS Confederation makes a good point in a recent briefing note, saying:
  "We recognise that it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the working time directive is implemented but where despite trusts' best efforts it is not possible to achieve compliance, it is vital that there is a positive and supportive rather than a punitive response from the Department of Health and SHAs."
  Given the snags with the new deal that I have mentioned, the working time directive and the new contract, hospitals are at risk, particularly certain large hospitals that are situated relatively close together. I am thinking of some in my own part of the country, including those in Telford and Shrewsbury and those in Gloucester and Cheltenham. The Government must ensure that it is possible for all those hospitals to preserve the emergency facilities that the people in those areas require. There is a particularly worrying triangle in the north-east of England, around Hartlepool, Middlesbrough and Stockton. Their hospitals are all close together and are all providing all the services at the moment. As we are well known in my part of the country for campaigning, Hartlepool has already been in touch with us to ask what it can do to protect its hospital.
  There are also many smaller hospitals throughout the country that are somehow managing to maintain accident and emergency services. One has only to think of Banbury, Hexham, Workington, Bridlington, Newark and Louth. I could provide a long list of others. Those hospitals must be at risk. All this is taking place against the background of the Department of Health's paper published in February last year, "Keeping the NHS local: a new direction of travel", which I welcomed. It expressed the intent of Government policy to keep the NHS local, which is certainly compatible with local wishes. The Government will recognise that, if that is not possible, there will be a risk of political flak from various communities.
  An excellent leader appeared in the British Medical Journal recently, written by Andy Black, the well-known health service management consultant. He stressed the political risks involved in downgrading emergency services and made two useful recommendations. The first was that the Royal Colleges should find a way of connecting with the public perception of the need for local access to emergency
  342
  services. The second was the use of real "managed clinical networks", which would result in a real sharing of services. It is no good having an accident and emergency unit, and, 20 miles away, as is the case in Worcestershire, a minor injuries unit that is totally separated from it. If they worked together, with the same staff rotating between them, the staff working in the major unit would know the problems of the minor unit and the sorts of cases that the minor unit could see, which would avoid unnecessary journeys. Andy Black put his finger right on it when he said:
  "If the price of moving the complex emergency to an appropriate centre of expertise is that this patient is accompanied by another nine or 10 patients who are not complex acute cases then another set of problems is launched."
  That is exactly what we are seeing in Worcestershire— those nine or 10 patients who did not need to be moved are causing tremendous other problems.
  On the GP contract, I was puzzled by the Minister's comments on community hospitals and I hope that his hon. Friend will return to the matter in her wind-up. I must admit that I thought that community hospitals were going to be at risk with the new contract.
  I will say little about the consultant contract. I am slightly worried about today's announcement of 25,000 extra orthopaedic operations. Will that take NHS consultants away from NHS duty and make continuity of care even worse?
  I ask the Government to remember that the NHS is for the patients. It is up to the Government to be the ordinary citizen's advocate and to ensure that changes are acceptable to the public, not bulldozed through as some previous changes have been.
  3.21 pm
  Sir George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), who speaks with such authority on this subject and whose very presence in the Chamber is a reminder to us all of the potency of health as a political issue in our constituencies. He mentioned that he was approached by Hartlepool, whose local hospital is threatened, for advice. I hope that he advised that an independent candidate should stand against the Labour Member there to achieve some results.
  I want to speak briefly about the new GP contract, which I broadly welcome. Of course, it makes sense to reduce the number of hours that doctors work. If it makes no sense for MPs to be up all night and then be expected to do a proper day's work, it makes less sense for the country's doctors and GPs to have to attend to their patients when they have not had a decent night's rest.
  I sound a brief note of caution before Ministers make claims about the impact of the new contract on patients. The Minister of State, who is normally alert and fleet of foot, does not understand the depth of concern in constituencies about what will happen when the new out-of-hours contract is introduced. The evidence that I have seen is that patients in my constituency will feel worse off because the level of service will be manifestly less than it is at the moment. If steps are not taken before 1 July, when the new out-of-hours opt-out contract starts in Hampshire, Ministers may find it difficult to

  343
  convince my constituents about their investment in primary health care and their commitment to a quality service.
  There are three areas of concern on which I want to touch: first, cover at Andover hospital—the position is the same at other smaller or cottage hospitals; secondly, the loss of Saturday surgeries; and thirdly, the operation of the new out-of-hours contract, which in my case is with Primecare. None of that is the fault of the local PCT or the local GPs. Simply, the money saved by not paying GPs to provide out-of-hours cover, even when topped up by new money from the Department, is not enough to replicate the service that GPs currently provide, mainly because it was provided on the cheap.
  Let me begin with Saturday surgeries, which have not really featured in this debate. At the moment, I can see my GP in Andover on a Saturday. For those who commute from Andover or who work long hours, that may be the only time that they can see their GP without taking time off work. Last Saturday, my GP saw 15 patients and processed a number of repeat prescriptions. With the new contract, Saturday is out of hours, so the local GPs are not contracted to provide any service on that day. They could do so if the local PCT bought it in as a local enhanced service, but my PCT does not have the resources to do so, a point to which I will return in a moment.
  My PCT is struggling with funding for taking over the out-of-hours service. It has been allocated 6 per cent. of what is called the global sum, part of the GP income stream, and GPs have taken a commensurate reduction. But that is simply not enough to replace the service. I know of only one GP practice that is going to open extra-contractually on a Saturday and that is a dispensing practice in a neighbouring constituency that can do so from the dispensing surplus. None of the surgeries in Andover will be accessible on a Saturday.
  In fairness, there are plans for a replacement GP service. On Saturday and Sunday, there will be five sessions at Andover hospital operated by a GP or GP registrar. It may be bookable, but, basically, it is open house. Of course, one will not see one's own GP and the GP whom one sees will not have access to one's records. For most people, the hospital is more difficult to access then their local medical centre, so by any definition, the service offered on a Saturday will be seen by my constituents as reduced.
  Then we have the position of Andover hospital. Andover is the largest town in my constituency, with a population of 40,000 and growing. The Andover War Memorial hospital hosts a range of services, including out-patients, diagnostic imaging, day surgery and so on. For anything more serious, one must go 15 miles to Winchester. At the moment, out-of-hours cover at that hospital is provided by local GPs, so one can go to the minor injuries unit at any time and be treated. A nurse deals with the patient and, if required, a GP will be called out. Although details of the contract after 1 July are still being negotiated, it looks very much as if there will be no local GP cover at the hospital out of hours. From 6.30 pm to 11 pm, some service may be provided by nurses, but from 11 pm to 8 am, it looks as if the minor injuries unit will be closed. At the moment, people can look in at 2 am and get treated. As from 1 July, those
  344
  who want that treatment will have to drive 15 miles to Winchester to get it—by any reckoning, a reduction in service.
  Finally, there is the operation of the new out-of-hours service to be provided by Primecare and funded through the PCT. At the moment, calls from patients in Andover are answered by a local nurse until 11 pm and thereafter by the on-call doctor in person. In future, the plans are to route calls initially to Birmingham and then to Southampton—the local hub—and if a GP is required, he will drive from Southampton or possibly Winchester. At the moment, cover in Andover is provided by a rota of local doctors and the response is obviously much quicker. However that is presented, it will be seen locally as a reduction in service.
  I want to end on a theme that, I am afraid, I have mentioned previously. The reason for all this is that Hampshire, and particularly Mid Hampshire PCT, is simply underfunded. For every £100 that the average patient in England gets, Mid Hampshire gets £80. At that level, it is simply not possible to provide the quality of service that Ministers and I, as the local MP, want. That is why in all the debates on heath services in Hampshire, whether primary care or secondary care, we return to the underlying structural imbalance in the way that funds are distributed. Until Ministers address that fundamental point, they will continue to have difficulty persuading my constituents that the NHS is as good as they make out.
  3.28 pm
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: This has been a good debate, throughout which excellent speeches have been made. I was particularly struck by the quality of the Conservative speakers, who included no fewer than three Privy Councillors.
  A number of interesting points have been raised. It is a pity that the Minister was ever so slightly prickly in his opening remarks, for he had no need to be. Our motion was tabled in good faith. While we broadly support much of what has been discussed today, we have problems—problems raised with us by our constituents. It is right and proper for us to counsel caution when it comes to matters that affect a vast work force, one of the biggest in the western world. I hope that Ministers will take that in good spirit, and will do their level best to respond to the genuine concerns that have been expressed.
  The Opposition believe that the health and safety of doctors and their patients should not be compromised. Doctors should not be forced to work unacceptably long hours. We have heard from two doctors today, who spoke of one-in-two and even one-in-one rotas. I worked a one-in-two rota for two years. I would like to say, in a curmudgeonly sort of way, that it did me no harm; but I will not say that, because I suspect that it did harm me, and I am sure that it did not do my patients any good at all.
  I think back to 1991, when a Conservative Government produced "The New Deal for Junior Doctors". It was a good piece of work but, sadly, by March 2002 the BMA was complaining that a third of juniors were still working beyond the limits set by it. During the intervening time, we had failed to get to grips with what I consider to have been a very positive

  345
  measure. That leaves me somewhat concerned about the future of the working time directive, and Ministers' sincere and well-meant efforts to improve things for junior doctors and, most important, the patients in their charge.
  In January the Minister of State told us:
  "Complying with the Working Time Directive need be neither costly nor a burden."
  I trust the Minister implicitly, but I have sought a second opinion. I have written to 170 acute trust chief executives asking for their views on how things stand. I asked them what problems they envisage in the meeting of deadlines, what assistance they are being given by Government, and how they think it will all pan out in the months ahead. I have received good, if mixed, responses. As might be expected, those from people making their careers in the health service are fairly positive. In general, they constitute measured and reasonable attempts to address the big problem that all the respondents clearly face.
  One word occurs time and time again—"challenging". All the respondents feel challenged by the directive. "Challenging" can mean many things, not necessarily bad, but I believe that in the context of my inquiry those people really do feel up against it. I am not surprised that no one now seriously believes that the targets that have been set will be met throughout the NHS—the Minister said as much today. It would be interesting to know where the trusts stand in terms of the penalties that may apply if they do not meet those targets; I should like to hear what the Minister thinks.
  The Minister says that trusts have been given £46 million to meet the costs of compliance. I must press him on that. The matter was debated in European Standing Committee C, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) pointed out earlier, we have not been given all the answers that we would like to have been given. It is all to do with quantifying the costs. Last month, in the Committee, we finally managed to elicit from the Minister the fact that compliance could cost up to £780 million and require between 6,000 and 12,000 more doctors. The upper limit exceeds even my estimate, based on my poll of acute trust chief executives. It also exceeds the BMA's estimate. If the Minister genuinely believes that the cost will reach that level, we need more details—in writing.
  I was further confused by a written answer, which I received only yesterday, to a parliamentary question that I tabled 10 days ago about the methodology used by Ministers to arrive at these figures. I was told:
  "Actual costs or numbers of additional staff required are not held centrally and could not in any case be disaggregated from the overall cost of NHS growth and modernisation."
  That is rather odd, coming from a Government with an insatiable demand for data relating to targets they have set with a view to the generation of politically obliging headlines, which we see all the time. I really must press Ministers on whether they are sticking to the figures of up to £780 million and between 6,000 and 12,000 doctors—and, if so, on how those figures are derived.
  The Minister of State made a confusing statement concerning the guidance that was issued to European Standing Committee C about the possibility that that upper figure might be shifted downward if we used alternative means of providing the cover currently
  346
  provided by doctors. I hope that the Minister will clarify that in her closing speech because, if it is wrong, we should know about it.
  Paragraph 3.1 of the guidance says:
  "The cost of recruiting the several thousand extra middle grade doctors required for the UK would run into hundreds of millions of pounds per annum. This includes on costs, overheads and training costs. The alternatives to employing additional doctors as set out above are likely to cost approximately the same as recruiting more doctors."
  Are we saying that £780 million is a reasonable reflection, or are we seriously saying that by changing working practices and using other health care professionals the figure can be brought down, because that is not what the Department's own written guidance says? I seek clarification from the Minister.
  The Government have rightly increased the number of places at medical schools, but I would like to know how they arrived at the figures that they think are required. We have heard that they feel that between 6,000 and 12,000 more doctors will be needed to satisfy the working time directive, but I cannot believe that the number of places provided at medical schools has been calculated on an empirical basis. I hope that the directive and its strictures have been factored into the assessment that Ministers have presumably made of how many doctors we will need in the future.
  An historical example emphasises the point in a cautionary way. In the 1970s, consecutive Governments predicted the number of dentists that we might need now, based on the incidence of dental caries and the fact that fluoridation was predicted to reduce it. Unfortunately, they got it wrong, and that is at the heart of our current problems with NHS dentistry. We do not want to repeat such a mistake, do we?
  The working time directive was incorporated into domestic legislation in 1998, yet it was 2002 before invitations were issued to undertake pilot schemes in the NHS. It is not good enough for Ministers to say that the problem with the roll-out of those schemes has been anyone's fault but the Government's. It is unreasonable to say to trusts that they have not got their act together, as it is clear when one considers the time scales involved that the fault does not lie with them at all. Indeed, contrary to Ministers' assertions, many of them have been quite enthusiastic about the schemes. I cite in particular the hospital at night schemes, which many of them have warmly embraced, and rightly so. Of course they favour the more efficient use of human resources, but none of the ones that I consulted is under any illusion that hospital at night or any other piloted scheme could address the staffing shortfall. One trust said:
  "None of the projects has achieved working time compliance and they have required central funding which may not be available when the initial project ends."
  Yesterday, we saw the most extraordinary three-point turn in recent political history. The Prime Minister might have set something of a trend. If so, in the new spirit of openness, it would be refreshing to hear whether Ministers, in retrospect, are content with the way in which they have handled the implementation of the European working time directive, or whether on reflection they share the obvious concerns expressed by the trusts that I have consulted.
  As EUROSTAThas shown, our health service is fundamentally different from those in Europe. We have 1.4 junior doctors for every senior doctor, while Europe has one junior for every four seniors—it is turned on its head. We have the fewest doctors per head of population in Europe. Because of the slack in Europe and because it has proportionally far fewer juniors, it is arguably better placed to implement the directive with relative ease, while our NHS will clearly struggle with it. The NHS will clearly feel challenged by the directive; "challenging" is the word that has come across time and time again in the consultation exercise that we have undertaken.
  That is surely all the more reason for the early pilot schemes that we simply have not had. There were four wasted years between the implementation of the directive in 1998 and the invitation to conduct pilots in 2002.
  Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman has just tried to make the argument that only the UK faces that particular pressure for additional doctors. I do not know whether he has read the submissions that all the other member states of the European Union have made to the Commission, itemising the difficulties that they face in implementing the directive, but if he has, he will have seen the long list of additional doctors that Germany, France, Sweden, Holland and Italy all require to meet the terms of the SIMAP and Jaeger judgments. This is not just an English problem.
  Dr. Murrison: Of course it is not just an English problem. The point that I was trying to make by giving EUROSTAT statistics is that our NHS is fundamentally different from systems that operate on the continent. I am sure that the Minister accepts that and, in particular, the statistics on the ratio of junior doctors to senior doctors. Clearly this matter primarily involves junior doctors, and if the Minister cannot understand that, he merely underscores my concerns. We know that there are far more doctors per head of population in Europe than in this country. Clearly, the employment environment in the health service in this country is fundamentally different from that which applies in Europe, which makes the roll-out of the European working time directive far easier in Europe than in this country. I am sure that the Minister must admit that.
  Several right hon. and hon. Members have rightly discussed cottage hospitals, and I am worried, from the Minister's remarks, that he perhaps does not fully appreciate the impact that the GP contract might have on community hospitals. I have cited my specific example and from the conversations that I have had, I am sure that it is mirrored up and down the country.
  It is just not good enough to say that the new GP contract has nothing to do with any contractual arrangements that GPs may have with community hospitals. There are clearly bolt-on effects. Although I accept that there is limited direct linkage between GPs' contracts to provide out-of-hours cover to their patients and their arrangements with community hospitals, in practice, as I am sure other hon. Members will bear out, GPs facing the removal of their out-of-hours obligation
  348
  will not then subscribe to the knock-on obligation to community hospitals to which they currently subscribe. That is the current problem for community hospitals. If the Minister does not appreciate that, he must go back and examine the matter, which is a real concern in my area and many others. We have heard about it in other contributions today.
  "Keeping the NHS Local", published in February 2003, was a good document that Ministers perhaps need to dust down and remind themselves of. They need to remind themselves—I hope that they will be reminded of this in the big conversation—that people want their health care delivered locally. Will Ministers please dust down "Keeping the NHS Local" and apply it to the current problem of GPs opting out of their community hospital cover? Two of my community hospitals, in Warminster and Westbury, have already sustained closures this year, in the stroke unit and one of the general wards. Those closures are directly related to the current debate on GPs' hours.
  We have heard about Saturday morning surgeries, and we might also have heard about the problems that GPs will face on Monday mornings. If there is perceived to be inadequate or patchy cover over the weekend, people might be queueing up on a Monday morning to get the treatment that they want from their doctor. I hope that Ministers are looking into that.
  The Government have known since 1998, and arguably earlier, that the European working time directive would pose serious problems to the NHS. They should have known about the potentially devastating implications of the new GP contract for community hospitals. Ministers knew that staffing costs would rise, and that the supply of doctors would be insufficient for needs. They knew that any extra money for the NHS would be mopped up by some of the extra costs brought about by a series of initiatives—not only the European working time directive—introduced since 1997. Disingenuously, they have referred to extra doctors when they should have been talking about the likely reduction in doctor hours available to the service by 2009. They have over-hyped cash flow, knowing full well that much of that will not reach the front line. It is little wonder that our constituents stand aghast as Ministers deliver evermore upbeat assessments of improvements in the NHS.
  3.44 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): In introducing this afternoon's debate, the Opposition have alleged that Ministers are somehow complacent about the implementation of the European working time directive in respect of junior doctors' hours and have failed to anticipate the effect of the new GP contract on out-of-hours cover. On the Government side, we have shown that that is plainly not the case.
  The starting point of the debate is whether doctors ought to be working excessive hours. We believe that, whether they are working in hospitals or general practice, it is bad for doctors to have to take critical decisions while overtired and overworked. That was eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard).

  349
  My fellow Minister of State made it clear in his opening contribution that on the issue of out-of-hours cover, the Opposition have ignored both the statutory duty of primary care trusts to provide it and what is actually happening on the ground. As my right hon. Friend said, at the moment only 5 per cent. of GPs provide their own out-of-hours cover. GP co-operatives and private providers already carry out most of the cover and we are continuing to work to ensure that the new arrangements work well and in the best interests of patients.
  The right hon. Members for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) drew attention to some of the difficulties in bringing about out-of-hours cover and the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks particularly drew attention to what is happening in rural areas and to the challenges that they face. I was pleased that both Members drew attention to the hard work being put in to ensure that there is no reduction in services, and they received assurances that that would not be the case as more resources were going in. As my right hon. Friend said, specific allocations have been made to rural areas on top of the extra £350 million targeted to support out-of-hours services.
  With regard to the working time directive and junior doctors hours, my right hon. Friend told the House that because of the recent decisions of the European Court of Justice, implementation of the directive will be very demanding for the NHS. The right non. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) also referred to that. We agree about the difficulties, which is why, together with other European countries, we have made clear our concerns—and the Commission has accepted that the directive needs to be amended. My right hon. Friend gave the House an assurance that he would keep it fully informed of developments in that respect.
  Dr. John Pugh: Will the hon. Lady also emphasise that Ministers have constantly been in touch with the small hospitals group and that meetings have taken place with those hospitals and with the Royal College of Physicians to discuss the working time directive and the European dimension?
  Ms Winterton: Yes, my right hon. Friend has certainly met them and continues to engage in discussions with them.
  At the same time as successfully making representations to the Commission, we have put in train a number of measures to reduce junior doctors' hours, to increase the numbers of doctors in training, and to establish pilot schemes to look into the implementation of the working time directive. In doing so, we have made it clear that our priority is to implement the directive in a way that maintains both the quality and accessibility of NHS services—a commitment praised by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), who also praised the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I mention that because my right hon. Friend was not in his place at the time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) referred to new ways of working that will be necessary to ensure that we maintain service provision. For example, he highlighted in his area the
  350
  better use of nurses' time and skills. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) mentioned that as well, and referred particularly to the role that pharmacists can play. We need to consider the role that they can play under the new contract, and my hon. Friend knows that I strongly support such a move.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) raised the issue of what would happen if trusts were not compliant. Pilots spread best practice, as we know from the results so far, and it is unlikely that the whole of a trust will be not compliant. Certain areas will have particular difficulties, including, for example, obstetrics—as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest pointed out—and, possibly, paediatrics. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State meets regularly with the BMA and others and will issue guidance on problems that may arise in such specialties.
  The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) raised the issue of cost. As my right hon. Friend said, some £46 million has been provided to assist with compliance, but it is impossible to disentangle plans for compliance from trust plans to modernise and improve services generally, as well to meet other key NHS priorities. We have not asked trusts to quantify costs separately as that would be an added burden. Planning for working time directive compliance forms part of overall NHS planning, but in each trust the solutions will need to fit local circumstances, which will differ from place to place.
  The hon. Members for Westbury, for Wyre Forest and for Sutton and Cheam raised the issue of community hospitals and out-of-hours services. I reiterate that the new general medical services contracts have no bearing on the arrangements whereby GPs provide medical cover for patients occupying beds in community hospitals. Agreements that GPs may have with a community hospital are separate from their primary medical services contracts, and PCTs should decide locally how to commission such work as part of their broader commissioning strategy. Discussions have taken place in Warminster, and continue to take place. Three months cover has now been provided, as the hon. Member for Westbury knows—we have corresponded on the matter—and the minor injuries unit has been reallocated to Westbury.
  Yet again, the Opposition have shown us that they are less interested in solutions and what is best for patients, staff and those who make our health service work, and more interested in sniping about the NHS and undermining those who work in it. That is not surprising, because when they were in power the attempts they made to reduce working hours for junior doctors were too little, too late. When in power, they also cut trainee numbers. This Government have reduced the hours of doctors in training: 95 per cent. of them now work for 56 hours or fewer a week. This Government have increased work force numbers so that there are almost 7,300 more consultants and 67,500 more nurses than there were in 1997. This Government have increased the number of medical school places so that 6,030 students entered medical school in 2003.
  Also, this Government's new GP contract has been welcomed by the BMA as being
  "better for patients and better for everyone working in general practice".

  351
  The Government welcome the overall aims of the working time directive to ensure humane working hours for doctors, but those on the Opposition Front Bench have not learned any lessons. They have not said that they would recruit more health staff than we are recruiting already; nor have they said what reforms to contracts and working practices they would introduce. In fact, they have said very little of substance—but perhaps I am being slightly unfair, as they said that they would support the agenda for change.
  Opposition Members might like to look at an article in The Times on 24 November—an interview with the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo)—which says:
  "The Conservative Party put itself on a collision course with doctors and nurses last night by announcing plans to scrap national pay agreements in favour of local hospital deals with staff."
  It continues:
  "The policy has been condemned by the British Medical Association as 'divisive', while the Royal College of Nurses said that it would do nothing to solve recruitment problems."
  The hon. Gentleman insisted:
  "What we want is for hospitals to be able to reflect local conditions and have the freedom to negotiate with their staff. That is one of the characteristics of independence in our view. Clearly the more independence you bestow on an employer, the less scope there is for uniform national contracts."
  Of course the Government appreciate that the Opposition are still tying down certain aspects of their health policy—in fact, most of it—but we had hoped for something more constructive and less muddled from them when they decided on the topic for today's debate.
  The Government are working with patients and staff to deliver real improvements in the NHS for the benefit of everyone. Only the Conservative party does down the NHS, because it does not share our belief that the NHS is the best way to deliver decent health care to everyone in this country. That has always been the case, and we have heard today that, despite all the Conservative party's rhetoric and protestations, it really does not believe in the health service. Not only are 166 Conservative MPs sending out that message, but we now know that a whole gang of prospective parliamentary candidates, highlighted today, are also going out and undermining NHS staff.
  We believe in the NHS, which is why I urge the House to vote against the Opposition motion and for the Government amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 303.

  Division No. 134]

  [3.58 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Allan, Richard

  Barrett, John

  Amess, David

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Bacon, Richard

  Blunt, Crispin

  Baker, Norman

  Boswell, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  352

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Surrey)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Brady, Graham

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Keetch, Paul

  Brazier, Julian

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Inverness)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Burnside, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burstow, Paul

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Burt, Alistair

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Lamb, Norman

  Cameron, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Leigh, Edward

  Fife)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Cash, William

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Lidington, David

  Barnet)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Chidgey, David

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Chope, Christopher

  Loughton, Tim

  Clappison, James

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Collins, Tim

  Maclean, rh David

  Conway, Derek

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cotter, Brian

  Maples, John

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Mates, Michael

  Curry, rh David

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Mercer, Patrick

  Stamford)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Coldfield)

  Howden)

  Moore, Michael

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Dodds, Nigel

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Norman, Archie

  Doughty, Sue

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Evans, Nigel

  öpik, Lembit

  Fabricant, Michael

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Fallon, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Page, Richard

  Westminster)

  Paice, James

  Flight, Howard

  Paterson, Owen

  Flook, Adrian

  Pickles, Eric

  Forth, rh Eric

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Francois, Mark

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Dinefwr)

  Garnier, Edward

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Randall, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Redwood, rh John

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Rendel, David

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Hague, rh William

  M-Kent)

  Hammond, Philip

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hancock, Mike

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Harvey, Nick

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Ruffley, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Heath, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hendry, Charles

  Selous, Andrew

  Hermon, Lady

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Holmes, Paul

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

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Kincardine)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jack, rh Michael

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  353

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Viggers, Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Walter, Robert

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Steen, Anthony

  Watkinson, Angela

  Streeter, Gary

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Syms, Robert

  Willetts, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  )Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Willis, Phil

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wilshire, David

  Teather, Sarah

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Tredinnick, David

  Young, rh Sir George

  Trend, Michael

  Younger Ross, Richard

  Trimble, rh David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Gregory Barker and

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mr. Peter Atkinson

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Coaker, Vernon

  Ainger, Nick

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cohen, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Coleman lain

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Corston, Jean

  Darwen)

  Cousins, Jim

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cranston Ross

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Crausby, David

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cruddas, Jon

  Baird, Vera

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Battle, John

  Cummings John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bennett, Andrew

  Dalyell, Tam

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Berry, Roger

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Best, Harold

  Davey. Valerie (Bristol W)

  Betts, Clive

  David, Wayne

  Blackman, Liz

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dawson, Hilton

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Borrow, David

  Denham, rh John

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Wallsend)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Bryant, Chris

  Donohoe. Brian H.

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Doran, Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Burnham, Andy

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Cairns, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Edwards, HuW

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Efford, Clive

  Casale, Roger

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Caton, Martin

  Etherington Bill

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Challen, Colin

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Clapham, Michael

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Flint, Caroline

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Pentlands)

  Follett, Barbara

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Chryston)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  & Rye)

  Clelland, David

  Foulkes, rh George

  354

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McDonnell, John

  Gilroy, Linda

  McFall, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McGrady, Eddie

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hain, rh Peter

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hanson, David

  McWilliam, John

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Rhymney)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Healey, John

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Heppell, John

  Shettleston)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Merron, Gillian

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Miliband, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Miller, Andrew

  Sefton E)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mole, Chris

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morgan, Julie

  Hutton, rh John

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Illsley, Eric

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Irranca- Davies, Huw

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Highgate)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jamieson, David

  Olner, Bill

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Organ, Diana

  Hatfield)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Perham, Linda

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Picking, Anne

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Pound, Stephen

  Kidney, David

  Prescott, rh John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Purchase, Ken

  Bow)

  Purnell, James

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Lepper, David

  Anniesland)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  NW)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Linton, Martin

  Rooney, Terry

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Love, Andrew

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Ruane, Chris

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCabe, Stephen

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  McCafferty, Chris

  Chester)

  355

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Salter, Martin

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Trickett, Jon

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Truswell, Paul

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Sheridan, Jim

  Kemptown)

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Lunesdale)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Ward, Claire

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  White, Brian

  Soley, Clive

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Southworth, Helen

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Spellar, rh John

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wills, Michael

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Winnick, David

  Lochaber)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  C)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Woodward, Shaun

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Woolas, Phil

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Worthington, Tony

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Yarmouth)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Timms, Stephen

  Ms Bridget Prentice and

  Tipping, Paddy

  Charlotte Atkins

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the overall aims of the European Working Time Directive (EWTD) to ensure humane working hours for doctors in training; further welcomes the Government's lobbying of the European Commission and other EU Member States which has resulted in the Commission's giving assurances that they will bring forward legislative proposals on the EWTD before the summer; notes the dramatic reduction in the hours of doctors in training which means that 95 per cent. of them now work for 56 hours or fewer; congratulates the Government on the increases in workforce numbers and medical school places, which mean there are now almost 7,000 more consultants and 55,000 more nurses than there were in 1997, and that 6,030 students entered medical school in England in autumn 2003; welcomes the work being done in the National Health Service in implementing new ways of working that contribute to modernising and improving services and meeting the obligations of the Directive; and joins the Chairman of the BMA's General Practitioners Committee in welcoming the new GP contract as being "better for patients and better for everyone working in general practice" and notes that it will allow primary care trusts to offer patients a safe, high quality service, with care delivered by the most appropriate professional, through better use of more joined-up services.

  London
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): We now come to the second debate on the Opposition motions. Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.14 pm
  Mr. Mark Field: I beg to move,
  That this House takes pride in London's heritage and status as a leading global capital city; notes that its outstanding success over many centuries has depended upon its rich mix of people, innovation and energy; further notes that it is an international leader in financial services, the arts, media, higher education, medicine and scientific research and tourism; regrets that this enviable competitive advantage is now threatened by the diminution in the quality of life of Londoners and those who come to work in the capital; recognises that insecurity brought about by the threat of terrorist action and rising levels of crime and antisocial behaviour, failing public services, overcrowded and unreliable transport, alongside an ever increasing tax burden on all Londoners, will undermine the capital's global reputation as a great place to live and do business; and calls upon the Government and its Mayoral candidate, Ken Livingstone, to address the needs of the people of London and improve the quality and choice of services in the capital
  London is a global city. Its outstanding success is based on its unique diversity, that rich mix of people, innovation and energy that has served our capital so well over the 2,000 years since its foundation. But today, for the first time in countless generations, there is a clear sense that Londoners' quality of life is not improving and that public services are deteriorating. London's historic position at the centre of the UK's political, commercial and cultural life makes it unusually important, even among leading world cities. Truly, if London fails, the UK fails. When London's economy, culture or entrepreneurial spirit suffers, so, too, does Britain's as a whole.
  However, the continued success of London cannot be taken for granted. Although it faces infrastructure challenges similar to those it faced in the past, those were overcome at various stages throughout its long history. Today's global terrorist threat challenges urban policy makers throughout our nation, as well as across the world. Looking ahead, the Government need to understand the importance of London asserting its commercial competitive advantage not only among its traditional rivals in western Europe or north America, but increasingly in the face of competition from China and India, the two emerging economic powerhouses of the 21st century.
  National politicians, local community leaders and businesses must recognise and embrace the diversity, vitality and energy of our capital. London needs more vision and commercial acumen than has been apparent in recent years. An increasing sense of powerlessness and insecurity is felt by many who live in London, together with a desire for the reassertion of a stronger sense of civic awareness. For although the economy has generally thrived, the overall quality of life for Londoners over the past seven years has not improved. I trust that some of these sentiments will be shared throughout the House. By moving the motion today, the official Opposition call upon the Government and their

  357
  mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone to address more fully the needs of London's residents, commuters and tourists alike.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Beckenham) (Con): My hon. Friend mentioned commuters, and as he knows, my constituency consists largely of commuters. He may also be aware that yesterday the Minister of State, Department for Transport referred to the work being planned for London Bridge and the bottleneck of trains there. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Strategic Rail Authority is threatening to reduce the number of peak hour trains on one line, the Hayes line through Beckenham, by one third, and to dump my commuters at Cannon Street rather than at Charing Cross? What support does my hon. Friend believe my commuters need, and what do the Government need to do to ensure that commuters from Beckenham are able to add to the commercial success of London?
  Mr. Field: I am only saddened that my hon. Friend thinks her commuters are being dumped from one part of my constituency, Cannon Street, to another, Charing Cross. There are no dumps in the Cities of London and Westminster. However, my hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I am sure will appear in the "Beckenham Evening Advertiser" and various other local papers in the next week or two.
  Today I want to highlight the failings of the Government and London's Mayor in four main areas: crime and disorder, dealing with the threat of terrorist action, transport, and the burden of taxation on London's businesses and residents. Crime and antisocial behaviour are undoubtedly the most critical issues that face London. In every part of the capital it has been confirmed in every survey without exception that too many people, regardless of their background, age or income, do not feel safe on the capital's streets.
  That sense of insecurity is justified by much of the evidence. Crime has continued to increase in the four years since Mayor Livingstone's election. One is more likely to be mugged in London than in New York—19 of London's 32 Metropolitan police boroughs are more dangerous than the notorious Bronx district of New York.
  Clive Efford: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Sir John Stevens has written a note to all mayoral candidates warning them not to misrepresent statistics on crime in London? He highlighted the fact that London is one of the safest regions in the country, according to the latest British crime survey. Is not the hon. Gentleman committing the same crime as his party's mayoral candidate did in the Evening Standard and misrepresenting crime figures in London?
  Mr. Field: Misrepresentation is a two-way street in this case. One of the statistics in the so-called confidential survey—I understand that it has been leaked to The Guardian today and was not due to be published until next week—makes it plain that when figures for murder and rape are aggregated with those for other assaults in the violent crime category, the picture looks quite good. However, the number of
  358
  murders and rapes—the more serious violent crimes—has indeed risen over the past four years. Misrepresentation is very much a two-way street.
  Clive Efford: The hon. Gentleman is again guilty of misrepresentation. In the Evening Standard, the Conservative mayoral candidate has suggested that crime rates in London are similar to those in New York. The hon. Gentleman referred to murder rates. There are about 1,000 murders a year in New York, but the annual figure has consistently remained at about 200 in London, so the comparison is not consistent.
  Mr. Field: Let me make it absolutely clear: overall crime rates in London and New York are not comparable, as they are now far worse in London than in New York, mainly as a result of some of the policies about which I shall speak in some detail later.
  Simon Hughes: I should like to confirm the point made by the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). The Metropolitan police are concerned that the Conservative colleague of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) is not giving the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the London crime figures. Representing things as worse than they are and suggesting that crime generally across London is increasing not only fails to represent the accurate position, but adds to fear of crime, which for many people is just as serious as crime itself.
  Mr. Field: The people of London will have their say on this matter in the next few weeks. Whether or not we have more police on the streets, the message from Londoners is absolutely clear: on crime, Labour has let us down.
  Ms Karen Buck rose—
  Mr. Field: I give way to my neighbour.
  Ms Buck: I am grateful to my neighbour for giving way.
  Has the hon. Gentleman had a chance to look at the civic newspaper of our shared borough, the Conservative-controlled borough of Westminster, which said in March:
  "Efforts are having a positive impact and we are pleased to report that recently released crime statistics show a significant reduction in a number of categories of crime"?
  Mr. Field: As I said, we will see what people have to say over the next seven weeks, during the course of the campaign.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Field: No; I must make some progress.
  There has to be another way. The Conservative mayoral candidate, Steve Norris, returned yesterday from a four-day trip to New York, where he met Rudolph Giuliani, the former mayor of New York city,

  359
  who has long observed that it is not headline-grabbing crime rates alone that induce the sense of insecurity to which I have referred. Ironically, it is the physical evidence of antisocial behaviour—the sight of graffiti, vandalism and yobbishness on our streets—that has a much greater influence on quality of life for people in the capital. Indeed, antisocial behaviour is now judged to be worse in London than in any other city in the UK.
  Paradoxically, the amount spent on policing has never been greater. I accept that, and I also appreciate that we now have some 30,000 uniformed police officers and community support officers here in the capital—the highest number ever. While the costs of policing have escalated to almost £3 billion a year, however, there has been no corresponding reduction in the fear of becoming a victim of crime here in the capital. Detection rates have also fallen to below 15 per cent., after a sustained fall since six years ago, when detection stood at roughly one quarter.
  Many of Steve Norris's ideas and recommendations challenge contemporary assumptions about the nature of policing in the UK, and we as Conservatives promise Londoners that under a Tory Mayor, starting on 11 June, there will be a fundamental change in the management and organisation of the police here in the capital.
  Mr. Eric Forth: On that very theme, I hope that my hon. Friend can also reassure those in the outer London boroughs such as Bromley that full attention will be paid to their concerns. Although the overall number of police officers in the metropolitan area may well have increased—we must all welcome that—in my borough of Bromley, the number of police officers is still fewer than in 1997. I therefore hope that we will get a pledge from our mayoral candidate, and indeed from my hon. Friend, that under a Conservative administration and Mayor, the outer London boroughs would receive full and proper attention.
  Mr. Field: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. The threat of terrorism has increased in my central London constituency, and the number of uniformed police officers has inevitably increased, in my patch above all, since 11 September 2001. The price has had to be paid in the suburbs, which are represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and the Conservative mayoral candidate will emphasise that point.
  Mr. John Randall: Although terrorist targets are in the centre of London, terrorist suspects are being picked up in the suburbs.
  Mr. Field: I entirely accept that point. My hon. Friend represents part of Heathrow airport, although I understand that most terrorist suspects are moved across to Paddington Green police station before too long.
  One arm of the Government is often blissfully unaware what the other arm is doing. For example, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport saw the
  360
  Licensing Act 2003 as encouraging all-night activity on our city streets. The widespread deregulation of pubs and other licensed premises was supposed to herald a 24-hour city culture, yet at the same time the Home Office has made much of its eye-catching initiatives, which are, in the main, failures, to clamp down on antisocial behaviour. Do the Government recognise that drunken loutishness and disturbance has skyrocketed as a result of their failure to provide effective policing on the streets in the early hours, along with round the clock public transport to ferry all-night drinkers back to their homes? Many London residents have had their lives turned into hell, not only in the west end in my constituency but in places such as Croydon, Ealing and Romford, and they recognise that Labour has let them down.
  From the fate that befell Spain last month, it is clear that the threat of global terrorism is serious and imminent, and nowhere more so than here in the capital. However, the Government strategy appears to be to wait for what they regard as an "inevitable attack" and then—and only then—to act. That cannot be the right way forward. The public have been told almost nothing about the nature of the terrorist threat. There has been virtually no formal training, and the emergency services here in London would be stretched in trying to deal with the aftermath of a major incident.
  The Home Secretary has spent much of the past two and a half years introducing an array of new laws to the statute book, undermining many of this country's traditional freedoms. At the same time, he has by his own admission lost control of the immigration system to the extent that tens of thousands of people find their way illegally into this country every year and simply go underground, out of sight of the security services.
  Ms Diane Abbott: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the Government have adopted a wait and see policy on the terrorist threat, when exercises have been conducted and money has been spent? The efforts of the Mayor, Ministers and the Metropolitan police cannot be described as a "wait and see policy". That is an insult to dedicated professionals.
  Mr. Field: It is not an insult. The single exercise was delayed by some six months, and training has been insufficient. Meanwhile, most people take the view, which was recently expressed by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, that an attack is inevitable.
  Mr. Dismore: I am bemused, because at a recent meeting Sir John Stevens said that one in 10 London police officers are now engaged in some form of antiterrorism work, and we also have 200 extra firefighters specifically for that purpose. Are those not proper preparations?
  Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that it is a question of educating the public. Perhaps 3,000 police are engaged in anti-terrorist activity, but we must educate the public at large, including tourists and people who work in London. In that regard, the policy has been little more than wait and see, and the Government have failed.
  John McDonnell: Today's Metro London reports an alleged threat to Heathrow airport, and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and I have attended all-party meetings with the Minister to discuss security at Heathrow. We came away reassured about the intensity of the cooperation between Government, Mayor, Metropolitan police and BAA about security arrangements at Heathrow. Indeed, a number of exercises and reports have identified individual problems that have been addressed, even to the point of putting tanks around Heathrow on that occasion. We engage in knockabout when we speak, but it is important to reassure people that Heathrow airport is the safest in the world.
  Mr. Field: I appreciate that. Equally, however, there is a distinction between reassurance and complacency, and we must not be complacent about the fact that it may be at risk.
  Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Field: No, I must make some progress.
  At the same time as the Home Secretary has lost control of the immigration system, we have pressed the Government to build up a proper civil contingency reaction force here in London. Although London is the prime UK terrorist target, it is massively short of such a capability and heavily reliant on Territorial Army reservists. And where is the main London TA regiment today? Many of those brave reservists find themselves on duty in Iraq, doing incredibly worthwhile work in Basra—probably during the past 24 hours, given the horrendous events that have taken place. Nevertheless, they leave an enormous gap in London's protective cover.
  The Government need to instil confidence in those who live, work and travel to London and more—much more—needs to be done to keep the terrible threat posed by those tenacious terrorists at bay.
  Linda Perham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Field: No, I must make some progress, if the hon. Lady will excuse me.
  All too often, the Government talk big about their resolve in the face of terrorism, but pass the responsibility to local authorities without adequate financial resource for contingency, resilience and emergency planning.
  Labour has let Londoners down on public transport, which has become ever more overcrowded and unreliable than in May 1997, when the newly elected Government launched with a great fanfare their now defunct 10-year transport strategy. Their continued refusal to fund Crossrail is not simply a London but a national disgrace.
  On the whole, then, the Government's has been rather a dismal performance; but Mayor Livingstone, the Labour party's candidate this June, has an even more threadbare record. In his four years as Mayor, he has wasted millions of pounds of Londoners' money on suing the Government in a futile attempt to block the public-private partnership on the London underground.
  362
  That has resulted in his first term being characterised by the continued rapid deterioration in the capital's tube without any strategy for future investment. At the same time, he has struck a Faustian bargain with Bob Crow and the extremist RMT trade union, which has sought, through repeated industrial action on the tube—I fear that Londoners will see more of that in the hot summer months ahead—to hold London's businesses, commuters and residents to ransom.
  There is a widely held myth that the Mayor has been responsible for a fabulously successful transport policy. It is certainly the case that the congestion charge in central London, which was introduced in February 2003, did not lead to the riots on the streets that many might have predicted. However, it is costing immeasurably more to administer than it is bringing in in revenue. Initial projections suggested that Livingstone's tax on London's car owners would raise some £200 million in annual revenues, which Londoners were assured would be invested in improvements to the transport infrastructure in the capital. Instead, in its first full year of operation, the congestion charge has barely broken even, while serious doubts are emerging as to the efficiency with which fines for those who flout the charge are being enforced.
  Kate Hoey: I agree with aspects of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about congestion charging, but his own borough of Westminster has not been very pro-car either. Its parking enforcements have been badly handled—so much so that even I had my Mini carried away the other night. It was taken by the rudest possible people, who, when I tried to reason with them because they were towing me away illegally, behaved in a manner that was very unworthy of Westminster council, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to agree.
  Mr. Field: I am tempted to emulate my party leader and turn to song. Certainly, I used to like the Beach Boys until earlier this afternoon. Traffic enforcement is not in the hands of Westminster council alone—some of it is hived off. The phrase, "God Only Knows" comes to mind.
  In short, the congestion charge is probably unique as the only tax in history that will actually lose money. As for its effect on retail business within the zone, even the Mayor's office will not dispute that it is proving extremely arduous, especially on many small family-run businesses—not, I hasten to add, that it has any great fans among retailers in Oxford street or the Strand. Meanwhile, the Mayor's obsession with subsidising the buses is becoming a financial nightmare, which will cost Londoners dear in further sharply increased council tax bills in the next five years.
  Let us consider the cost of Livingstone.
  Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Field: No, I want to make some progress.
  Before the Government try to wash their hands of responsibility for the actions of their preferred mayoral candidate, Londoners should be reminded that the additional layer of London government bureaucracy is a consequence of Labour's election in 1997.

  363
  In Ken Livingstone's first full term as Mayor, the Greater London authority precept has risen by an inflation-busting 96 per cent. from £123 for each band D taxpayer in 2000 to the current £241 per annum. What has he done with all the money? It is true that some has gone towards bolstering police numbers in London but no less than £1.5 million a year goes on employing some 19 press officers at City hall. We all thought that the Prime Minister was spin obsessed, but the Mayor spends even more on his propaganda machine. That is before we count the £3.8 million cost of Livingstone's newspaper The Londoner, which tells the few London residents who bother to read it what a wonderful job Comrade Ken does on their behalf.
  Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman complains about the rises in the precept and says that a small amount has been spent on policing. However, 79 per cent. of the precept increase has been spent on policing London. There are big adverts on behalf of Mr. Jarvis—sorry, Mr. Norris—the Tory candidate for Mayor. How will he fund his proposals for policing without that sort of expenditure on it?
  Mr. Field: He has made it clear that it is not simply a question of police numbers but managing and organising the police. That shows the main difference between the two main parties on policing. We shall hear far more about that in the next few weeks of the campaign.
  The Mayor has also committed Londoners to paying an additional £20 a year over 12 years to fund the Olympics should the United Kingdom bid be successful. However, as if the cost of providing the Government with a blank cheque for any financial overrun on the Olympics was not bad enough, the biggest black hole appears in the transport account.
  According to the Mayor's figures, there is a funding gap of £1 billion a year from the next financial year onwards between what he wants to spend on buses and the aggregated predicted Government grant and all other income sources. The message to Londoners should be clear: more Ken after 10 June will mean more tax from the Prime Minister's hand-picked candidate for Mayor of London.
  There are only two reasons for the Government's readmittance of such an inappropriate mayoral candidate to the Labour party. Neither has anything to do with his abilities as London's political figurehead. First, if Ken Livingstone had run as an independent, the official Labour candidate would have been humiliated by coming at best fourth in the mayoral race. Secondly, the split in the Labour vote that his running as an independent would cause was likely to damage many of Labour's Greater London authority candidates, with potentially damaging consequences for Labour in the capital in the next general election.
  Surely the Government's failure to grasp the nettle of policy making in the capital cannot be summed up better than by their cynical readmittance of Ken Livingstone to Labour's ranks. From his vulgar criticism of the United States President, the Saudi royal family and the democratically elected Prime Minister of Israel, the
  364
  Mayor's penchant for grandstanding to extremist opinion does great damage to London's reputation. Although he is often portrayed as a cheeky chappie and an anti-establishment figure, Livingstone is surely not the right voice for London.
  The mayoralty is an important public role, which is key to promoting London tourism and business throughout the globe. It also involves a budgetary responsibility of some £7.5 billion a year. Londoners deserve better than someone who, in his demeanour and outbursts, often appears better suited to student union politics. Perhaps that would matter little if the Government did not pass directly to him millions of pounds of annual grant, through the London Development Agency, earmarked for promoting tourism and business in places such as the United States and the middle east. Once more, the Labour Government are letting Londoners down.
  I appreciate that many other hon. Members want to contribute to this important debate, but I wish to conclude with a few thoughts about the way in which we might improve our quality of life in our city. The rapid pace of change in life in London will only increase in the years ahead and that will doubtless leave many fearful about the effects of globalisation. I represent a most central inner-London seat—I appreciate that it always raises a wry smile from Labour Members when I refer to my inner-city credentials. However, although Mayfair and Knightsbridge may not be typical inner-city areas, parts of Bayswater, Pimlico and Victoria most certainly are. I find that the desire for security and a sense of urban identity and belonging is even stronger among the residents in my most built-up urban communities. Twenty or so residents' associations and amenity societies thrive in my constituency alone, and I have observed, especially in the last couple of years, how the membership and activity of those bodies has increased. They recognise the importance of preserving historic buildings and of good aesthetic design to their sense of security and well-being.
  In dealing with inner-city affairs, the voices of reaction—especially, it has to be said, in my own Conservative party—often hark back to a golden age. I believe, however, that all of us in London who have a passion for our city need to be practical. The real issue is not "Globalisation, yes or no?" but how we can develop, reform and reinvigorate our urban institutions to secure the enduring values of our traditions. In London, we need to resist the temptation to reverse the tide and simply recall how much better life might have been in the past. Instead, we must be optimistic and energetic about life in cities, and adapt to the often exciting, modern globalised world in which we now live.
  One of my own local authorities, Westminster city council, has played a leading role in its civic renewal initiative in developing partnerships between residents, police and Government agencies in improving the quality of life of those who live and do business in central London. Its key insight has been to break down the perhaps false dichotomy that has existed in urban policy making between the top-down versus bottom-up analysis of civic participation. It is only right to recognise that, in several of these localised initiatives here in Westminster, the Government have played an important part in providing both financial resource and legislation for projects such as the business

  365
  improvement districts, which are already making a significant impact in revitalising the west end as a retail centre.
  However, many people in London feel a vague yet uncomfortable state of disconnectedness from the political process. The issues of civic renewal and the restoring and revitalising of community institutions to facilitate a renewed public engagement in our capital go beyond the realms of this debate. but I hope that London Members here will play a part in developing an agenda to improve the quality of living in the capital. I certainly plan to do so.
  I love cities, especially my own. Like so many young adults, I chose to come to London, and now consider myself to be one of her sons. The challenge ahead is to make London liveable for its residents and sustainable as a leading global commercial centre. I call on the Minister to assure me that this Government share the vision of what London can and should be. I also ask him to put pressure on his colleagues, in particular the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Mayor of London, to set their sights on improving the quality of life here. Londoners feel let down by this Government, and London deserves better.
  4.42 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I beg to move, To leave out from "tourism" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the Government's commitment to London's continuing economic, social and cultural success, and to enhancing its status as a world class city; applauds London's high levels of productivity and success in attracting inward investment that benefits the whole of the UK; recognises that this success is backed by record levels of funding from this Government for education, health, the arts, culture, creative industries, crime prevention, transport and other key public services that have resulted in substantially higher employment, substantially lower unemployment, record police numbers including more community support officers and police on the beat, massive increases in bus services and people using them with an extra 100 million bus trips and an extra 180 million tube journeys taken a year; applauds the leadership of the Mayor of London, working in partnership with the Government in the key areas of transport, planning, economic development and policing; praises the work of the police and security services in remaining vigilant to keep the capital safe; and condemns outright Opposition attempts to talk down and undermine the continued success of our great capital city."
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on what I believe is his maiden appearance at the Dispatch Box. Personally, I thought that he carried it off rather well. His speech was a minor triumph of style over content. I must remind him that he was speaking to a motion and that words are generally supposed to have meaning. The words of this motion are a farrago of nonsense. They talk down our great city, sell London short and deliberately fail to recognise the huge progress made in London in recent years as a result of the excellent work and co-operation between this Labour Government and our Labour Mayor and Labour Assembly Members. That is why I have to advise my hon. Friends to vote against the motion.
  Let us look at the motion in more detail. It claims that London's "enviable competitive advantage" is now under threat. What world are the Tories living in?
  366
  London is a great world city with world-class cultural and sporting resources, world-class universities and a business community that is a key engine of national economic growth. London is renowned for innovation, entrepreneurship, style and dynamism. More than 300 languages are spoken here, reflecting the wonderful diversity and strength of our population. London has more than 200 theatres, 125 dance companies and 395 public libraries. That incredible social and cultural diversity draws skilled workers from all over the world.
  Mr. Dismore: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Keith Hill: Of course I will give way to my hon. Friend, but I must warn hon. Members that, if they will forgive me, I do not intend to take many interventions. In these short debates, it is important that as many Members as possible have the opportunity to speak. I personally aim to speak for not more than 20 minutes.
  Mr. Dismore: I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend says about the diverse nature of our city. Can he comment on the views expressed in our local newspapers by Councillor Brian Coleman, a GLA Member for Barnet and Camden, about Middlesex university? He described it with a four-letter word beginning with c because it accepted so many foreign students.
  Keith Hill: To be honest, I was not aware of that. I am pleased that I was not aware of such a nauseating comment and wholeheartedly condemn those sentiments, in which I am sure that all decent Members join me.
  London's huge economic dynamism means that inner London is by far the richest region of the European Union, with a GDP per head of 260 per cent. of the European Union average. Ten years ago, under the Tories, the per capita GDP of London was less than £12,000. Now, under Labour, it is more than £19,000. In 1992, under the Tories, unemployment in London stood at more than 780,000. Now, under Labour, it is down to 450,000. Since Labour came to power in 1997, unemployment has fallen by more than 40 per cent.
  Contrary to Tory claims, London provides a highly competitive environment that encourages innovation and experiment. Its productivity levels are 25 per cent. higher than the national average and closer to American levels than to UK or average European Union levels. London acts as the main gateway for international investment. It is one of the world's top three financial centres, alongside New York and Tokyo, and is by far the largest in Europe. It accounts for 31 per cent. of global foreign exchange turnover, and 48 per cent. of world turnover in foreign equities trading. London's attractiveness to foreign firms is demonstrated by the fact that it has 447 foreign banks—more than any other city in the world.
  The motion refers to an "ever increasing tax burden". What on earth can the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster mean? There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that London is taxed more heavily than anywhere else in the UK. It is perfectly true that it is enormously prosperous and successful and that its success contributes to the prosperity of the UK as a

  367
  whole. As a result of that success, it is, of course, a net contributor to the Exchequer, together with the wider south-east, with the amount estimated at between £7 billion and £17 billion each year. That is an interesting fact to which many of my London colleagues, including Ken Livingstone—and, indeed, myself—have been known to draw attention from time to time. That net contribution is a consequence of our progressive taxation system, in which the wealthy contribute proportionately more than the poor. We make no apology for that: we are the party of the many, not the few. To set the record straight, I ought to point out that, because of London's needs, public spending in London is among the highest of all UK regions, at 1.2 times the UK average and, in transport, it is 2.75 times the UK average.
  In his motion, the hon. Gentleman draws attention to the shortcomings of London's transport system and it would be a foolish politician who sought to deny the stresses and strains of a public transport system that has suffered decades of under-investment and is now striving to cope with the consequences of economic success. But it is pretty rich for a Conservative politician to attempt to lay the blame for London's transport problems on this Government and this London Mayor. Between 1992 and 1997, it was the Conservative party in government that slashed capital investment in London's tube system by no less than half, cutting it massively from £700 million a year to £350 million. It is this Labour Government who are investing £1 billion a year in London's underground system under the public-private partnership, a programme that over the next 15 years will deliver a tube system that is more efficient, more reliable and fit for the 21st century, with, at last, "a decently modern metro", for an underground system that carried almost a billion passengers last year.
  This Labour Government have worked with the Mayor to secure a transformation in London's bus services. Since 2000, the Government have more than doubled Transport for London's budget, which has risen from £1.2 billion in 2000–01 to over £2.5 billion in 2003–04. As a result, London bus occupancy is now twice the level of that in other English metropolitan areas, bus use has increased by 30 per cent. since 2000, bus mileage is higher than at any time in 40 years and public satisfaction with London's bus services is at the highest level ever recorded.
  I understand that the Liberal Democrat mayoral candidate plans to cut those services. I pay full tribute to Ken Livingstone for his clear recognition that only through a rapid expansion of bus services could London's immediate transport needs be met. I congratulate him on what he has achieved in the past three years in improving London's bus network.
  Simon Hughes: rose—
  Keith Hill: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am certain that he will have his chance to speak and, if I know anything about the hon. Gentleman, he will explain himself at considerable length.
  The work that we have done on London's bus network is another excellent example of Whitehall and City hall working together. I also pay full tribute to the
  368
  Mayor for his courage and vision in introducing the congestion charge, which has been an outstanding success.
  Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister, of all people, to cite the alleged brevity of his speech as an excuse to take no interventions? Surely the whole point of a debate in this Chamber is to allow an exchange of views. Is there anything you can do to protect us from a Minister who will not take part in a debate?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The content of the Minister's speech. as with any Member's speech, is his responsibility. He is addressing the motion.
  Keith Hill: I should love to take an intervention from the right hon. Gentleman. I did not take one from the Liberal Democrat mayoral candidate because I was sure that he would have his own chance to speak at considerable length in due course.
  Mrs. Lait rose—
  Keith Hill: Of course I give way to the hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Lait: I thought for a moment that the Minister might have taken me for a Liberal Democrat because I am wearing a yellow jacket. Before he leaves the subject of transport, could he explain why there is a threat of delay to the extension of the east London line?
  Keith Hill: I am not an expert on these matters, although as a south London Member I take an interest in them. There are complicated issues relating to both the investment and the alignment of the east London line that I understand are, at least for the time being, impeding further development.
  I was paying full tribute to the Mayor for his introduction of congestion charging. As a result of that, congestion in the zone is down by 30 per cent., at its lowest level since the 1980s. There is evidence of a faster reduction in road traffic accidents inside the zone than outside and of a reduction in air pollution as a consequence of the reduction in traffic emissions. The charge is an innovation that has inspired interest and admiration throughout the world, and the support of most Londoners.
  While I am in the tribute business, let me also acknowledge the excellent co-operation between the Government and the Mayor in increasing police numbers. In its motion, the Conservative party has the gall to talk of
  "rising levels of crime and anti-social behaviour".
  Yet this is the party that, between 1992 and 1997, when its current leader was Home Secretary, presided over a decline of well over 1,000 in London police numbers, which fell to 26,500. Now, under the Prime Minister and Ken Livingstone, the Metropolitan police service stands at over 30,000 officers—a record number—and 3,500 of them are funded by the Mayor's budget. The step change programme aims to increase the service to 35,000 officers over the next four years.
  Kate Hoey: I thank my hon. Friend and colleague in the London borough of Lambeth for giving way. Everyone in Lambeth welcomes the extra policing in the borough, but does he agree—I am sure that he has been made aware of this in recent meetings with residents' and tenants' associations—that a problem is posed by the number of our local community beat officers who are being moved to central London to guard this and other areas because of the terrorist threat? It is very important that people living in boroughs such as ours are adequately policed despite the terrorist threat and that there should never be hardly any community beat officers in Lambeth, as sometimes happens.
  Keith Hill: As my hon. Friend and fellow Lambeth Member knows, we are absolutely at our full complement and establishment of police officers in Lambeth, and both our constituencies benefit extensively from the presence of community support officers, but she is right that there is a strain on police resources as a result of the terrorist threat. That is exactly why the step change programme, which promises to increase the Met's numbers to 35,000 over the next four years, is so critical.
  Since 2001, there are 1,000 more police officers on the beat and the Home Office has joint-funded with the Mayor 1,000 police community support officers to provide visible reassurance to Londoners at a time of heightened concerns about terrorist attack. My hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety will talk more about action against the terrorist threat in due course.
  Contrary to the Tory claims, crime rates in London are falling. We have had a 20 per cent. reduction in reported street robberies over the past 12 months. In autumn 2003, burglary in London was at its lowest for 25 years, street crime is down by a third and reported burglary at a 27-year low. Frankly, that is better than New York, so Steve Norris can save the London taxpayer the expense of importing ex-Mayor Giuliani. We have been there, done that and got the T-shirt.
  Londoners know, contrary to the assertions of the official Opposition spokesman, that London is a safer city to live in. As MORI's annual London survey shows, the fear of crime is down across a range of indicators.
  Londoners also recognise the significant improvements in their public services. In education, since 1997, there has been a real-terms funding increase of £900 per pupil in London's schools and capital investment is up from £81 million in 1997 to more than £500 million today. There are 4,100 extra teachers and 13,200 additional support staff across London. Results in London at primary school level have improved dramatically, with 75 per cent. and 71 per cent. now getting to the required standard in English and Maths—still too low, but a vast improvement—and a rise in GCSE results from 40 per cent. to 49 per cent. achieving five good passes, which is a faster improvement than in the rest of the country. I pay tribute to the Education Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) for his work on the London challenge with London's most hard-pressed secondary schools.
  In the national health service in London, funding increased from £6 billion to £7 billion in just one year, 2002–03—part of a £4 billion increase between 1997 and
  370
  2003. Nearly £4 billion is being invested to redevelop and build brand-new hospitals across London. In 2002, there were 2,500 more nurses than a year before, and 350 more GPs in London compared with 1997. Waiting lists for in-patient and out-patient treatment in London have fallen in leaps and bounds.
  I am a resident of London and a London Member, as well as the Minister for London, so of course I recognise that London is a city of contrasts between great wealth and, in some areas of our capital city, unacceptable levels of deprivation, but let us be clear: the step change in funding for public services in London since 1997 is bringing huge benefits to London's deprived communities. In addition, 20 London boroughs are covered by local strategic partnerships, supported by more than £400 million of neighbourhood renewal fund resources in the current five years up to 2006. Furthermore, 10 of the Government's 39 flagship new deal for communities partnerships are sited in London boroughs, with access to a collective 10-year budget of more than £525 million to tackle the problems of London's most deprived communities. Yes, the need is great, but so are the resources that this Government are deploying to tackle that need.
  Harry Cohen: Picking up on that point, and the point about education that my right hon. Friend made earlier, is he aware that one of the most serious problems for Londoners is the skills gap? Many people in the deprived communities that he has just mentioned need training to be able to get jobs. The Conservatives say that they will match Labour's spending on schools, but not on education as a whole. Surely that would mean a catastrophic cut in skills training programmes, which is just what London and Londoners do not need.
  Keith Hill: My hon. Friend is right. The Conservatives claim to have the objectives, but it is also essential to build the means. That is why our work with the London Development Agency and the business community on developing schools and our recent announcement on maintenance allowances for post-16s are so essential to build up those skills in London's work force and population.
  Through the Mayor and the London Assembly, this Government gave back to London and Londoners a strong voice and restored democratic city-wide government and strategic leadership to the capital. Ken Livingstone and the London Assembly have achieved much, including the successful introduction of congestion charging, more police on the streets and an increase in bus use. They have worked with Londoners to develop strategies to improve London's environment and cultural facilities and to promote London for business and tourism.
  The fact is that London is, and will remain, a great city. We have much to be proud of and we will not have our reputation debased by Tory smears. We know that the picture is not perfect and that is why the Government are working with the Mayor, local authorities and others to reverse the legacy of chronic underinvestment in our public services. Improving public services lies at the heart of Londoners' needs and concerns. That is why we are providing big extra

  371
  funding for health and education and working with the Mayor to improve public transport and the fight against crime. We want to ensure that all Londoners, not least those in our most deprived communities, share a better future and quality of life.
  The Government will continue to work to maintain the economic growth and stability, high levels of employment and increased public funding that will ensure a better future for all in London. This Labour Government will take that work forward with Ken Livingstone, our Labour Mayor, for many years to come. The Prime Minister and London's Labour Mayor will stand shoulder to shoulder, delivering for London.
  5.2 pm
  Simon Hughes: Little would we have expected a year ago to hear that ending.
  My party welcomes the debate. When the Conservatives were in power, they were no good at integrated transport, but they would probably regard today as the peak of integrated campaigning. They get their mayoral candidate off to New York for the weekend, they manage to unveil a poster, they put an advert in the evening paper and they hold a debate in the House of Commons. The only trouble is that the premise of their argument about crime is fundamentally flawed, which is rather a pity. However, it is good that we are debating London. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said, this is a great city.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: He did not say that.
  Simon Hughes: He did say that. It is a great city, and my party shares that view, although we believe that it could be greater still.
  I suppose that I must declare a sort of interest. In a couple of weeks' time when the election campaign starts for the London Mayor and Assembly, I might turn from being a prospective candidate in that election into being a candidate; if so, I shall be very—
  Mr. Iain Coleman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Simon Hughes: No, not yet. If that transition occurs, I shall be very proud.
  I wish to start by establishing the points of agreement. The first part of the Conservative motion is not altered by the Labour amendment or by ours. We all recognise the common values and benefits of this great city: its mix of people, its enterprise, its history, its culture and its diversity. We all share those values, whether we were born here, have moved here, work here or visit here. We would all want to enhance, applaud, welcome and celebrate that.
  Like the Labour party, we seek to amend the motion. Most fundamentally, we say that, although London has huge needs and problems, we must be careful not to talk it down. My fundamental complaint about the text and
  372
  texture of the otherwise good speech of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster—and it applies to his Conservative colleague who is standing in the election—is the danger of talking London down. I always try not to do that, whatever the criticisms, and I hope that my colleagues do not do so either.
  I would go further and acknowledge that the reinstated London government and the first, now outgoing, Mayor have done good things for London. Indeed, I have said that to his face. We accepted that congestion charging was a bold and good initiative, and my hon. Friends and I supported it from the outset in Committee and we have continued to support it throughout. We are also glad that the Mayor came round to endorsing, the Olympic bid. Some of us argued for it earlier, but he came on board, and we welcome it. We are pleased that there are more buses, although the Minister would not allow me to intervene earlier and it was clear that he was unwilling to answer questions about how they would be paid for. The Mayor has not answered those questions either.
  Mr. Coleman rose—
  Simon Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman can be a little more patient, I will give way in a minute.
  We also supported the increased policing—not hugely different from comparable increases in policing in Greater Manchester and other parts of the country—in London. After an initial couple of years without any increases, the Labour government came to realise that increases were necessary. We support that. If my Liberal Democrat colleague had been Mayor over the past four years, she would have done the same—so there is some common ground.
  The political history of the past 20 or 30 years is of the Greater London council—first Tory-led, then Labour-led—its abolition by the Tory Government, the Government Office for London under Conservative and Labour control and then the first directly elected Mayor. There has been a history of underfunding, for which the Conservatives should accept significant responsibility, and some fundamental problems.
  I shall not make a single quote from any document produced by any political party, and I shall be brief on statistics as it would be possible to quote statistics about London for hours. As the Minister for London will know, the Cabinet Office produced its analytical report on London last July. Its executive summary stated that London
  "has high numbers of jobless people and substantial deprivation … has a housing market which is under strain and which will come under increasing pressure … has a transport infrastructure that has not kept step with the city's developing needs in the last fifty years … has public services that face substantial challenges as a result of the city's unique characteristics …has a complex system of governance"—
  the one set up by the Government
  "that does not easily enable the city to focus on its strategic needs."
  When the cross-party Association of London Government surveyed Londoners last autumn, it asked them about their biggest concerns. Crime was at the top; council tax was second; the health service was third; traffic was fourth; and education was fifth. Interestingly, the survey showed that the one concern that had

  373
  increased was the level of council tax. In common with the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, I have no doubt that the Mayor of London is responsible for significantly increasing council tax. The increase over the past four years has been huge—greater than in any other authority in England. It is in the order of a 100 per cent. increase, for which the Mayor alone must take a responsibility.
  Surveys are conducted every year on the quality of life in world cities. This year's survey was produced in March. London was 35th in the league table for world cities and only 11th out of 15 European Union capitals. The Greater London Authority commissioned another interesting survey—again, one that was not influenced or instructed by my party colleagues. A comparison was made between 2000 and 2003 and respondents were asked how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with their neighbourhood as a place to live. What was the change in the satisfaction level? The number of people either totally or fairly satisfied had decreased—not significantly, but it had gone down—in those four years from 83 to 78 per cent. The dissatisfaction level has gone up. When people are asked how satisfied or dissatisfied they are with London as a city to live in, the satisfaction level has fallen from 75 per cent. to 71 per cent., and the dissatisfaction level has increased. The legacy of the four-year mayoral term of the initially independent and now newly new Labour Mayor is that Londoners are not as happy with their lot as they were when he started. He has to take responsibility for that.
  One of the key issues is how much money comes into the city. Private enterprise does a huge amount: we are the world's greatest financial centre and we need to continue to be so. As we pointed out in our amendment, we need to have a debate about how much London should contribute to the UK and how much the Government should give to London. I have never argued, in all my time in Parliament, that London should not make a contribution to the rest of the UK. However, there is a case to be made—and all parties submitted their case for London to the Government as part of the comprehensive spending review—that the balance is not right. My party's leader and other colleagues have accepted that we need to renegotiate the UK constitutional financial settlement, post devolution to Scotland and Wales, given the continuing devolution that we hope to see to Northern Ireland, and with regional government on the way in England.
  The ballpark figure for the net contribution to the UK economy from London is some £17 billion. The figure should be between nothing and that figure£probably about half. However, nobody suggests that London should not continue to contribute, as a capital city properly should, to the rest of the country.
  We have one major disagreement in this area with the current Mayor. He appears to think that all development that wants to come to London and the south-east should be encouraged to do so without let or hindrance. The north-east, the north-west, Scotland and Northern Ireland are crying out for investment, so we need to share the pressure of development. That is why, for example, my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) have argued for the spreading of the civil service around the UK. That would make
  374
  some contribution to the economies of the other regions. It is not inconsistent to want the regions to have healthy economies and to want a strong capital city.
  We do not need the levels of council tax increase that the Mayor has imposed on Londoners. For example, my colleagues took over the running of the London borough of Southwark from the Labour party two years ago. Services have hugely improved—as all the MORI polls in Southwark show—on a council tax increase of 3.5 per cent. this year. Increases of 22 per cent., 15 per cent., 29 per cent. and 8 per cent.—as imposed by the GLA—are not necessary. Improvements can be made more cheaply.
  Ms Buck: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Simon Hughes: I greatly respect the hon. Lady's contribution in London and I will give way in a moment. However, I first wish to give a couple of examples of how money could be saved.
  City hall now has more people running its press operation than does Downing street, and that is clearly mad and unjustifiable. On new year's eve, for the first time in four years, we had a London celebration, of a sort. After nothing for three years, we had a £1 million firework display. It was paid for from public funds and had no private sector sponsorship. In theory, it was supposed to last for three minutes, but in reality it was less. However, as I know from chairing the Thames festival, one can get a much longer and better firework display for a quarter of that sum. It could also probably have been entirely funded from private sponsorship. The Mayor just does not understand that the money he spends is that of many hard-pressed Londoners, not his. We would do things very differently.
  Ms Buck: The hon. Gentleman mentioned services in Southwark. Will he comment on the fact that in both Southwark and Islington services for children—in particular, nurseries—have borne the brunt of major spending cuts, in contravention of the Government's programme to expand child care places? It cannot be claimed that services have been improved and enhanced across the board, as the hon. Gentleman implies.
  Simon Hughes: I am happy to debate that point with the hon. Lady at another time and place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No, I deny that spending on children's services and the quality of those services in Southwark have been cut. I do not think that that is true. I know less about Islington, but I can check. I doubt that it is true in that case either. The hon. Lady knows, from both the boroughs that she represents, that when councils are under severe pressure to keep council tax increases to the low single digits, the pressures are enormous. That is why she supported, as I did, the case for London that would give a better funding settlement to all our local authorities. Of course we want more money, including for social services, and I shall join her in arguing that case both for children and the elderly. When we took over in Southwark, we moved a lot of money in the

  375
  social services budget to children's services because they had been badly underfunded, according to the Audit Commission, when Labour was in control.
  Mr. Coleman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Simon Hughes: I said that I would give way, and I will.
  Mr. Coleman: I grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I take him back to 29 January this year, when he told the Jon Gaunt radio programme that, by April—that is, now—he would be second in the polls and closing very quickly on the Mayor? In fact, of course, a further poll taken since shows that he is five points down and 30 percentage points behind the Mayor, who currently has 46 per cent. compared with his 16 per cent. Will he now answer the question that he has consistently refused to answer when asked on the Frost programme and in many other interviews? As it is obvious to anyone who reads any of the polls that he has absolutely no chance whatsoever of winning the mayoral election, what will he advise—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had a long run on an intervention. I am tempted to tell him to ask the question that he was allowed to put, briefly.
  Mr. Coleman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise.
  Will the hon. Gentleman now advise the House what he will tell the few supporters whom he will get on 10 June what they should do with their second vote?
  Simon Hughes: On the first half of the hon. Gentleman's long question, I advise him to remember what happened in Brent last autumn and in Bermondsey some years ago—both of which were Labour-held seats. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) should behave herself properly in the Chamber, and not in that manner. She should apologise to the House for what she was doing.
  Sarah Teather: I apologise to the House; it was very inappropriate.
  Simon Hughes: I remind the hon. Gentleman to look at the history of Liberal Democrats frequently overtaking the Conservatives and beating Labour. I will happily talk to him about the result on 11 June.
  On the second issue, my advice is for people to give us their first preference, and they can choose what they do with their second preference. I hope that the Labour party and others give exactly the same advice to their voters.
  Crime and security are hugely important issues. First, I join the Government in the words in their amendment that pay tribute to our security services and the police. On Saturday, I was privileged, as the representative of my party, to join Lady Thatcher, Baroness Scotland and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner at the Yvonne
  376
  Fletcher 20th anniversary event. That reminded me, if I ever needed reminding, that all police officers can find themselves in the front line and that everyone's life is at risk when in the public service in that way.
  There are two halves to the crime and security debate. First, the Mayor has to ensure that the security of London, not just its policing, is enhanced. I do not take the view that the current Mayor, the commissioner and the Government have done nothing, but I do take the view that more could be done. The public could be given more information and those members of the public who want to contribute could be part of a civil emergency volunteer reserve. Business could be engaged more actively in preparing against terrorism, and it would be helpful for the Mayor to have a seconded adviser from MI5 permanently on the mayoral staff.
  I have suggested to London Underground that it should not continue to explore the use of mobile phones on deep tube lines until we can be sure that they cannot be abused, as terrorists have done in other European capital cities. I was grateful to London Underground for responding positively to my suggestion.
  The most important thing may be to ensure that fanatics and fundamentalists do not lead young members of the minority communities, particularly the Muslim community, astray. We all have a duty to have that dialogue to make sure that they feel fully part of our communities and do not get led into fanaticism, which is a danger with every faith and not just theirs.
  We have a very clear view about crime and have argued from these Benches for many years that every bit of London should have good community policing. To put it simply, we say that there should be a community policing guarantee that goes further than the current programme of the outgoing Mayor and the Government. We call it the "four-by-four proposal". There would be four police and four others in all wards, with the person leading it on a four-year contract. There would be a ring- fenced and guaranteed community police service in all wards, and it would not be taken away. Its implementation will start—as the Met tells me, if I am elected—next year and it will be fully implemented over the following three years.
  I take a zero-tolerance view of violent crime. That is the priority in London. If gun crime is the real menace, and if the police in an area where gun crime is on the rise and is a real threat want to be armed, they should be able to be armed for a temporary period. If a certain group of the police, such as a territorial support group, feel that they need to be armed for a limited period, they should be able to be armed too. That is the way to protect us from an overbearing argument to arm police generally, which I resist. That is something that the police would rather have, too.
  I am afraid to tell the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster that I want to refer to his colleague, crime statistics and the way in which the Conservatives are trying to misuse them. We must be careful not to allow the misuse of crime statistics. I understand that they are difficult, but we must have zero tolerance of their misuse too.
  I shall not go into great detail, but I will select those things that seem to me to be important. I appreciate—and the Minister knows this—that the latest crime statistics for the year just ended will not be available

  377
  until next week, just before the campaign begins. We will then have the latest picture. However, London, I believe, has the second lowest rate of violent crime of the 10 regions in England. The Met, for all sorts of historic reasons, has recorded a higher percentage of crimes than any other police service in England, although police services will soon have a common recording system, which we welcome. I realise that my figures are only recent comparables and I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, and I am willing to be corrected. However, my figures show that the percentage of adults who are the victims of violence in London for the last two full years for which figures are available has gone down from 8 per cent. to 5.7 per cent. Indeed, we are not the worst region in England. Yorkshire and Humberside and the south-east have a higher incidence of violent crime. The theft of or from vehicles in London in the last two full years has gone down from 1,472 to 1,205 vehicles per 10,000 households, and that figure is not the highest in England. The figures for the north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside have been higher for both those years than those for London. Burglaries from households in London have gone down from 308 to 284 per 10,000 households. The decline is not huge, but the figure has gone down.
  There have been significant drops in those three categories and the fall has been faster than the average fall across England and Wales. London is sixth—not the worst—out of the 10 regions in terms of violent crime per capita; second out of 10 in terms of vehicle crime per capita, whereas it was first; and third in terms of burglary.
  There is far too much violent crime and far too much crime. There needs to be far less and the clear-up rate needs to be higher. However, it does nobody any good to exaggerate the figures, because that undermines the work that has been done to add to the number of police, which we support, and the commitment of us all to make sure that the streets of the capital are safer. I hope that, from now on, the Conservative candidate will not misrepresent the figures in this election, because that only adds to the fear of, in particular, the vulnerable, the lonely and the isolated in our capital city.
  I have two other one-sentence criticisms. The criticism of the outgoing Mayor is that neighbourhood policing, which has been a Government programme, has not been delivered any more quickly in London than anywhere else, and it could have been The criticism of the Conservative candidate is that he speaks very good language about dealing with crime, but he puts no additional money on the table, and until we see that his proposals will be paid for people will not believe that there will suddenly be huge numbers of extra police on the streets.
  Another big issue is transport—we all know that. There needs to be more walking and cycling. Scooters, motor bikes and taxis ought to be able to use all the bus lanes all the time, and some of those lanes could be used by cars at certain times of the day. We support the congestion charge and, unlike the Conservative candidate, we would not abolish it but, unlike the outgoing Mayor, we would not extend it westwards to Kensington and Chelsea. We would make it much more user-friendly, including allowing people to pay in
  378
  advance and, instead of clobbering people with a fine if they forget to pay by 10 o'clock that night, we would allow them to pay up until the end of the following day.
  I have talked to the London Retail Consortium, whose manifesto launch I attended yesterday. Our proposals to have no charge between Christmas and new year, to give people five charge-free journeys a year and to stop the charge at 5 o'clock are very popular with the consortium, the latter because early evening business would not be nearly as badly affected.
  Mr. Randall: I do not want to seem critical, but I have been paying my congestion charge in advance, and if the hon. Gentleman wants a lesson I will see him afterwards.
  Simon Hughes: I have been paying mine in advance too, so I do not think that it is a problem, but there are many people who forget to pay, or cannot pay, by the 10 o'clock deadline, and they wake up the next morning to find that they will have to pay £40. They are perfectly law abiding, and that charge is not necessary. We could give them an extra 24 hours' grace; I know that would be popular.
  On buses, my argument is simple: of course extra buses are great, and the extra routes are great, but on some of those routes in the middle of the day buses run at a frequency that is not justified by the number of passengers. If the Minister comes with me to Oxford street, or reads what Sir Simon Jenkins wrote about buses in Oxford street, he will realise that at some times of the day one could almost walk the length of that street on the roofs of the buses, which must mean that we are putting too much money into buses. That would be fine if the Mayor had paid for them, but there is a transport deficit of nearly £1 billion. I thought that the Minister might say that that was not a problem because the Government were going to fund it, but I gather that they have not agreed to do so. If they do not fund it, the incoming Mayor, whoever they may be, will have a big difficulty dealing with the legacy of the "spend now, work out how you pay for it later" regime for which Mr. Livingstone has been responsible.
  Tube services could usefully run later, but most importantly they could run more reliably. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who looked after these matters before me, and others including me, think that one way to achieve that is to have extended periods of closure—for example, for weeks in the summer holidays—so that a lot of maintenance such as track relaying and signal work can be done and some of the endemic problems can be dealt with more quickly.
  Mr. Randall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Simon Hughes: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
  I echo the concerns expressed this week by two Members with south-east London seats, the hon. Members for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and for Orpington (Mr. Horam), that the Government do not appear to recognise that the Strategic Rail Authority's mad plans mean that services for commuters in the borough of Bromley will be reduced from about six an hour to, in places such as Chelsfield, about two in three hours. The

  379
  Mayor should have a say in that, and I hope that the Government will accede to the request that the new Mayor should have some responsibility for commuter trains. In a "PS" to the Minister, if Mr. Livingstone has administered Transport for London so well, how come it always underspends its annual budget and hands money back? Clearly, it cannot be the best-administered part of this capital city.
  Another issue that Londoners raise all the time is the fact that they want a cleaner city, and many of us would argue that there are many ways in which that should, and could, have been done.
  I have two last points to make. First, whatever good things the outgoing Mayor may have done, he has not done the great social justice things that he should have done. He has abjectly failed to deliver affordable housing for Londoners. Labour and Livingstone last year delivered fewer completed, affordable homes in the social housing sector per year than when Labour took office—fewer than 5,000. We need about 15,000 affordable homes a year, but fewer than 5,000 are available. We need about 30,000 new homes a year, but only about 15,000 are being built, so the policy has been a complete failure, even without taking into consideration the lack of money for decent homes, the repair of council housing and so on. When the Mayor came to office, London did not have the highest unemployment rate of the English regions. It was third in the UK league table, but its unemployment rate is now the highest. If the London Development Agency had done its job properly it would be getting people living in Greater London into the jobs in Greater London, not doing things that did not meet most of its targets.
  What should we do next? The Conservatives should stop talking London down and realise that, for their choice of mayoral candidate, who has so many links with people with a financial interest in the running of London Underground, independence is the last word that could be used to describe him. They should explain why, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), they circulated the "Richmond upon Thames Borough Herald" which does not even feature pictures of the Conservative candidate on any of its four pages. Indeed, his name is mentioned only once on the back page, and nowhere else. There seems to be a surprising lack of endorsement in a seat that the Conservatives hope to win.
  The Labour party should explain why it still cannot tell us what it is going to do about Crossrail, although everyone in London has been asking for a green light on the project for months. It should explain why it cannot allow the east London line extension to go ahead. We were told that it was going to go ahead a few months ago, but the Government have put the brakes on. Labour should explain whether it will give London the comprehensive spending review settlement that all parties have asked for.
  We will continue to build up our support and work, winning ground from Labour and the Conservatives, and increase the number of our councillors. There were fewer than 100 in the '70s, between 100 and 200 in the '80s, between 200 and 300 in the '90s, and consistently more than 300 this decade. We have won councils from
  380
  both Labour and the Conservatives, we have made gains in parliamentary seats, we have increased the number of our Greater London assembly members and Members of the European Parliament, and we have won recent elections, such as the one in the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather). To answer the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman), we fully expect that over the next few weeks we shall not only overtake the Conservatives but provide again the sort of surprise and boost for London that occurred last autumn. There will be a new assembly and a new Mayor who gives value for money, does not waste the public purse, and serves the people of inner and outer London.
  Mr. Pound: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you help hon. Members and me by telling us whether we are trespassing from the subject of debate into crude electioneering?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the Chair has already ruled at an earlier point today, the content of an hon. Member's speech is not a matter for the Chair.
  Simon Hughes: In a few weeks, I can promise the hon. Member for Ealing,North (Mr. Pound) that we will engage in full electioneering. He can rest assured that I am on the last paragraph of my speech.
  Some of us are determined to make London an easier and more pleasant city to live and work in, and a more united city of which to be a citizen. We want to make it a city that can win the Olympic bid next year; a city in which we house the homeless and accommodate the badly housed, keep local post offices and chemists instead of closing them, reduce unemployment while increasing skills, education and prosperity—
  Andrew Mackinlay: God's heaven on earth.
  Simon Hughes: Absolutely, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We want to create in the capital city a place that will be regarded as God's heaven on earth, where he, I and the people outside are proud to be, not some of the time but all of the time, and of which we can say that this is not just a great city, a great London but a greater London still.
  5.34 pm
  Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): The issues raised by the hon. Member for Southwark. North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) in relation to policing in London sounded very much like step change, and did not reflect any innovation by the Liberals. He said that the precept would not need to be increased by large amounts of money to provide all the wonderful extra services that we would enjoy across London, so presumably they will be funded by a windfall tax from somewhere like the tooth fairy, like most other Liberal policies.
  I welcome the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) to the Front Bench. I think that this is the first occasion when he has spoken from the Front Bench, and I am sure it will not be the last. His speech was full of scaremongering about safety issues, street crime and the anti-terrorism measures that

  381
  everyone wants taken to secure London for the future. He made much of the increase in taxes that Londoners have been required to pay over the past few years, but he failed to point out that 85 per cent. of the precept has gone to London's policing, which is why we are seeing such a large increase in the number of police officers across London, and that 4 per cent. of that sum has gone towards increased work on intelligence and to counter terrorism and the threat of terrorism in London. He failed to recognise that much has been done across London.
  The British crime survey does not bear out the hon. Gentleman's arguments. The risk of being a victim of crime in London is at its lowest for 20 years. Vehicle crime and domestic burglary are the lowest for 20 years. We have reversed the trend towards an increase in burglary that began in 1993. There are 1,900 police community support officers, and we are on target to introduce 4,000 by 2005. Another Tory myth is the amount of paperwork. In order to reduce the amount of paperwork that police officers must undertake, 1,200 forms in the police service have been made obsolete. That has occurred across a number of police forces, not just in London.
  On police numbers, we have passed the 30,000 mark for police officers in London. The Mayor's aim is to increase that to 35,000. A telling figure from the British crime survey—or rather, in an article in The Economist of 30 November; I do not want to misrepresent the British crime survey—is that one in 115 employed Londoners will be employed as a serving police officer when we reach that 35,000 target. That is an incredible number, and we are well on the way to achieving the target.
  The comparisons that have been in made with Rudolph Giuliani in New York are not borne out by experience. In the period from 1991 to 1994, when Giuliani had his biggest success in reducing crime in New York, the Home Secretary of the day was responsible for London's policing. That was the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). The Tories tell us that crime is one of their biggest issues and they put it at the top of their agenda, so one would expect the activities of the Tories to mirror what was going on in New York, but of course it did not. The reason that Giuliani achieved a massive reduction in crime in New York was that he increased the number of police officers, exactly as the Mayor is doing in London now.
  Since 1993, the number of police officers in London has gone down consistently. They peaked in 1992 at 28,000 and by 1997, when the then Home Secretary left office, they were down to 26,677, and they continued to fall. The backdrop to that was the fact that a large number of London's police officers who had been recruited in the 1970s were reaching the end of their period of service and approaching retirement. It was not a shock that such a reduction would come about. It was well known and well documented, and something needed to be done to address the enormous reduction in the number of police officers that we faced at that time in London.
  Nothing was done, and to add insult to injury, not only was nothing done, but the Home Secretary of the time, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, adopted the recommendations of the Sheehy
  382
  report, which reduced the salary of police officers in London. As a result of reducing the London living allowance, serving officers who came into the force after 1 September 1994 were paid less than officers who had joined the force before that date. That resulted in a massive reduction in the number of police officers. Within six months of the implementation of the report's recommendations, London's police were down by 1,178 officers.
  Richard Ottaway: Before the hon. Gentleman turns to Liberal Democrat policy, will he confirm that the total figures that he is giving include the community support officers, as those numbers will make quite a difference? Does he recognise that a future Conservative Government would substantially increase the number of policemen on the streets of London? The key point is not just the numbers of policemen on the beat, but what is done with them and the way in which they are organised. There is a great need for reform of the way in which the police operate, and the success of Mayor Giuliani in New York was very much based on targeting specific problems. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that that is the key to combating crime, and not just police numbers?
  Clive Efford: I shall come to that point later. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to apologise for reducing the number of police officers in London and for contributing significantly to the rise in crime. The statistics show that that reduction in police officers kicked off an enormous increase in crime across London that continued until 1999, when the rate of the increase started to level off. The level has continued to increase, but the rate of increase has now started to come down. There is a straightforward correlation between the number of police officers and the crime rate. The reduction in the number of police officers in London lead to a crime wave across our capital city, and there is no getting away from that fact.
  On scaremongering, the Conservatives' advertisement in today's Evening Standard has prompted an unprecedented response from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who has vehemently denied the claims made in the advertisement and has gone so far as to issue a statement and letters to mayoral candidates demanding that they temper their claims and ensure that they are based on facts, as they are adding to the problem of fear of crime across London.
  Let us consider the crime rates. Street robbery is down 20 per cent.; burglary in London is the lowest for 25 years; reported burglary is down to a 27-year low; street crime is down one third; and murder is at 200 a year and has remained steady, despite the claims made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. As I said earlier, when Giuliani reduced crime in New York, he reduced it to 1,000 a year, so we are not talking about figures that bear comparison—
  Simon Hughes: The murder rate was reduced to 1,000 a year.
  Clive Efford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out.

  383
  The suggestion that the figures bear comparison misleads Londoners and is scaremongering in the extreme. It is an attempt to create a fear of crime that is not justified. Furthermore, I point out to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster that Mr. Norris will have a great deal of difficulty in delivering on the claims that he has published. That suggests that he does not think that he will ever have to deliver on them or that he will ever win the election. The rate of reduction in crime in London will make it difficult for him to halve crime and mirror the achievements of Mr. Giuliani.
  This is the first year in which we have had a Mayor in London, and the Mayor's achievements on policing and creating safer communities are considerable. He has increased police numbers to more than 30,000, and that trend is set to continue, but his most significant contribution is the introduction of step change. We have begun to move police officers into the community and to work with local communities to address the fear of crime. In spite of the decrease in those crimes that have been targeted, the one area on which the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster is correct is fear of crime, which remains frustratingly high.
  Fear of crime is due to antisocial behaviour on our streets, and that is where step change will make a big difference. Our police officers must be seen within their communities, their approach must be intelligence-led and they must be in contact with the local community to identify the minority, who have a disproportionate effect on crime rates and on the fear of crime in our communities, in order to make Londoners feel safer in those communities. Step change is being introduced in 100 wards across London and it will make a significant contribution—we must work with local communities to address the fear of crime. No responsible politician should claim that there is a widespread crime wave across London and that Londoners should justifiably feel under threat.
  Linda Perham: My hon. Friend is ably telling us about improvements in policing, police numbers and community support officers. Does he agree that local communities are reassured by the presence of street wardens, which is another Government initiative?
  Clive Efford: There are many initiatives, and there also partnerships between local authorities, businesses, communities and others. Strategies to tackle crime and communities have significantly contributed to reducing crime and the fear of crime. We must tackle our constituents' concerns, and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster misrepresented the issue.
  The Mayor has done a remarkable job on not only policing and community safety, but transport and other areas. We must all appreciate that London, as the capital city, makes an enormous contribution to Britain as a whole, and that to denigrate our capital city is self-defeating in the extreme. To suggest that our transport network is in a parlous state, that London's streets are not safe and that we will shut down the underground during the main period for tourists is away with the fairies. It is absolutely essential not to overstate the
  384
  problems that any major city inevitably faces, but the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has done that.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. John Horam (Orpington) (Con): My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) made two excellent interventions, and, typically, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) intervened on a point of order, so it is entirely appropriate that I, the hon. Member for Orpington, should contribute, thus making a full hand from Bromley.
  Bromley is a great borough, and a wholly Conservative borough, which has wished, from time to time, that it were not in London and that it had remained in Kent. It has particularly wished that over the four years—not, as the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) said, just one year—that we have had a Mayor of London. Millions of residents in outer London pay a fortune into Ken Livingstone's budget and get precious little in return.
  I am glad to see my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), because I am sure that they agree that this has been a disastrous period of mayoralty for the leafy suburbs. I believe that that alone constitutes a reason for getting rid of this now Labour, formerly independent, Mayor. I think that even my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) would agree that he has been above all a zone 1 Mayor, and that the contribution that he has made to the lives of the millions of People in outer London is negligible.
  Let me cite the example of crime Hon. Members have said a lot about crime statistics. I venture into that area with great certainty, because I know for a fact that the number of police in the borough of Bromley is no higher than it was in 1997. We have not benefited in any way from the extra police who have appeared in London as a whole. I do not know where they are, but they certainly have not come to Bromley. As the hon. Member for Eltham said, there is a correlation between crime and police numbers, but there is also a correlation between antisocial behaviour and police numbers. As the Minister pointed out, antisocial behaviour is a growing problem—and it is very evident to local residents, who often care about it more than the terrible crimes that they rarely see committed. Antisocial behaviour and yobbery are seen on a day-to-day basis in suburban areas of London, as well as in the city. Places such as Bromley have no more police to deal with the situation than they had six or seven years ago, which is a tragedy for residents.
  According to the figures that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) gave when he was shadow Home Secretary, the Conservative approach would give 200 extra police to a London borough such as Bromley. Even then, adding an extra 200 to the 450 or so we already have would only give us the same number as there are today in the borough of Lewisham. That is the extent to which my borough is disadvantaged by the current system. I beg the Minister—although it is not his direct responsibility, but that of the Mayor—to bear in mind that some boroughs will continue to get a raw deal as a result of the way in which the financing of policing in London is organised.
  Mr. Pound: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me, although the House usually is not so grateful. As the Member for Ealing, North, the leafiest of the leafy suburbs, I can tell him that we have reason to be grateful, not only because we have more police officers, but because, crucially, we have a say in how many are recruited and how they are deployed. That never happened when we had one Friday morning debate a year on the matter. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether he is happy with the existing structure of the Metropolitan Police Authority and would wish to retain it?
  Mr. Horam: First, I contest the hon. Gentleman's claim that Ealing is the leafiest of the London suburbs. I am sure that he would agree that the green belt is rather larger in Bromley than it is in Ealing, so we certainly have more trees, and therefore more leaves.
  Leaving that aside, I would certainly want to change the structure to some extent. There should be more direct election of police forces—indeed, that is part of our policy—because if an area's policing priorities are decided by the people of that area, they are much more likely to reflect their wishes than if they are decided by some remote bureaucracy in another part of London. If that is what the hon. Gentleman is saying, I agree with him; but let us see it happen on the ground, because it has not happened in any real sense so far.
  That deals with crime. The Mayor has a lot to answer for in neglecting the millions of people who live in the outer suburbs of London, and I believe that he will pay dearly for that in the forthcoming election.
  Transport is the other big issue in the election and in this debate. No one could seriously deny that transport has been a disaster area for this Government. I fully recognise that the problems caused by the underfunding of London's transport do not go back only seven years, but have antecedents in previous Governments—not only Conservative, but Labour. I do not blame Ken Livingstone, or even Ministers on the Front Bench or Transport Ministers, for that—I blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has been one of London's biggest enemies, despite presiding—luckily for him—over an amazing economy, of which London is the centre, as we all agree.
  The Chancellor has displayed a wholly negative approach to financing the London underground in the past four or five years. We wasted much time when simple things could have been done. Labour Members, as well as Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members, have said that what needed to be done to solve, for example, London Underground's problems, was obvious. The Government have stalled for five years, during which we have got almost nowhere. The Labour Chancellor, a Scotsman, has had much to do with the endemic problem.
  Ken Livingstone has admitted that things will not get better in the next decade. The London underground has reached such a pass, with, for example, constant closures and maintenance problems, which we all experience in our daily lives, that there can be no significant improvement for a decade. The Mayor has said that and it is a disastrous comment on the Government's performance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham made an important point about the Strategic Rail Authority plan that is known as the integrated Kent franchise. It is a
  386
  problem not merely for Kent, but for all the train services that come to Kent through south-east London. As my hon. Friend said, the SRA proposes to cut services to Hayes by one third. In Petts Wood, which is a larger station than Hayes, services would be cut by half. Fifty per cent. of peak hour services will be cut from Petts Wood under SRA proposals. At Chelsfield, which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) mentioned, the SRA proposes cuts in peak hour services of two thirds.
  Places such as Petts Wood, Hayes and Chelsfield were built up in the 1930s around the railway stations. That is why they are there. As house prices increase in central London, more people move to Petts Wood, Chelsfield and Hayes because they recognise that those areas have a reliable railway service. However, insecurity has been forced upon them. They do not know what will happen and they are writing in their hundreds to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and me about the proposals. Creating such insecurity in transport is disgraceful. What are people to do if the proposals are accepted? We are not considering overcrowding. If peak services are cut by half, people will not even get on the platforms, let alone the trains. What will such cuts do to house prices in those areas? The position is appalling.
  The SRA presented the proposals in an unsatisfactory way. It issued a document that was full of jargon and did not compare the proposals with the current position. No one therefore had a clear view of the comparison. It refused to reveal many of the statistics that lay behind the proposals, so that those affected did not know the information on which they were based. It consulted only local authorities and other stakeholders; it did not consult the passengers, who know from daily experience what the train services are like. However, few passengers were included in the loop or knew anything about the proposals. It is therefore unsurprising that the three-month consultation period has, in practice, become a month. People have taken time to wake up to what would happen under the proposals.
  Although I appreciate that it is not her direct responsibility, I tell the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety, who currently occupies the Front Bench, that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and I intend to fight the SRA proposals all the way down the line. They are impossible proposals and I have written at length to Richard Bowker, the chairman of the body. I warn Ministers that unless they take the matter seriously and reverse the proposals, I shall be down on them like a ton of bricks. The proposals must be ruled out of court; the Government must stop them.
  5.59 pm
  Linda Perham (Ilford, North) (Lab): London is my city. I was born here, I represent a seat in a London borough and I have lived here all my life. I welcome the Opposition's choice of debate today, but it is a pity that it seems only to be a cloak for beefing up the chances of their mayoral candidate. I do not welcome their carping and whingeing about our great capital, which they did very little to improve during their 18 years in office. Furthermore, the public spending cuts that they propose would certainly not benefit London.

  387
  When people who are not Londoners complain about London, my city, it reminds me of a time when I shared a house in Ealing, North some 30 years ago.
  Mr. Pound: Not with me!
  Linda Perham: Not with my hon. Friend, I hasten to add. My housemates were all from other parts of the country, and if they complained about London, I would say to them, "Why are you here? You've come down here to work and live, and you've been given a job and a home, so don't complain about my city."
  The Tory motion has a sweeping moan about the quality of life and, astonishingly, about the insecurity resulting from the threat of terrorist action—a subject that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) covered at some length. What place is safe from the threat of terrorist action? Who would have thought, 30 years ago, that Birmingham and Guildford might be targets for terrorism? We had to be ever vigilant, however, during that time, particularly in London, given the threat from the IRA, which we faced for decades.
  I pay tribute to the excellent work of the Metropolitan police and the British Transport police and their vigilance against potential terrorism, especially in the light of the recent arrests, one of which took place in my constituency. As has been mentioned, the number of officers working in counter-terrorism, security and protection has been increased by almost 1,000 since 9/11, through the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police Authority.
  What is the next thing that the Conservatives complained about? Rising levels of crime and antisocial behaviour. Other hon. Members have talked about the commissioner's statement that London has one of the lowest rates of violent crime and is still one of the safest major cities in the world. As for antisocial behaviour, the Home Secretary has driven through tough measures in recent years to tackle that problem. I do not remember the Conservatives introducing many antisocial behaviour Bills.
  Mr. Randall: Does the hon. Lady get more complaints about antisocial behaviour now than she did three or four years ago?
  Linda Perham: Complaints about antisocial behaviour are probably on a level, but my point is that this Government have recognised the problem and are introducing measures to tackle it, particularly in relation to nuisance neighbours. They are taking action against the people who cause problems to others. I mentioned street wardens in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), and I welcome the step change programme, which will counter some of the problems of officers being called in for duties in central London.
  The Conservatives' next whinge was about overcrowded and unreliable transport. That is a result of the decades of under-investment by both Governments that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) mentioned, and of the lack of subsidy from
  388
  previous Tory Governments. I was never the greatest fan of public-private partnerships, but much-needed investment is now going into the tube. Nor, I must confess, was I ever the greatest fan of our new Labour gain Mayor, but I do salute his success with the congestion charge and the improvements that he has made to bus services, increasing their use by 30 per cent. Closed circuit television has also been installed on buses, and whose safety and cleanliness have also improved.
  I chair the all-party group on Crossrail, and I welcome the Mayor's enthusiastic backing for that project.
  Simon Hughes: Is it going to happen?
  Linda Perham: Well, the Secretary of State has expressed his support and backing for the Crossrail project, but financing is a problem. There is a lot of money involved. At the end of the day, however, the Government have made a commitment to it, and I know that it will be of enormous benefit to London. It will link the key business areas of the City and Canary Wharf to Heathrow, with huge increases in jobs. It will enhance our standing as the best financial district in the world and as one of three global financial centres. It will have a benefit-cost ratio of 1.99:1 and will contribute about £19 billion to the British economy. The regenerative benefits of Crossrail alone include 40,000 new jobs in the Thames gateway, so the regeneration aspect will be a huge boost to the London economy and the economy of the whole country.
  There have been six regeneration projects since 1997 in my London borough, two through the London Development Agency, the town centre development through the sustainable communities fund, and the three single regeneration budget projects including a health ladder social inclusion project.
  On health, there have been vast improvements to my two local hospitals since 1997. King George hospital in Ilford is now a two-star hospital, which has been improved by a cancer centre and a primary care walk-in centre, which opened this month. At Whipps Cross hospital, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) and I have taken a great interest in recent years, there will be a redevelopment of the whole hospital site worth £331 million, and lots of other improvements including a new renal unit and an upgrading of cardiac services. Last year, primary care services spent £400 million on schemes such as community volunteers, mental health, health improvement and user involvement and regeneration. My local health centre will be improved vastly through a new local improvement finance trust programme. Continuing improvements have taken place in reducing waiting lists and times in primary and secondary health care.
  In education, children's services have been transformed, with vastly improved opportunities for parents who want their children to have nursery education at age three and four. The Sure Start scheme, which I hope to get in my area—there is already one in Ilford, South—has been an enormous success. A new museum has also been provided under the new lottery scheme, which is wonderful.
  In my experience, the words "failing public services" in the Opposition motion do not apply either London-wide or locally. Services are improving thanks to the

  389
  commitment and investment of the Labour Government and the London Mayor, in policing, transport, regeneration, health, education and the whole spectrum of life in London. As far as I am concerned, London is the greatest city in the world. A Labour Government and a Labour Mayor have been good for London. The re-election of a Labour Mayor and a third term for a Labour Government can only mean that things can only get better.
  6.8 Pm
  Angela Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): It is almost impossible to generalise about London, as its 32 component boroughs are so diverse. The London borough of Havering, for example, which includes my constituency of Upminster, is 50 per cent. green belt, and appears to have more in common with our Essex neighbour in Brentwood than with our nearest London neighbours, Dagenham and Redbridge. The difference between outer and inner London boroughs is even more pronounced, in terms of socio-economic profile, environment, density of population and development. Each has its own specific problems and advantages, which is why the provision of public services is such a challenge. Education and health services for the people of Greater London must reflect the widely varying circumstances and range of needs that prevail in all those diverse boroughs.
  All-London averages of general health indices are similar to those for the nation as a whole. Of course, that masks the individual differing statistics in individual boroughs. Life expectancy and infant mortality, for example, are worse in Lambeth, Southwark and Newham than in Richmond, Bromley and Kensington and Chelsea. There also seems to be a gender divide in life expectancies, which is greatly accentuated in poorer areas and reflected in the national average. That particular phenomenon has always intrigued me. Women in poorer areas often combine family and domestic responsibilities with several part-time jobs outside the home, often of a fairly arduous nature, over a number of years; yet their life expectancy seems to overcome all the odds. It is a tribute to their survival abilities that somehow they still seem to outlive men. I do not know the explanation, but statistically that seems to be the case.
  The demand for health care outstrips the capacity for supply, and always has. It follows that in a densely populated area like London that effect will be exaggerated. Most GPs, for example, are overworked and have significantly more patients on their lists than is recommended by the national health service. Many of the traditional single practitioners are likely to be replaced on retirement by group practices in health centres, as property and staff costs in London are too high for newly qualified GPs to set up in single practice.
  As more GPs reach retirement age, recruitment in London will become more and more of a challenge, particularly in outer London boroughs like Upminster, which fits neither the very rural nor the inner-city profile—both of which are particularly attractive to new GPs. Hospitals in London tend to have more staff per head than hospitals elsewhere, because they also treat patients from all over the country; but according to statistics from finished consultancy episodes, which are used as a standard measure of hospital activity, the 37.9
  390
  per cent. increase in funding for health care in London has been translated into only a 1 per cent. increase in hospital activity, and waiting times for consultant appointments and operations remain a serious concern for my constituents.
  One of the main challenges is increasing the capacity of the health service to enable it to keep pace with ever-increasing demand and expectations. I welcome the Government's aim not just to allow patients to book every hospital appointment and elective admission by 2005, with a choice of convenient date and time, but to allow them to choose the hospital in which they will be treated. London has a natural advantage, in that it has more hospitals and a transport system. Sixty-three per cent. of patients involved in the London patient choice project exercised that option.
  It makes absolute common sense to take advantage of the spare capacity in the provision of health care wherever it is—in an NHS trust, a treatment centre or a private hospital, or with a specialist primary care practitioner. It matters little to the patient who the provider is; it is the quality of care that counts. The NHS needs all the help it can get, from wherever it can get it. There are many opportunities for the public and private sectors in London to work together to mutual advantage and, more important, to the benefit of patients in shortening their waiting times.
  Whereas health professionals should be free to make clinical decisions, it is the function of Government to create the conditions in which they work and to take a wider strategic view of improving the health of Londoners. Preventive measures play an essential role in reducing demand for health care. For example, London has a higher mortality rate from asthma than England and Wales as a whole, despite having a lower proportion of individuals receiving treatment for asthma. Strategies to improve air quality through engine efficiency, to discourage smoking, to reduce alcohol and drug abuse, to combat obesity and to encourage immunisation take-up all contribute in general to improving public health and quality of life for Londoners, while helping to reduce future demand on the NHS.
  Tuberculosis rates have risen consistently in recent years, and new drug-resistant strains have developed in eastern Europe. People coming to this country from some of the accession countries in Europe are more likely to choose London than anywhere else in the country to live and seek work. There will be specific health problems attached to that, and the NHS will have to cope with them as well as with superfluous numbers.
  At a time when both A and E departments and GP surgeries are under tremendous pressure from the sheer numbers of patients, the expansion of the role of pharmacists in the NHS is one way—which I know the Government are considering—in which capacity to treat could be increased. It would also be more convenient for patients. Where could be more convenient to access preventive medicines such as smoking cessation, contraceptive or dietary advice than in the high street chemist?
  If the relevant professional bodies were receptive to the idea, pharmacists could also prescribe as well as dispense. After all, they have a comprehensive knowledge of prescription drugs and a personal relationship with their regular customers, which makes

  391
  them ideally suited to play an increased role, and densely populated areas such as London lend themselves to pilot schemes.
  I know one pharmacist in my constituency who recognised the sound of a particular cough when two of his regular customers came in to buy cough medicine and advised them to go home and get their gas fire checked—it was found to have dangerously high emission levels, and that piece of advice could have been life saving, which demonstrates the level of personal service that pharmacists already provide and shows how readily their role could be expanded.
  The diversity of London boroughs brings challenges in education that match those in health. Havering schools have an excellent reputation and there is fierce competition for places. Indeed, many schools are doing very well, so raising the standard of London's failing schools to the level of the successful ones is a priority. The success of a school rests largely with the head teacher. An inspirational head teacher motivates staff, parents and pupils alike, but it is an uphill struggle in schools where there is little parental interest, a high level of absenteeism, discipline has broken down and disaffected pupils are emboldened by their knowledge of the limitations of the disciplinary measures available, their perceived rights and the threat of litigation. That minority of pupils has a disastrous effect on the education of the rest, who suffer disruption of their lessons and the resulting low morale in their teachers.
  Removing from the classroom pupils who are unable or unwilling to behave in an acceptable way is the first essential. Finding the reasons for their behaviour and ways to modify it is a separate and difficult challenge, but it is essential to redirect those disaffected pupils so that they do not leave school unfit for employment, with low self-esteem and unable to interact with other people in a socially acceptable way. These are the very pupils who would benefit from high-quality vocational training. Anyone who lives in London knows how difficult it is to find a plumber, electrician or bricklayer without having to wait for six months. These practical skills are in great demand and can offer more secure employment opportunities than many very popular degrees such as media studies and information technology, which are reaching saturation point, and would not involve the attendant university student debts.
  It may be that more flexibility in the curriculum would benefit failing schools. Head teachers might feel that learning and achievement in core subjects could be encouraged in other ways, for example through the introduction of more sport, music or drama. A creative head teacher knows his or her own school and what changes could be tried to help to turn it round. Once a school becomes unpopular and the numbers fall, its funding is affected. This can lead to staff losses and a downward spiral towards unviability.
  Recruitment and retention of teachers in London is also affected by high property prices. Outer London boroughs such as Havering have a higher proportion of older, experienced teachers, who are extremely valuable to the school but are at the top of the pay scale, which makes staffing costs very high. Schools often lose newly appointed teachers to inner London, where the
  392
  additional allowance makes all the difference in meeting the cost of housing in London. Some of my head teachers have travelled as far as New Zealand and South Africa in search of staff, when the normal procedures have failed to attract applicants. Some very enthusiastic young teachers have been found by this rather drastic method and they have been very popular with the children, but the drawback is that they may not stay very long.
  There are two areas of concern that affect both health and education equally: sex and drugs education. Rates in London of serious sexual diseases such as HIV/AIDS, chlamydia and hepatitis B have risen dramatically, echoing the rise seen nationwide. Last year, the Health Committee declared itself "appalled" by the crisis in sexual health. Although parental responsibility is the dominant factor in the guidance of children, sex education in schools has a strong influence, and if misguided can do untold damage. The reluctance to moralise and the simple provision of information have in effect condoned sexual promiscuity in some young people. Safe-sex education has ignored abstinence messages and led to many young people becoming sexually active long before they are emotionally mature enough to cope with the consequences. Girls need to be warned of the likely outcome of having sex with a boy who has no interest in getting married or becoming a parent, and who has no income to support a child—[Interruption.] I am sorry if hon. Members think that that is amusing.
  A teenage girl will find that 24-hour-a-day single motherhood in a free council flat is not the exciting adventure that it might have seemed to her, when her education is brought to an abrupt halt, she can no longer go out shopping or clubbing with her friends and her baby is effectively fatherless. Sex education has often given too much information and too little guidance. This is not a subject on which we can afford to be non-judgmental, as our alarming teenage pregnancy statistics demonstrate. The figures are the highest in Europe.
  I take a similar view of drugs education, in that it has relied on the neutral provision of information to young people before they have the maturity of judgment to deal with it. The Home Office website "Frank" is enough to tempt many impressionable young people into experimenting with drugs. I apologise because I have made these points in the House before, but I shall give examples from the "Frank" website:
  "If only illegal drugs came in packets with instructions on the outside";
  and:
  "Give the first drug plenty of time to kick in before taking another one."
  There are lots of examples like that, although I shall not go on because I know that time is short.
  Drugs education material for use in schools gives more details about illegal drugs, their effects, how they are administered—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I think that I need to remind her at this stage that the debate should relate specifically to London.
  Angela Watkinson: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I was making the point that the drugs problem is worse in London than elsewhere.

  393
  It is no good telling young people all about drugs in great detail, then saying, "OK, now you decide." The problem is greater in London than in the country as a whole, although it is greatest in areas such as Lambeth and Lewisham and less bad in more affluent areas such as Richmond and Kingston upon Thames. The Minister will know that I have consistently opposed the Government's policy on the declassification of cannabis and their view on its contribution to the drug problem.
  In those respects, education and health in London are inextricably linked. Advice, enforcement, policy and treatment need a co-ordinated strategy if the problems are to be tackled effectively. London is one of the largest and most densely populated cities in the developed world. The people who live in it are its greatest resource, and they deserve the very best public services.
  6.23 pm
  Ms Karen Buck: That excellent London journal Time Out recently ran a series of articles on the theme of whether London should declare independence. Although I would not go quite that far yet, it had one excellent idea: an anthem for London. Among the candidates were those superb songs, "The Dark Streets of London" by The Pogues and "London Calling" by The Clash. I am glad to see that that dirge by Ralph McTell did not make it into the top 1,000, but my personal favourite reminds me of when I arrived in London in the late 1970s: the Leyton Buzzards', "Saturday Night Beneath the Plastic Palm Trees". It includes those superb lines:
  "Dancing to the rhythm of the guns of Navarone, Found my Mecca near Tottenham Hale station, I discovered heaven in the Seven Sisters Road".
  That is exactly what arriving in north-east London meant to me and, although I have transferred my affections to Ladbroke Grove and the Harrow road since then, I remain very much in love with this city, in all its diversity, mess and creativity.
  It is because I love London that I am perfectly happy to argue London's case and point out where we need policies and investment to tackle some of London's problems. We have challenges indeed. Many of those are the challenges of success arising from diversity, rapid population growth, turnover and mobility and the exceptional costs that we face, particularly in housing. Those challenges have made the delivery of public services much harder in London than in almost any other part of the country.
  Because I love my city so much, I am always happy to point out that many people are not sharing in the general growth of London's economy and its benefits. The recent figures on below-average income households showed that inner London was losing out, particularly in respect of tackling child poverty. I was disturbed to note that no Conservative Member made any mention of poverty whatever. If we are to transform London, we have to transform it for all Londoners. After 25 years of active political campaigning and representation in London, I have no doubt that only one party is prepared to provide the resources, policies and leadership necessary to rise to the challenges and make the changes for London.
  Events over the last few days have amply demonstrated that in respect of policing, crime and safety. The Government have supported the expansion
  394
  of the number of police officers in recent years with a huge amount of funding. Additional investment of more than £300 million has been made in the past three years alone, and the Mayor has added £184 million raised through the council tax precept. Since 2001, the Conservative group has voted against the budget on every occasion.
  Reference has been made to the step change neighbourhood policing scheme, which was launched in Brent a couple of weeks ago and, at the same time, in Queen's Park ward in my own constituency. It represents a very welcome development indeed and the key question is who is going to pay for it and similar expansion under the Conservative or Liberal Democrat plans. Conservative spending plans prioritise health and schools, but say nothing about how to preserve policing budgets. On the day after the launch of step change in Queen's Park, my local newspaper, the Wood and Vale quoted Graham Tope, the Lib Dem London Assembly member, as saying that the scheme would prove
  "too costly for the capital".
  He also said:
  "Such a financial burden should not fall on London council taxpayers",
  which raises the question of who is going to pay for the Liberal Democrat expansion of police services, as outlined by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). We cannot have a wish list for police resources without a commitment to funding.
  Mr. Pound: My hon. Friend knows that about a fortnight ago on a Friday night in Northolt, my constituent, Akberali Mohamedally, was murdered. Thanks to the exemplary work of the borough coordinator, Stuart McNair and the borough commander, Martin Bridger, a suspect was arrested within 24 hours. Does my hon. Friend agree that community-based policing is something that we simply cannot afford to go without? We simply have to have it. Talking about paring back at this stage is almost criminal. Labour Members cannot and will not tolerate that.
  Ms Buck: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Community and neighbourhood policing is what people want, and it is paying dividends. As another example, the same local newspaper mentions Deputy Chief Inspector Richard Wood of Marylebone police station, who is responsible for a halving of robbery and theft in the Marylebone division of Westminster. He is quoted as saying:
  "I am not being arrogant, but we are solving 33 per cent. of all crime in Marylebone and 20 per cent. of robbery and snatch theft. As far as I know, that's the best record in the Met."
  In my home patch, as well as across London, we are seeing a real improvement in detection and clear-up rates.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) and others provided figures on London-wide reductions in crime, so I shall not repeat them now. However, violent crime is an issue that rightly worries most people. After a particularly horrific drive-by shooting in north Kensington last week, it also worries me a great deal. We should remember that, thanks to the

  395
  effectiveness of Operation Trident, gun crime fell by 47 per cent. in 2002–03, which also saw a 6 per cent. rise in detections.
  Extraordinary progress has therefore been made in tackling a wide range of offences, including violent crime. My local police and the Metropolitan police generally should be warmly congratulated on the effectiveness of their operations, rather than open to the sort of criticism applied by the Conservative candidate for Mayor. Remarkably, he implies that he will secure improved policing results out of the same or possibly even a reduced budget. How is he going to do it? Supposedly by working with the Met to place crime at the heart of policy. How can he work with the commissioner when his advert today screams out that London is the most violent city in the country, that crime is rising remorselessly—which is untrue—and warns, despicably in my view, that
  "your child's journey to school is at risk"?
  How despicable is it to frighten children and parents, and their communities, with baseless assumptions drawn from the figures published by the Met? Do the Conservatives honestly believe that slamming the Met's recent record will improve relationships or the delivery of services?
  Mr. Dismore: As my hon. Friend will know, Mr. Norris has form in that area. At a Police Federation meeting, he made claims about crime figures and fell out with Sir John, who said that the statistics quoted by Mr. Norris were misleading. Sir John said:
  "I'm not going to sit here and listen to those figures. They are from a Tory think-tank, Civitas. Figures from the Met show violent crime is down by 5 per cent."
  How can Mr. Norris work with the commissioner when he is constantly at war with him? Or does Mr. Norris intend to sack the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis like he intends to sack the commissioner of transport for London?
  Ms Buck: My hon. Friend is right. I have criticised the Conservative mayoral candidate and challenged some of the figures from Opposition Members, but it would be wrong to say that all Conservatives are critical of Government policy. At a community safety awards ceremony a few weeks ago, the leader of Westminster city council, that flagship Conservative borough, thanked police and council staff for all they were doing in
  "bringing down crime and improving our streets".
  He also quoted figures that confirm a
  "massive 53 per cent. fall in street crime and a 9 per cent. drop in violent crime."
  Those figures mean 6,889 fewer victims of crime overall.
  The Westminster Reporter, produced by the borough's award-winning communications team—which rivals that of the GLA for size and cost—states that
  "we are pleased to report a significant reduction in a number of crime categories … and a close working relationship with the Met".
  That is something that Steve Norris would do well to emulate. The royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea also has its say, with press releases headed, "Streets are
  396
  safer as police blitz royal borough" and "More police community support officers on patrol in Kensington and Chelsea". At least Conservative boroughs in central London have given a warm welcome to the strategy introduced by the Government and the Mayor.
  On crime figures, should the public trust the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, their local boroughs and a Government who have increased police strength from 27,536 in 1997 to more than 30,000 today? We know that one crime is one too many, but a crisis of confidence in policing stoked up by irresponsible comments also damages people's well-being. Instead, we should congratulate the police and praise the Government on the additional investment that has been made to improve the quality of life of Londoners.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. John Randall: To be honest, because of its timing, this debate has not been one of our best debates on London. Labour Members accuse us of overstating the case, but we could accuse them of complacency. I have lived in my area all my life and I know that people think that things have changed dramatically. I am not sure that we can blame any political party for that, but in the past two weeks, and less than a mile from my house, we have seen a tuberculosis outbreak in a local school, terrorist suspects arrested and a bus attacked by a gang of youngsters. That is typical of the experience of many people and they feel a sense of desperation about it. The Government have introduced legislation such as the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, but just passing a law does not stop the behaviour.
  As the election draw near, I hope that we can all agree on one thing. London is a diverse capital city, which has always been one of its great strengths. When we go out to campaign in the streets, we must all ensure that racists and the British National party get nowhere and we must not use anything that would make life easier for such people.
  6.34 pm
  Patrick Mercer: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) in the debate and to echo his words about racism, which all of us need to bear in mind.
  Before I go any further, I wish to tell the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham), whose speech was extremely interesting, that I think that I am the only non-London Member present and I will do my best not to moan about her city or, indeed, to draw any inimical comparison.
  Almost all hon Members today have spoken, in one form or another, about security, crime and terrorism, on which I intend to major in a moment. The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) gave an interesting deposition on crime and the policing points were well made. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) came in with an extremely well-put series of points on crime and rail, where he was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) referred in particular to crime, along with poverty. All those speeches were illuminating, but I shall concentrate on the point on which my hon.

  397
  Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) majored: the interface between crime, security and terrorism.
  This morning, a number of people were arrested in Manchester. In my shadow capacity, I would be the first person to emphasise the fact that, of course, terrorism is not simply a problem that will be concentrated around the London area. However, Riyadh was also attacked this morning. In the past two or three years, the major attacks—Washington, New York, Bali, Madrid and, again, Riyadh—have all taken place in capital cities, so the capitals will get it. There is absolutely no doubt that—I think that I am paraphrasing the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams)—we have got to be lucky all the time; the terrorists have only got to be lucky once and, if they can pick off a capital, they will do so.
  I do not believe for one moment that it is easy to stop the terrorists getting through. Again, to paraphrase a great socialist, the bomber will always get through—although he was not necessarily talking about terrorist bombers: in that case, it was Nazi bombers. That is a fact: it is almost impossible to stop. There is no doubt that the Government have done certain things, but I should like to underline some ideas that, I hope, will make their efforts more focused and to echo one or two criticisms—they do not necessarily come from the Conservative party, but from other parties—about the way that things are being done at the moment. I hope that the Government will accept what I say as constructive, rather than destructive.
  My first point is that we had some vocal interventions, particularly from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), when we were talking about the level of exercising in the emergency services in the capital. There is no doubt that plenty of exercises have taken place in the capital, but to the best of my knowledge, there has been only one thorough field training exercise, to use military parlance: in other words, an exercise done live, on location and involving the emergency services—the blue-light services—in a situation that is as realistic as possible.
  Of course I am talking about OSIRIS II, which, strangely, happened on the second anniversary, or thereabouts, of the events of 11 September. Although the Government are to be congratulated on getting on with that exercise, it took them a very long time to get round to doing it. I was there, as was the hon. Gentleman and several other hon. Members who are here today, and it struck me that it was the most basic form of exercise. I would expect to see such an exercise five or six weeks, not 105 or 106 weeks, after a major terrorist incident.
  When will Ministers get round to holding an exercise or series of exercises that practise our emergency services when traffic is on the streets, pedestrians are about and the situation is thoroughly realistic? They have not yet done that. It is a little like sending soldiers into action without ever giving them the chance to use live ammunition. Blank ammunition is just fine but, at some stage, we have got to accept the opportunity cost and get on with things. We must say, as our American colleagues do, "I'm sorry, but we are going to interfere with trade and business for the next few hours and physically practise our response." The consequences of people saying in the media that their son, daughter,
  398
  husband or wife had died because the emergency services had not been given an opportunity to practise would be horrific. If the Government want an example of that, they should examine the Spanish media after the Madrid bombings.
  I also draw the Government's attention to a document that has already had a bit of an outing and which is known as "Project Unicorn". Its aim was to study what the commercial sector in London might do to assist the police counter-terrorism efforts. It was commissioned by the Metropolitan police, took a long time to produce and was extremely expensive. Its conclusions, which I note with interest that the Government have yet to publish, make fairly damning reading. The first point is that
  "The Commercial Sector appears to be unanimous in its criticism of the present CT Communications Policy prior to a major incident: they find it outdated, condescending, generally uncoordinated and at times incoherent."
  Several Members have already mentioned the need for a proper public information campaign. I note with interest that, during the proceedings on the Civil Contingencies Bill when we brought this idea up, we were completely and totally stonewalled by the Government. We were told that the matter was being dealt with and that we should not seek to scare the pants off the population. The population had to be alert but not alarmed. However, as soon as the Madrid incident occurred, the outstanding work of the police on the underground and the Metropolitan police produced public information campaigns warning people about what might happen, what to look out for and to be alert to exactly the points that we had been making to the Government. I urge Ministers to come back on this point and tell us why a much more coherent policy has not been followed to tell the population what is at stake.
  Clive Efford: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the motion that he and his colleagues have tabled for this debate. It does not say anything about the fear of terrorism. The Conservatives appear to lack a policy for London, so should we not get back to the motion and start discussing the issues rather than trying to stir up the fear of terrorism in the way that Conservative Members have throughout the debate?
  Patrick Mercer: I point out that I was quoting from a document, the aim of which was to study what the commercial sector in London might do to assist the police in their counter-terrorism efforts. There is an unparalleled opportunity for the people of London to be used as eyes and ears for the security services. That would make terrorism much more difficult.
  Project Unicorn says that there is a
  "perceived lack of a central focus for CT in Government which is accentuated by the belief that Government does not always understand the commercial implications of CT … For the vast majority of businesses in London this is accentuated by the lack of a coherent Communications Policy and confusing terminology such as 'Resilience' or 'Preparedness'."
  I could go on, but I will not. However, it is crucial that London stops trying to glue together this jigsaw of counter-terrorist efforts, listens to the points that the Metropolitan police are making and tries to start to use the private and commercial sectors in particular. It

  399
  should try to use all the security guards, who are already halfway trained in such skills, and to enrol people to fight the battle alongside them.
  I wish to pick up a point that I heard being made, rather surprisingly, by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). We should look much more imaginatively at raising something like an emergency volunteer reserve whereby we use the skills, abilities and motivation of individuals to help the Government, as cheaply as possible, to prepare physically for an attack that we have been told, rightly or wrongly, is inevitable.
  The report goes on to make points about, in particular, the lack of understanding of the chemical, biological and radiological threat to London. It says:
  "To the public at large the CBRN threat is undoubtedly the most frightening aspect of 'the new terrorism', but it also the one that Government says the least about. It is little surprise therefore that the media fills the vacuum and the public assume the worst. Whilst the more astute commercial security directors have produced their own CBRN guidelines and contingencies, they are loth, in the absence of any official direction, to promulgate them."
  I say to the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety, please can we look at that advice, which comes from a wholly objective source, and do something about it? Let us see the report published and a campaign for public information and training put in place.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster has already mentioned the civil contingencies reaction force. That very slender force was the only answer that the Government came up with relatively quickly to try to produce more muscle after 11 September. It never reached its 7,000 operational target, but—I do not want to be churlish about this—it is better than nothing. The force exists and can be called on.
  The Ministry of Defence has told us that the most effective of the 14 civil contingencies reaction forces is that founded by the London Regiment. Yet the London Regiment—not all of it, but two companies—has been called up and is serving in Iraq. I wonder how many soldiers from London were involved in the four explosions in Basra this morning. Why were they there? Why were they not in Bermondsey, where they should be, doing their job? Has the Minister raised that with the MOD? Has she made it clear that London, above all areas, needs to have forces that will prevent threat from turning into reality? If that does not happen, I very much regret that the political consequences that we saw after the Madrid attacks may well come to pass in this country.
  6.47 pm
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): As a northerner, I am delighted to have the opportunity to wind up this debate. Like the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), I have heard excellent contributions on a range of issues from Members with constituencies right across London, and my knowledge of the city has been dramatically enhanced by listening to the debate. The debate has highlighted London's position.
  We have heard a bit of an own goal from the Opposition, and I wonder just how in touch with his constituency the hon. Member for Cities of London and
  400
  Westminster (Mr. Field) is. The leader of Westminster city council comes to see me regularly to tell me how well the crime figures are doing in his area, how the council has tackled antisocial behaviour and how it has used all the new powers provided by the Government dramatically to reduce crime in Leicester square over the past few months. Yet the hon. Gentleman spent the whole of his contribution telling us how policing is not working, crime is out of control and antisocial behaviour is a problem. If he. talks to officers on his doorstep he will find that things are getting a great deal better.
  I want to restate our Government's commitment to London's continuing economic, social and cultural success and to the way in which it is enhancing its status as a world-class city. It is crucial to me, in my part of the country, that London continues to do well, that it is a magnet for inward investment, that it drives the economy of the rest of the country and that it helps to ensure that we have record numbers of people in work throughout Britain. As many Members have said, we also now have record police numbers, including the new community support officers, and more police officers on the beat. There has also been a massive increase in bus services throughout the capital and in the number of people using them. There is a range of things in London of which we can be proud.
  Following the references to the Beach Boys and the Pogues this afternoon, I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) did not join together on one issue, and that was in singing the proposed London anthem. However, every Member who spoke conveyed a genuine sense of pride in representing London.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) made an excellent speech in which she outlined action by the Metropolitan police on antisocial behaviour and discussed the step change programme. She conveyed her own pride in being a Londoner and highlighted the fact that the Tory motion was—I hesitate to use these words—a long whinge that talked London down and lacked self-confidence. There was no London pride among the Conservatives.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) provided an analysis of support for policing, and praised the work of community support officers, who are on the beat, day in, day out. They are not distracted from their work, establish relationships with local people, and are making an impact in my hon. Friend's community.
  There was an interesting competition between the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) about which was the leafiest borough in London. I am not in a position to decide the issue, but I can tell them both that the deployment of police resources in London is an operational matter for the police. Resources will be directed to the areas of greatest need, but they will know that the introduction of the step change programme will result in 100 new teams of officers across London. In every single borough there will be three teams of police officers and community support officers dedicated to

  401
  local neighbourhood reassurance policing, which is what local people have told us they want. Wherever people are in London—in a leafy borough or an inner-city area—they will get better policing and better reassurance.
  Mr. Horam: The hon. Lady made the point that we will get teams throughout London boroughs, but only three wards out of 30 in a typical borough will benefit. What will happen in the other 27?
  Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman wants more, although we have obviously made an extremely good start. His party opposed the precept in the budget of £184 million extra for policing. He cannot have his cake and eat it—he cannot have extra police officers unless he is prepared to find the money for them.
  The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) spoke about the health service and education. The health service in London, as in the rest of the country, is improving enormously as a result of Government decisions to increase investment in the NHS, slash waiting times, increase choice and make sure that people across the capital can get better health services in future. I urge her to re-examine her party's policy on the patients' passport, which, far from being a passport, would be an exit visa from the national health service and would not lead to improvements in services for local people.
  I am afraid that I was disappointed by the contribution of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). He praised crime reduction in London, and I was grateful to him for going through the figures. As he said, the latest figures will not be available until next week, but for some years they have shown that London is safer place in which to live and work and for businesses to operate in. We are making genuine progress, and I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. However, on antisocial behaviour, he has an extremely poor record. His party voted against the Third Reading of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, and in that debate he said that
  "we must ask ourselves whether, if we were in government, we would want the Bill on the statute book, and the answer is no".—[Official Report, 24 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 991.]
  That comment will come to haunt the hon. Gentleman because, in typical Liberal Democrat fashion, not all his councillors share his view, and hold different opinions in different areas of London. One power in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill to which the hon. Gentleman took particular exception was the power to disperse people who were intimidating and harassing local people. There have been huge problems on the Butts Farm estate in Feltham, including stalking, intimidation, threats to kill and abusive and threatening language, often targeted on vulnerable residents. It was decided to use the dispersal powers in Feltham, and a Liberal Democrat councillor said:
  "This will have a benefit for the law-abiding majority of youth and residents…They have nothing to fear…but the people who commit anti-social behaviour have."
  The hon. Gentleman takes one view; his councillors take another view. That is a familiar situation among Liberal Democrats.
  Simon Hughes: The Minister would not dare pretend that there is never a difference between the Labour Front Bench team and any Labour member anywhere in the country. Does she agree that things are often much better when there is a partnership? Will she commend my borough, run by Liberal Democrats, which the other day was given by her colleague the Minister a beacon award for community safety for the measures we implement on the ground, which are the best in London and the best in the country?
  Ms Blears: I understand that the foundations for the partnership, which takes a long time to mature, were laid when the council was under Labour control, but I am delighted to pay tribute to local authorities throughout the country and across London that are working hard in their community safety partnerships. I understand that about £30 million has gone into those partnerships over the past year in order to make that significant difference for us.
  I want to highlight the success in reducing street crime across London—a 21 per cent. reduction in robbery, and 11,000 fewer victims. Sometimes we forget the human cost when we speak about numbers and percentages, and 11,000 fewer people were robbed in London as a result of the action taken by the Metropolitan police and their partners. I am also delighted that youth crime is down 7 per cent. in the past year alone. Our young people are the citizens of the future, and it is vital that they are able to live in a safe community. We speak a great deal about young people and antisocial behaviour, but quite often young people are the victims of crime as well. The vast majority of our young people are good, decent young people who make a positive contribution to our community.
  Many hon. Members mentioned the record numbers of police in our capital, about which I am delighted. The Conservatives spoke about an extra 40,000 police officers, but they have gone very quiet about that in recent months. Since they found they could not fund that as well as the fantasy island asylum policy, we have heard little from them. Today we heard from the Opposition that they are interested not in extra police numbers, but in how they are deployed. The Labour Government, however, have a record of extra police numbers across London and extra community support officers.
  I shall deal with the issues raised by the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) about resilience and preparedness in London. The local response capability is one of our key building blocks. That is why it is so important that at the centre we keep in touch with the locality and with London about preparedness. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that regional resilience teams are in place in every Government office. In future, the Government offices will be much better organised and in a much better position to tackle not just the terrorist threat, but any of the civilian threats that we face.
  But the hon. Gentleman is right. The threat from terrorism remains real and serious. It is a worldwide issue. It is not unique to the UK. It will be with us for the long term. That is why it is vital that we plan properly. I am delighted to be able to tell him that we are putting an extra £61 million into the Metropolitan police service next year to help it counter the terrorist threat. Since September 2001 we have taken a range of measures to

  403
  strengthen our anti-terrorism legislation, to make sure that people cannot hide behind the immigration and refugee protections, to proscribe terrorist organisations and to increase the funding not just for the Government offices in London but for the fire service, which for the first time has all its staff trained on CBRN.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the exercises that have taken place. I can tell him that hundreds of exercises have taken place across London. They take place weekly. The exercise that he highlighted, OSIRIS II, is only the most visible exercise, but we have had three major command and control exercises, also connected with the military, making sure that we keep in constant contact with them. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the business community. The business community is totally engaged with our preparations and is part of our structure. He spoke about the need for public information—
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 308.

  Division No. 135]

  [6:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Amess, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Westminster)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Flight, Howard

  Bacon, Richard

  Flook, Adrian

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Bellingham, Henry

  Francois, Mark

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Boswell, Tim

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Brady, Graham

  Grayling, Chris

  Brazier, Julian

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Greenway, John

  Burnside, David

  Hague, rh William

  Burt, Alistair

  Hammond, Philip

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Hancock, Mike

  Cameron, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cash, William

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Heald, Oliver

  Barnet)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Chope, Christopher

  Hendry, Charles

  Clappison, James

  Hermon, Lady

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Collins, Tim

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Howard, rh Michael

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Curry, rh David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Jack, rh Michael

  Stamford)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Howden)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Evans, Nigel

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  404

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Selous, Andrew

  Lansley, Andrew

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Lidington, David

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Maclean, rh David

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Malins, Humfrey

  Streeter, Gary

  Maples, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Maude, rh Francis

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Syms, Robert

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mercer, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Coldfield)

  Tredinnick, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trend, Michael

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Trimble, rh David

  Norman, Archie

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walter, Robert

  Page, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Watkinson, Angela

  Paterson, Owen

  Whittingdale, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Wiggin, Bill

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Willetts, David

  Randall, John

  Wilshire, David

  Redwood, rh John

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  (Macclesfield)

  M-Kent)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ruffley, David

  Gregory Barker and

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Mr. Peter Atkinson

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Burnham, Andy

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Ainger, Nick

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cairns, David

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Darwen)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Casale, Roger

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Caton, Martin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Challen, Colin

  Baird, Vera

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clapham, Michael

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Pentlands)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Chryston)

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Best, Harold

  Clelland, David

  Betts, Clive

  Coaker, Vernon

  Blackman, Liz

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cohen, Harry

  Blizzard, Bob

  Coleman, lain

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Cooper, Yvette

  Borrow, David

  Corston, Jean

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cranston, Ross

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle

  Crausby, David

  E Wallsend)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Browne, Desmond

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Bryant, Chris

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Burden, Richard

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  405

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hatfield)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  David, Wayne

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Denham, rh John

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Kidney, David

  Dobson, rh Frank

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Doran, Frank

  Bow)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Edwards Huw

  Lepper, David

  Efford, Clive

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Etherington, Bill

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Fisher, Mark

  Love, Andrew

  Flint, Caroline

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Follett, Barbara

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, rh Derek

  McCabe, Stephen

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  McCartney, rh Ian

  & Rve)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  MacDonald, Calum

  Foulkes, rh George

  MacDougall, John

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  McFall, John

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  McGuire. Mrs Anne

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Mclsaac Shona

  Gilroy, Linda

  McKechin, Ann

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Goggins, Paul

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McWilliam, John

  Grogan, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hain, rh Peter

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mallaber Judy

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hanson, David

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Marsden. Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Rhymney)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Shettleston)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marshall, Andrews, Robert

  Heppell, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Miliband David

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Moffatt, Laura

  Sefton E)

  Mole, Chris

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morgan, Julie

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hutton, rh John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jamieson, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jenkins, Brian

  Olner, Bill

  406

  Organ, Diana

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Soley, Clive

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Southworth, Helen

  Pearson, Ian

  Speller, rh John

  Perham, Linda

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Picking, Anne

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Lochaber)

  Plaskitt, James

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Pound, Stephen

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  E)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prescott, rh John

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Purchase, Ken

  Timms, Stephen

  Purnell, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Rammell, Bill

  Trickett, Jon

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Truswell, Paul

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Kemptown)

  Anniesland)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  NW)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Rooney, Terry

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ruane, Chris

  Ward, Claire

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  White, Brian

  Chester)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wills, Michael

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Winnick, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Sheridan, Jim

  C)

  Short, rh Clare

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Woolas, Phil

  Singh, Marsha

  Worthington, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Yarmouth)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lunesdale)

  Jim Fitzpatrick and

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Paul Clark

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Question accordingly negatived
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 169.

  Division No. 136]

  [7:14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Ainger, Nick

  Bailey, Adrian

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Baird, Vera

  Allen, Graham

  Barnes, Harry

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Benn, rh Hilary

  407

  Bennett, Andrew

  Fisher, Mark

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Flint, Caroline

  Berry, Roger

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Best, Harold

  Follett, Barbara

  Betts, Clive

  Foster, rh Derek

  Blackman, Liz

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Foulkes, rh George

  Borrow, David

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Goggins, Paul

  Browne, Desmond

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bryant, Chris

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Grogan, John

  Burden, Richard

  Hain, rh Peter

  Burnham, Andy

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Cairns, David

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Casale, Roger

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Caton, Martin

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Heppell, John

  Challen, Colin

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Clelland, David

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cohen, Harry

  Hutton, rh John

  Coleman, lain

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cooper, Yvette

  Illsley, Eric

  Corston, Jean

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Cousins, Jim

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cranston, Ross

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Crausby, David

  Jamieson, David

  Cruddas, Jon

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  David, Wayne

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Denham, rh John

  Kidney, David

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Dismore, Andrew

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Doran, Frank

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Lepper, David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Edwards, Huw

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Efford, Clive

  Linton, Martin

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Etherington, Bill

  Love, Andrew

  Farrelly, Paul

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  408

  McCabe, Stephen

  Ruane, Chris

  McCafferty, Chris

  Ruddock, Joan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  MacDonald, Calum

  MacDougall, John

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McFall, John

  Salter, Martin

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McKechin, Ann

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McNulty, Tony

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McWalter, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Short, rh Clare

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Martlew, Eric

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Miliband, David

  Soley, Clive

  Miller, Andrew

  Southworth, Helen

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Speller, rh John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Mole, Chris

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Morgan, Julie

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mullin, Chris

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Olner, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Organ, Diana

  Timms, Stephen

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Pearson, Ian

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Perham, Linda

  Trickett, Jon

  Picking, Anne

  Truswell, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pound, Stephen

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prescott, rh John

  Ward, Claire

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Prosser, Gwyn

  White, Brian

  Purchase, Ken

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Purnell, James

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Wills, Michael

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Winnick, David

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Woolas, Phil

  Rooney, Terry

  Worthington, Tony

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  409

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wyatt, Derek

  Paul Clark and

  Jim Fitzpatrick

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hancock, Mike

  Allan, Richard

  Harvey, Nick

  Amess, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Hayes,.John (S Holland)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Heald, Oliver

  Bacon, Richard

  Heath, David

  Baker, Norman

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Hendry, Charles

  Barrett, John

  Hermon, Lady

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Holmes. Paul

  Bellingham, Henry

  Howard, rh Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Blunt Crispin

  Hughes. Simon (Southwark N)

  Boswell, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Brady, Graham

  Jack, rh Michael

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Brazier, Julian

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Keetch, Paul

  Burnett, John

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Burstow, Paul

  Burt, Alistair

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Cameron, David

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Lamb, Norman

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Cash, William

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lidington, David

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Chidgey, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Chope, Christopher

  Mackay rh Andrew

  Clappison, James

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cotter, Brian

  Maude, rh Francis

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Curry, rh David

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Mitchell. Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Moore, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Norman. Archie

  Doughty, Sue

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Evans, Nigel

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fabricant, Michael

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Fallon, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Paice, James

  Paterson, Owen

  Flight, Howard

  Pickles, Eric

  Flook, Adrian

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Randall, John

  Francois, Mark

  Redwood, rh John

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Grayling, Chris

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Ruffley, David

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Greenway, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hague, rh William

  Selous, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  410

  Shepherd, Richard

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

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

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Walter, Robert

  Soames, Nicholas

  Watkinson, Angela

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Wiggin, Bill

  Steen Anthony

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Streeter, Gary

  Willis, Phil

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wilshire David,

  Swayne, Desmond

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Syms, Robert

  Young, rh Sir George

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Teather, Sarah

  Gregory Barker and

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. Peter Atkinson

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes pride in London's heritage and status as a leading global capital city; notes that its outstanding success over many centuries has depended upon its rich mix of people, innovation and energy; further notes that it is an international leader in financial services, the arts, media, higher education, medicine and scientific research and tourism; welcomes the Government's commitment to London's continuing economic, social and cultural success, and to enhancing its status as a world class city; applauds London's high levels of productivity and success in attracting inward investment that benefits the whole of the UK; recognises that this success is backed by record levels of funding from this Government for education, health, the arts, culture, creative industries, crime prevention, transport and other key public services that have resulted in substantially higher employment, substantially lower unemployment, record police numbers including more community support officers and police on the beat, massive increases in bus services and people using them, with an extra 100 million bus trips and an extra 180 million Tube journeys taken a year; applauds the leadership of the Mayor of London, working in partnership with the Government in the key areas of transport, planning, economic development and policing; praises the work of the police and security services in remaining vigilant to keep the capital safe; and condemns outright Opposition attempts to talk down and undermine the continued success of our great capital city.

  DEFERRED DIVISIONS
  Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
  That at this day's sitting, the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Mr Ben Bradshaw relating to Protection of Animals during Transport.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  Question agreed to.

  PROTECTION OF ANIMALS DURING TRANSPORT
  Motion made and Question put forthwith. pursuant to Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees),
  That this House takes note of European Documents No. 7969/01 and ADD1, Report from the Commission and draft Regulation on the ventilation in road vehicles, carrying livestock on long journeys and No. 11794/03, Commission Communications and

  411
  draft Regulation on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EEC; and supports the Government's objectives of seeking a significant improvement in animal welfare during transport and better enforcement of those rules throughout the European Union.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  Question agreed to.

  Laryngectomy
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke (Coatbridge and Chryston): The catalyst for this debate can be traced back to a letter that I received from the Lanarkshire Speakeasy group. Contained in the letter was a poignant plea for support for people who had developed cancer of the larynx and ultimately had to have a laryngectomy. The letter was signed by Ann Muir, of whom I will say more later.
  My principal aim tonight is to highlight the plight of laryngectomees, and in particular how they are treated in relation to applying for disability living allowance. There is a genuine belief in the group that they are not being treated fairly. I look forward to the response of my hon. Friend the Minister, and I welcome her presence.
  In terms of local government boundaries, the group encompasses North and South Lanarkshire councils, which have a population of 628,000 people. It is a voluntary group whose purpose is to offer hope and encouragement to laryngectomees—people who have had their voice box removed due to cancer of the larynx—and to families and carers. Its prime objective is to ensure that all members, of whom there are approximately 100, are included in all aspects of community and social activities. One of its most significant achievements is to encourage people back into society after radical surgery, as laryngectomees often withdraw from contact outside their own family circles. The secretary of the group, Ann Muir, is an outstanding person, possessed of an amazing fighting spirit. I believe that there is no praise too high for this remarkable woman.
  Let me explain to the House what laryngectomy is all about. Ann Muir has told me of her own experience. Often people are unaware that they may have a problem until certain symptoms become evident. They include hoarseness or change in the normal voice lasting for more than three weeks, breathlessness or difficulty in breathing, difficulty in swallowing, a cough or chest infection and a swelling in the neck. After a family doctor has been consulted, a series of tests will be carried out to check a patient's general health and confirm or rule out a cancer diagnosis.
  The lowest point for any patient is the simple shock of being told "You have cancer." It is at that point that every cancer patient knows what may be facing him or her. Ann underwent radium treatment for six weeks on 33 separate occasions in order to avoid a laryngectomy. A special mask was made for her, and she was bolted on to a table for treatment. Despite Ann's bravery, she admitted that that was a most frightening experience. The larynx, or voice box, has three main functions: to allow the air that we breathe to reach our lungs, to protect the lungs by closing when we swallow food or drink, and to project our voices when the vocal cords vibrate.
  As the radiation treatment was insufficient, Ann was told that she must have a laryngectomy. Cancer of the larynx is quite rare, affecting fewer than 3,000 people each year in the United Kingdom. More men than women develop it, usually after the age of 50—although

  413
  only the other day I was talking to a woman whose partner, aged just 43, has just had a laryngectomy.
  A total laryngectomy is an operation to remove the larynx completely. Just think what that must be like. Following the operation, breathing and communicating will be done very differently. Patients are so medicated for the first four to five days that they are completely confused. Ann said that at that stage she saw herself in a mirror. Visitors would say that she was looking well; Ann's response was that if she was looking well, heaven knows what she would look like when she was ill.
  One week after the operation. a patient's face and neck are massively swollen. There are holes in the neck and tubes coming out everywhere, with pain control the only salvation. Ann's granddaughter visited her and said "Gran, I don't like those. They look like teeth in your neck." The youngster was not to know that the metal stitches and the clamps were to hold Ann's head together.
  For surgical voice restoration, a catheter was inserted through a small hole in the back of Ann's trachea. The catheter keeps the hole open so that the voice valve can be put in place later. Once all that has been overcome, the next phase—that of learning to talk—begins. Removal of the larynx means that talking can no longer happen naturally, and the way in which a person breathes has been altered permanently. When that process is complete, the real task of rebuilding the person's life truly begins.
  Mr. Huw Edwards: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to join me in paying tribute to those medical specialists who perform this procedure, including those at the Singleton hospital in Swansea who treated my father four years ago, when he was 83. He is alive and well, and speaking well, following that operation.
  Mr. Clarke: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that timely intervention His high regard for the medical profession is widely shared by those with experience of this condition.
  The pain, suffering and inconvenience of all that I have just described inevitably lead to a permanent life change. Families have to make adjustments to help a person cope. There is the psychological impact of coming through such a traumatic experience, all the time thinking that one could have died.
  In my discussions with Ann, I also met another laryngectomee, Bill Wright, who is the chair of the Lanarkshire Speakeasy group. What struck me was the love and devotion of his wife Ellen, who explained that since his laryngectomy she has never had a proper night's sleep. Without complaint, she constantly lies awake listening to her husband breathing, with great difficulty, during the small hours of the morning.
  In preparation for this debate, I consulted various bodies, not least the Department for Work and Pensions office in my constituency. I had a meeting with Mr. David Collie, who is my main point of contact on all DWP matters. Two other representatives from the disability benefit centre were at the meeting. The purpose of the consultation was to establish what the DWP provides in terms of service to constituents. At the conclusion of my speech, I will return to the pre-eminent
  414
  role that the DWP should perform on this issue. For now, I record my thanks for the Department's cooperation both nationally and locally so far.
  Assessing a disability living allowance form in the first place is not as easy as one might think. For example, my local DWP office does not have a DLA application form available. Filling in such a form or forms would be an ordeal for most people, never mind a person who has just undergone major surgery. Someone said to me, "You would need to be a Philadelphia lawyer to cope."
  The fact is that there are two sets of explanatory notes accompanying two forms. DLA 1A section 1 has 68 questions, with 141 options. DLA 1A section 2 has 159 questions, with 188 options. Is all this really necessary? When DLA was first introduced, a DLA form was available in the Benefits Agency offices. A member of staff used to spend an hour or longer helping people to fill in the form. That staffing resource is simply not available in today's restructured offices. Before somebody points out that all a person needs to do is telephone for assistance, I remind the House that we are talking about laryngectomees—people who do not find it easy to talk, and certainly not for as long as it would take to complete the DLA forms.
  Why does it have to be a paper application? Are there no alternatives that take into consideration the person's needs and disabilities? Moreover, when one finally gets round to completing the forms, we are entitled to ask how they are dealt with. In the office that processes the applications, there are trained decision makers, with supervisors to keep them right and even doctors available if they need to consult on any medical matters. The Department of Work and Pensions has all the resources to hand, and all its needs are covered in full. But what about the client? Inevitably, tonight I want to focus precisely on those clients.
  Is it any wonder that when Ann Muir was starting up her voluntary group and visited every person in Lanarkshire who had experienced a laryngectomy, she was appalled at the standard of neglect that she discovered? I have no wish to exaggerate the position; there was not neglect in every home. However, there was sufficient evidence of such neglect in more instances than I believe should have been the case. It cannot be right that when a person has suffered all that is involved, they then arrive at such an unacceptable stage.
  A new study on the problems faced by people affected by cancer when assessing benefits in Northern Ireland has revealed that many lose out on the financial support to which they are entitled. The report "Benefits Access for People Affected by Cancer in Northern Ireland" is the result of a project undertaken jointly by Macmillan Cancer Relief and the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency. Interviews with patients, carers, health and social care professionals, agency staff and other advice centre workers helped to identify the main barriers that people affected by cancer face when attempting to access benefits.
  Heather Monteverde of Macmillan said that the outcome of the report confirmed what Macmillan had been hearing from patients for years. She said:
  "Our experience has told us that financial concerns are second only to physical pain as a cause of stress for people with cancer and their carers. We're delighted that the Social Security Agency has worked with us on this project to get a clear picture of the problem. We now look forward to the implementation of the recommendations."

  415
  She concluded:
  "By working together, we can ensure that people affected by cancer get the benefits advice and support they so clearly need."
  In my view, Heather is absolutely right.
  What do I want to see on the ground for people who have had a laryngectomy and others with cancer? I want to see the DWP take a leading role in bringing together health, local government and other agencies to analyse the scale of the problem. I want to see joined-up government in action for the people who need it. I want cancer patients to be made aware of what benefits they are entitled to claim. I want experts such as welfare rights officers to help to complete those labyrinthine application forms.
  Jim Sheridan: It is right that during this debate we focus on the individuals and the financial implications for them, but does my right hon. Friend also accept that organisations such as Macmillan Cancer Relief struggle day in, day out to supply their service? It is now time for the Government to consider tax exemptions for such organisations.
  Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Chancellor and his colleagues in the Treasury will take his important point on board.
  I want cancer victims to have automatic representation to tribunals. Again, the best people to do that would be welfare rights officers. I want an end to cancer patients and their families worrying about coping, and I trust that our debate has made a helpful contribution to that.
  I conclude with a quote from Mr. Forth, who was interviewed for the Northern Ireland report. He said:
  "People with cancer shouldn't have to fight for benefits, when all effort is in fighting cancer itself."
  7.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing the debate and on putting his points in way that we have all appreciated. I also pass on my thanks and admiration to Ann Muir, Bill Wright and other constituents of my right hon. Friend who run Lanarkshire Speakeasy. I do not believe that any Minister who deals with these issues could find any way of replacing the sort of work that Ann and Bill do in their local communities. We have national systems, but the sort of work done by volunteers in local communities is irreplaceable. I pass on my thanks for the work that they do. They have also given my right hon. Friend valuable information to help with his preparation for the debate. There is no better way for Members to find out what it is really like than to talk to people in their own constituencies.
  Laryngectomy is indeed the severe and radical procedure that my right hon. Friend has graphically illustrated. There is no doubt—the Department does not dispute it—that many of those who have undergone it will be eligible for disability living allowance. One of the consequences of laryngectomy is total loss of speech,
  416
  although voice production can, as my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) explained, be reacquired.
  Disability living allowance is a tax-free, non-contributory and non-means-tested benefit, the purpose of which is to provide a contribution towards the extra costs faced by severely disabled people as a result of their disabilities. Entitlement to the allowance, as my right hon. Friend is well aware, is not linked to a specific diagnosis of particular disabling conditions. It is not a medicalised benefit in that sense. It is based on the requirements of people with disabling conditions for additional care or mobility help, so it is a very individually based benefit, depending on the effects of a disabling condition rather than its diagnosis. However, there is no doubt about the fact that people who have undergone laryngectomy qualify for the benefit on the same basis as any other disabled people—in other words, they have to meet the entitlement conditions.
  DLA has a care component and a mobility component, and the care component is most relevant to the particular condition. The care component has three rates. There is a higher rate for people who are so physically or mentally disabled that they require from another person any of the following: frequent attention throughout the day in connection with their bodily functions; continual supervision throughout the day in order to avoid substantial danger to themselves or others; prolonged or repeated attention at night in connection with their bodily functions; or watching over for a prolonged period or at frequent intervals at night in order to avoid substantial danger to themselves or others. There is a middle rate for people who have those needs during the day or at night, and a lower rate for people who require attention in connection with their bodily functions for a significant portion of the day, or who cannot prepare a cooked main meal for themselves if they have the ingredients.
  Whether or not those entitlement conditions are met on individual claims is determined by decision makers on the basis of the facts of the case. The forms to which my right hon. Friend drew attention are there by way of self-reporting packs, which are designed to enable our decision makers to understand the particular needs of any individual. I recognise and have frequently said that forms of the length and complexity illustrated by my right hon. Friend can undoubtedly prove a barrier to people applying. However, help is available. It is not the case that our staff will not assist. Our increasingly sophisticated information technology, which the Department has recently acquired, enables staff to present individuals with a much shorter form, based on their individual needs as determined by questions from staff to elicit which sections of the form are most relevant. That is usually clone through telephone helplines, but I take on board my right hon. Friend's point that those who have had laryngectomies cannot be expected to answer reams of questions on the phone. It would not be comfortable or indeed possible for many of them to do so.
  The Department is committed to making its services accessible. Indeed, we are required to do so under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. If clients have difficulty with communication, as many people with laryngectomies clearly do, we will make appropriate arrangements to ensure that they can access our services

  417
  properly. Those arrangements may include home visits or other methods, but it is not in doubt that the Department is committed to ensuring that everybody who might benefit from our services has access to them. I would be more than happy to discuss with my right hon. Friend's constituents the ways in which that can be achieved in their area or how we could do it better. The point that my right hon. Friend made about access is very important. The last thing we want is for people to worry about how they can let us know about their requirements and we have got much better at providing an individual service tailored to those who wish to apply to us.
  However, not everybody who applies will succeed. People's needs vary, not only based on their diagnosis but based on other factors. I am not saying whether those who have had laryngectomies are likely to succeed or fail, because applications will be decided on individual assessments by decision makers. My right hon. Friend is correct to say that staff in the Department—the decisions makers.—have access to doctors and advice to ensure that they sufficiently understand the implications of laryngectomy to make proper decisions about the applications received. The Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board also provides guidance—it was last updated in 1999—that gets across the seriousness of such cases and the care that someone who has had a laryngectomy may need.
  I hope that there is no excuse for our decision makers getting decisions wrong in a vast array of cases. I would expect them to get the decisions right more often than they get them wrong. However, I take on board my right hon. Friend's point that it is important that clients themselves and those who wish to apply can do so in any way that they find comfortable and helpful, and it is certainly our intention to ensure that they can do so.
  To respond to some of my right hon. Friend's other points about bringing together agencies and joined-up government, all of us in government aspire to making central Government services more accessible locally and more meaningful to the individuals who are trying to gain access to them. As he made it clear, they have enough difficulties in their lives, in dealing with laryngectomy and the health implications of living with cancer, so they should not have to negotiate the obstacle course that they can face in their dealings with various Departments and local government—and who knows
  418
  which other type of local public service they can come across? We do our best to ensure that such things are improved.
  I do not pretend that we have achieved perfection—no hon. Member would believe me if I tried to suggest that we had—but, none the less, we recognise that it is important that our services exist for the benefit not of my staff or anyone else's staff in a different Department, but of our customers and clients. We are for ever trying to find new ways to ensure that people such as those to whom my right hon. Friend has drawn our attention today have every opportunity to get what they need from us. We are committed to ensuring that those who are entitled to such benefits receive them speedily and in a way that is relevant to them.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend that more information is required. We can always do better in that respect. There is often fear among disabled people and those who have acquired a disability or who are living with cancer or another serious condition, and they want to concentrate on getting better and on living with their condition, not on trying to work out the finances. We understand that we always need better information about where individuals can find the relevant help.
  On some of my right hon. Friend's other points—I realise that time is escaping us—I am more than happy to write to him to ensure that I deal with any issue that I have not covered. I assure him that those who are living with laryngectomy have just as much entitlement to disability living allowance as anyone else and that we are not just administrators of the benefit. We are committed to ensuring that those who are entitled can gain access to their entitlement.
  My right hon. Friend drew the attention of the House to the forms that are used, and we are committed to reforming the way in which those forms work in a way that helps those who may have an entitlement to claim properly and to pass the information on to us. We are more than happy, where necessary—it clearly is necessary in some cases—to make proper arrangements to enable people to complete those forms in a way that is comfortable and useful to them. May I finish by saying how grateful I am to my right hon. Friend for raising this important matter on the Adjournment today?
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Iraq
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.]
9.30 am
Sir John Stanley: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am very glad that we have the opportunity, at some point in the House this week, to debate the all-important subject of Iraq. Although this debate provides the only opportunity to do so, I am grateful to the Minister and all hon. Members who are attending. I will come to the current situation in Iraq, the severity of which has been all too tragically highlighted by the appalling multiple bombing in Basra this morning, with terrible loss of life, including children, but I want to start with what prompted me to request this debate—the lessons to be learned from the circumstances in which we originally went to war in Iraq last year.
I make no apology for repeating what I have said before, which is that those circumstances were wholly unique. They bear no relation to the circumstances under which Britain has become involved in other wars in living memory, going back to the first world war. There was no incontrovertible, observable, factual event on the ground that constituted the trigger for war in Iraq. There was no invasion, such as the one that precipitated the first Gulf war, no looming humanitarian disaster, such as precipitated the war in Kosovo, and no appalling act of terrorism, such as what happened on 9/11, which precipitated the war in Afghanistan. Quite uniquely, the war in Iraq rested fundamentally on an intelligence assessment that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction on a large scale, that some of those weapons were at 45 minutes' readiness, and that some represented a current threat to vital British interests, most conspicuously the sovereign base areas in Cyprus and the facilities associated with them.
I understand that Ministers have a considerable degree of nervousness about associating the decision to go to war with the issue of the intelligence assessment of weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, listening to the Prime Minister, one might be forgiven for thinking that the only reason we went to war in Iraq was to change the regime. However, that conveniently ignores the fact that the Prime Minister, on 18 March last year, in making the case to go to war, specifically stated that it would be illegal to go to war in Iraq to change the regime. He said:
"I have never put the justification for action as regime change. We have to act within the terms set out in resolution 1441—that is our legal base."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 772.]
Equally, listening to the Foreign Secretary, one might also be forgiven for thinking that the trigger for going to war was nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, but was simply to do with Saddam
70WH
Hussein's violation of UN resolutions. That conveniently ignores the fact that the UN resolutions in question, not least 1441, are all about Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction, and the need for him to disarm and give the necessary access to the UN weapons inspectors.
The trigger for the war was undoubtedly WMD. The documentary evidence that makes that conclusively clear is the Government's own paper entitled "Iraq: Military Campaign Objectives", which the Government placed in the Library just before the war started. The opening paragraph states:
"The prime objective remains to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and their associated programmes and means of delivery, including prohibited ballistic missiles, as set out in relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions."
As we went to war uniquely on the basis of an intelligence assessment, it was, of course, incumbent on the key senior Ministers involved—specifically the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary—to subject that intelligence assessment to the closest scrutiny and to ask the key questions about it. Also, if that intelligence assessment was materially in error in respect of its portrayal in the public domain and to Parliament, Ministers should have produced the necessary corrections. One has to ask whether that degree of ministerial scrutiny applied; I fear that it did not.
I want to make it clear that I do not consider Ministers personally blameworthy for the fact that weapons of mass destruction have not so far been found. I accept, of course, that the buck finally stops with Ministers, but they had clear advice from the intelligence professionals that there were weapons of mass destruction, and in my view they were entitled to rely on that advice. That poses important questions for the intelligence services on both sides of the Atlantic, and those are obviously the subject of inquiry and scrutiny.
However, there was a clear responsibility on Ministers to ask the key questions to ensure that they understood clearly what the intelligence assessment meant, particularly in relation to claims based on that assessment that were put into the public domain. There was also a clear obligation on Ministers to produce corrections. Of no claim is that truer than the one that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes' readiness to deploy. That was a claim to which the Government gave extensive publicity. It appeared four times in the September dossier, and was used by the Prime Minister in his 24 September speech to the House of Commons. It was also used by the Foreign Secretary, a matter of weeks before the war started, in his speech of 21 February at Chatham house.
With the benefit of hindsight, there is no question but that Ministers were ill advised ever to allow the 45-minute claim to appear in the September dossier. Hindsight aside, it was clearly central to Ministers' responsibilities to ask themselves the key questions about that claim. Especially before the war began, Ministers should have asked, and should have had the answers to, one question that was more important than any other—that is, to which weapons was the 45-minute claim related?
Mr. Tam Dalyell: All of us have made mistakes, but I was cartooned in The Times as asking why the dossier was not nominated to be on the shortlist for the Booker prize for fiction. Many of us challenged the dossier at the time.
Sir John Stanley: I do not take the view that the whole September dossier was fiction. Some of it has, to a degree, been corroborated by the results of the Iraq survey group. However, I agree that key elements in that dossier, particularly in relation to the immediacy of the specific threat to British interests, appear so far to have rested on uncertain, and possibly dubious, intelligence.
Of the three Ministers concerned, it appears, from the written answer that he gave me on 23 February—which can be found at column 2W in the Official Report for that date—that only the Defence Secretary asked the key question about which weapons of mass destruction the 45-minute claim related to. The Defence Secretary knew that the answer was simply battlefield weapons, and he knew that shortly after the publication of the September dossier, months before the war began. Extraordinarily, the Foreign Secretary went into the war without asking that question or getting the answer to it. He found out that the 45-minute claim related solely to battlefield weapons only in June last year, well after the war had ended.
Perhaps most reprehensibly of all, the Prime Minister, who was leading the Government and taking the country into a war for which he sought the approval of the House of Commons, did not know until after the war which Iraqi weapons systems the 45-minute claim related to. In the answer that he gave to me on 10 February—it can be found at column 1346W in the Official Report for that date—he said that he did not know until the Intelligence and Security Committee had examined the issue. That Committee's inquiry did not commence until May, which was after the war had ended.
It is an issue of serious and culpable negligence as far as the Prime Minister is concerned, The Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), was justified in calling for the Prime Minister's resignation on that particular key issue. It was no small matter, because on the answer to that question rested the issue of whether or not the high-readiness Iraqi weapons of mass destruction represented a threat to vital British interests. If the 45-minute claim related only to battlefield weapons, there was no threat to British interests. Only if it related to Iraq's supposed longer-range al-Hussein missiles, which were capable of reaching the sovereign base areas in Cyprus, could the idea of the 45-minute claim affecting British interests be valid. It was a fundamental question and, sadly, it was not asked by key Ministers.
In addition, Ministers failed to make the necessary corrections and they have tried to blame the media, both in the House and elsewhere. In particular, they have blamed The Sun for running a story, under the headline "Brits 45 minutes from doom", which referred to British service men, and British tourists, in Cyprus. Along with other sections of the British media, The Sun was entirely justified in drawing precisely that conclusion from the
72WH
wording of the September 2002 dossier. Whether or not it was justified in drawing that conclusion—and in my view it was—there is no question but that it was incumbent on Ministers to correct that very serious misapprehension. Ministers knew that it was in the public domain and they failed to correct it. Most of all, it was incumbent on the Prime Minister, before he asked the House of Commons to approve his motion to go to war on 18 March last year, to put that key correction before Parliament and the public. That was not done.
It may be said, and perhaps the Minister will want to do so in his reply, that that is all just a matter of history. Well, we would all be relieved if it were just a matter of history and this country was not going to face the dilemma of whether to carry out military operations of one sort or another based on an intelligence assessment. However, given the way that the world is going—and given everything that we are told about the extent of terrorism, the proliferation of WMD and the clear intentions of certain terrorist organisations to try to get access to them—it will be a near miracle if we get through the next five or 10 years without finding ourselves in a situation similar to the one that we faced last year. That is, our Government might very well obtain intelligence information to the effect that a very dangerous terrorist organisation, or other group, has WMD capability and that it might at some point be on its way to this country, or be directed against British interests.
If that happens, the Government will have to come to Parliament and to the country again and, on the basis of an intelligence assessment, ask for support for a military operation that may have taken place already, or which may take place in the future. In those circumstances, it will be of critical importance for the Government that the British public and Members of Parliament are confident that what the Government say about the intelligence assessment is as accurate as possible.
Sadly, I believe that the Government's mishandling of the public dimension of parts of the intelligence assessment made before the war in Iraq has seriously damaged their credibility. The Government must decide how to restore that credibility, but I shall offer one suggestion. I read the recent press reports of Dr. Condoleezza Rice's eventual public appearance before the 9/11 investigation commission in Washington. The day after her performance, it was reported that Dr. Rice, along with senior members of the Bush Administration, had carefully avoided using what I call the "M-word". The Blair Administration also seem careful to avoid using that word, which in this case is "mistake". The Government would be well advised to come clean and acknowledge mistakes that were made, including at ministerial level, in their presentation of the intelligence assessment that led to us going to war in Iraq last year.
The security situation in Iraq has undoubtedly deteriorated alarmingly over the past few weeks, and the practical terms of what will happen when the transfer of sovereignty takes place on 30 June are a huge unknown. There must be increasing worries about whether the critically important reconstruction programme can be fulfilled in the current alarming climate of poor security and kidnappings.

73WH
I regret to say that it appears to me and to plenty of other commentators that a huge political misjudgment has been made by the American-led coalition provisional authority. How many of us had ever heard of Moqtada al-Sadr—I certainly had not—or of his small circulation newspaper, al-Hawza? There is no doubt that the decision of Mr. Paul Bremer, the civilian administrator, to close down that newspaper and arrest one of al-Sadr's aides has had profoundly disadvantageous consequences for the coalition. The publicity that al-Sadr has received has been of a saturation order, both in Iraq and worldwide, and it is in danger of enabling him, as an extreme militant, to outflank the more moderate Shi'a leadership. There is plenty of evidence that the events of the past few weeks are bringing the Sunnis and the Shi'ites closer together against the coalition forces. That is exceptionally dangerous.
The security consequences have meant that during the past few weeks more than 100 members of the US armed forces, and now nearly 1,000 Iraqis, have been killed. It is against that background that we must consider the right approach for the future.
As far as I am concerned—and I hope that this is the position of most hon. Members—there can be no question of quitting and running. That would be totally disastrous. It would have the most profound and damaging effects, in the middle east and worldwide, on our attempts to deal with the security threat from terrorism. However, we must view the security position in Iraq with a greater degree of realism than some people have shown.
Although it may be unpalatable to say so, the security reality is that, however unreasonably and unfairly, the coalition forces in most of Iraq are, at best, tolerated and, at worst, hated. There are unlimited numbers of terrorist targets, both physical and human, and in security terms we are spread pretty thinly in that vast country. Moreover, the past few weeks have demonstrated unarguably that Iraq is a security tinderbox.
The key security requirement is to avoid political and military decisions that end up making the security situation very much worse than it was before. If we are to have an orderly exit from Iraq, and if we are to improve the security position, it is crucial that we and the Americans demonstrate the requisite sophistication, astuteness and realism in making those key political and military decisions.
The British representatives in the CPA, both on the civilian and military side, have a full awareness of that necessity. I am afraid that I am much less convinced that that is the case among US civilians or military personnel. I would be interested to know whether the Minister shares that analysis. If so, what steps will the British Government take to try to impress on our American allies and friends the need for the greater sensitivity and awareness to which I have referred?
Finally, I move on to the political situation in Iraq. I welcome and fully support the decision made by the British and American Governments not to delay the date of handover. To have done so would simply have played straight into the hands of those in Iraq who want to misrepresent us as occupying powers determined to stay in Iraq for as long as possible and to deny the Iraqis
74WH
their sovereignty. I am sure that that was the right decision. However, the worrying feature at the moment is that we have just 10 weeks to go until 30 June, and absolutely key questions remain unanswered.
I read in the press that a few short days ago that Mr. Paul Bremer, when asked by a journalist about who would be handed the keys in Iraq on 30 June, replied that that was "a good question". It is indeed, and I suggest that it needs a good answer, given the shortage of time. In his statement in the House on Monday, the Prime Minister was not able to shed any light on the answer. I do not know whether the Minister can do so today, but I urge him to. In his statement, the Prime Minister outlined the institutional arrangements for Iraqi government, and then said, "That is the vision." With 10 weeks to go, we do not want to be in visionary country.
I hope that the Minister can put some flesh and bones on the arrangements, and indeed tell us some names. In particular, can he shed any light on who will be the new President and two vice-presidents of Iraq? Who will be the Prime Minister? Will members of the existing Iraqi interim governing council continue in post, and will they be added to? Most particularly, can the Minister tell us whether the Americans will effectively approve appointments to the key political leadership of the new sovereign Iraq that takes over the reins of power on 1 July? If it appears that the key new political figures are American appointees, I doubt very much that that will be a basis on which they will be able to command authority and respect over a large section of the Iraqi population.
Mr. Dalyell: The last people to whom key positions ought to be given are certain Iraqi émigrés and exiles who have given us such bad advice for a long time, and who are hated by many people in Iraq. I am thinking of Mr. Chalabi, in particular.
Sir John Stanley: I broadly agree: there are those with a previous history outside Iraq who are not well regarded inside the country.
Lastly, I hope that the Minister can tell us what role the British Government will play in these crucial 10 weeks during the formation of the new sovereign Government of Iraq.
In conclusion, whatever the rights and wrongs of our decision to go to war in Iraq last year, the inescapable reality is that the British and American Governments, under the relevant international conventions, have legal and moral duties to the people of Iraq. Those duties are inescapable, and those responsibilities must be discharged. I trust that both the American and the British Governments fully understand the scale of the task that they face in discharging those responsibilities, the difficulty of doing so, and the need for the resources and the determination to see the matter through to success.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I remind the Chamber that it is customary to start the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the conclusion of the debate. We therefore have only 33 minutes left for Back-Bench contributions.
9.58 am
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) on his extremely thoughtful speech. In one basic matter, however, I must be candid and say that I disagree. I am one of those people, albeit a minority, who thinks that we have no alternative but to withdraw the troops—embarrassing though it might be in causing red faces.
If I mention that I was on television this morning expressing these views, I do so for a reason that will become apparent. I argued that the very presence of coalition forces, far from curtailing violence and terrorism, acts as an incentive for terrorism. We now have a war of liberation, and I fear that we are the enemy. Let us be clear about the fact that it is not only former pro-Saddam people attacking us. We believe that there are many who hated Saddam, and to whom Saddam was extremely cruel, and—all right—for traditional reasons of nationalism they are taking up arms against coalition forces. The situation is appalling.
I said that I was on television this morning because I was immediately followed by Julian Manyon, the veteran reporter in Baghdad, who started by saying, "Tam Dalyell is absolutely right." I had not expected Julian Manyon to say that, but for him to endorse my view brings home the reality.
You have asked us to be quick, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall be. I have only one other matter to raise, which is the question of al-Sadr. I am told that there are many al-Sadr posters; the difficulty is that this man, who has been created by some very foolish things that the west has done, is now seen as a symbol of the Shi'a.
Those are minority opinions, but in my defence I should say that I was in Iraq in 1993 and 1998. That is partly why I challenged intelligence throughout our debates. Apart from anything else, I did not know how it was possible to be an intelligence agent in the Saddam society—by God, one would have been risking one's life. I doubted intelligence because of that.
Here we are, however, in this mess. I fear that, shamefacedly though we may have to do it, the correct decision is for the west now to withdraw. There may be enormous bloodshed, but I think it more likely that Shi'a and Sunni, who were never as divided as was made out in the west, will come together and that by some alchemy an Iraqi state will be born.
10.2 am
Mr. Edward Leigh: We should be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) for ensuring that we are having the debate, although it is a pity that we are not having a major debate in the main Chamber, as this is a matter of supreme importance. However, we are grateful to him, particularly for the moderate and informed way in which he opened the debate.
I shall not repeat my right hon. Friend's points, but it is important that we do not allow the Government to move on from the arguments about weapons of mass destruction. There is a tendency now for the Prime Minister to say, in the very charming style that he uses, that there was a difference of opinion and that he understands our point of view but we must move on and
76WH
talk about reconstruction. I am sorry, but this is a crucial matter that must be referred to again and again. We need answers from the Government.
Issues of peace and war, especially declaring war, are the most solemn duties placed on a Government. This country has a record unequalled by that of any other, at least in the 20th century, for going to war for only the most solemn reasons—if attacked or to protect our vital interests and our allies. That was not the case with the Iraq war, so the issue must be referred to again and again. We want answers from Ministers.
We now hear in the latest revelations from Washington that the CIA had fewer than five agents on the ground in Iraq, that its intelligence on Iraq was woefully lacking and that in recent history there were no weapons of mass destruction that posed any threat to this country. The reason for the war was spurious, and we have to nail the Government for that.
All that was foretellable and it was indeed foretold by those of us who voted against the war; that was our first reason for doing so. The second reason, which we also referred to continually, was that invading a Muslim country would make terrorism worse rather than better. That is precisely what has happened. We have provided an excuse for extremely unpleasant fanatics in the Muslim world to convey the impression to gullible masses throughout the Arab world that the invasion was part of a western plot to undermine Muslim and Arab culture. We played into their hands.
The Prime Minister repeatedly says that his reason for going to war was to break the links between rogue states. terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. There has never been any evidence that Saddam Hussein either had weapons of mass destruction that were a threat to us or our allies or was responsible for the events of 11 September. That is the second thing that was foretellable and foretold—the war has made terrorism worse.
The third point that we made again and again was that Iraq was ungovernable. We referred back the British experience in 1920 and to the wise actions of the elder President Bush in 1991 when he realised the difficulties of breaking up the Iraqi state and did not go further than liberating Kuwait. Those three factors were foretold and we must remind the Government of them again and again.
What is so sad, and disastrous, is that since the mistaken decision was taken to invade a Muslim country, the American Government have made matters so much worse by disbanding the Iraqi army and spurning the offer by France and Germany, shortly after the war, to come in under UN auspices. The American regime wants to go it alone and is over-confident of its ability to hold down Iraq with so few troops. Eric Shinseki, the US army chief of staff, gave evidence to Congress that, in his view, 500,000 troops would be necessary to ensure peace and security in Iraq. I am told that it is generally accepted that holding down a country after occupation following war requires 20 security personnel for every 1,000 inhabitants.
At one time, there were 60 small US army units scattered throughout Baghdad, but the US army has retreated into eight camps around Baghdad. It has a laager mentality and simply drives through Baghdad in

77WH
armoured convoys making itself a target. As my right hon. Friend said, at best it is tolerated and at worst hated. Again and again, decisions have been taken that have made things much worse. What about the offers of Grand Ayatollah Sistani and his advice? He is a modern influence in the Shi'a world and the Americans should have listened to him, but his offers were spurned. What about his calls for genuine democracy? Again, they were spurned.
We are where we are, however, and that is the trouble with this debate. Those of us who voted against the war are constantly told that that is in the past and asked for our solutions to the problem. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) says that we should leave Iraq immediately. I believe that general opinion is that we simply cannot do what the Spaniards are doing and scuttle out, but we must have an exit plan. I hope that the Minister, instead of reading out a Foreign Office brief, tries to respond to the debate and tell the Members of Parliament gathered in this Chamber exactly what exit plan the Government have and how they will ensure that our troops leave safely.
In the Defence Committee yesterday, General Jackson implied that there is friction between the different approaches of the British Army and the American army to peacekeeping operations. We should all pay great tribute to our troops who, because of their huge skill and experience in Northern Ireland, have managed to keep a lid on the situation in southern Iraq, but can we rely on that continuing for weeks or months? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing said, we demand answers from the Government now on exactly what their plan is for the handover of power. We hear that the UN envoy, Mr. Brahimi, proposes the concept of a Prime Minister and presidential council of three. As my right hon. Friend asked, who will be appointed? Will they be seen to be appointees of the American Government? Will they be stooges? Will that make the situation far worse?
Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman rejects the idea of an immediate exit, and I understand why, but did he see Brigadier Nick Carter in Basra saying that if there was pressure at Najaf and if things got worse, he would have 150,000 Shi'a at the gates of his barracks? What would we do then?
Mr. Leigh: That is a pertinent point and it is deeply worrying for our armed forces, who are under-resourced and are holding down southern Iraq with pitiably few personnel. What will happen if the Shi'a are incited to rise up against them? We would have to retreat, just as we did in 1920. I am afraid that, in one sense, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. There must be an exit strategy—not one of scuffling out in the next few weeks, although we must know precisely what our plans are.
We will never solve the problems of the middle east unless we detach moderate Arab opinion from extremists, and we will not do that until we make some effort to resolve the Palestinian dispute. What were the American Government doing—in this week of all weeks—allowing the Israeli Prime Minister three huge settlements in the middle of the west bank? What does that say to moderate Arab opinion throughout the region? Only the Americans can put pressure on the Israelis; nobody else can. The American Government
78WH
sustain Israel. I support the state of Israel; we all do in this Room. We all believe, after the dreadful horrors inflicted on the Jewish people in the 20th century, that they have a right to their state, but the Palestinian people also have a right to justice. That is what the American Government must address. This is a sad and disastrous decision. The debate is timely, and I hope that the Minister gives us some good answers today.
10.11 am
Mr. David Chidgey: I thoroughly endorse the comments made by other hon. Members, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) on securing the debate and on making the points that he made. I want to refer to issues concerning the role of the United Nations, the transitional process and the reconstruction of Iraq.
On 19 April, the Prime Minister said in his statement:
"We will hold absolutely to the 30 June timetable for the handover of sovereignty … The UN should have a central role, and it should be developed still further once the occupation ends".
I welcome his sudden recognition of the importance of the UN's role in these affairs, although it is a little belated. However, it is important to consider the mechanics of the UN's current involvement, comparing it with the disastrous events of a few weeks ago, when Kofi Annan's deputy was murdered in Baghdad. I am concerned to know how the UN's new involvement will be handled. Who will provide the security for UN personnel, given the recent disastrous attack on their headquarters? What guarantee will be provided to UN personnel and what discussions have been held with the UN in New York or anywhere else? When I last had the opportunity to discuss these matters a few weeks ago, it was made clear that the UN would not he releasing personnel to go to Iraq until they have a guarantee of security. We have yet to see that.
Returning to the Prime Minister's statement, he said:
"The vast majority of Iraqis want a … stable, democratic Iraq … That is exactly what the coalition want."—[official Report, 19 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 21–2.]
We must ask, on what form of democracy will a democratic Iraq be based? Clearly, not on the Westminster model, or the US model. The agreement on the political process between the Iraqi governing council and the coalition provisional authority makes that abundantly clear. The key area, however, is the adoption of a permanent constitution prepared by the constitutional convention, elected from and by the Iraqi people. That should happen no later than 15 March 2005, but we already know that opposition is arising from certain quarters—Shi'a clerics, for example.
We must address the risk of attempts by fundamentalists to fill the present democratic vacuum with Islamists, whose constitutional aims are underpinned by sharia law. That is not what I understood to be the reason for being in Iraq, if we are to create a great democratic republic in the region. Has the coalition set out its red lines on what changes to the administrative law and the constitution would be acceptable?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I apologise for intervening, but I need to clarify what the hon. Gentleman said. Did he say that during the transitional administrative period sharia law would be the code?
Mr. Chidgey: No, I did not say that. That was not my intention, but I am trying to speed things up. I am concerned that we shall end up with a constitution underpinned by sharia law. Got that, Minister? Good.
Clearly, this is a key issue not only for us, but for the US. Senior US politicians have made clear their view that should the constitution for Iraq result in an Islamist republic, there would be no way that the US could keep its forces in Iraq a moment longer; that would be politically unacceptable. I want to know from the Minister the United Kingdom's view. Do we take the same position? Have the Government made such an assessment? What would happen next should that development unfortunately occur?
We are all aware of the vast sums that the US has allocated for reconstruction in Iraq and that that is tied fundamentally to US business. We are also aware of charges that have been levelled about how such contracts have been awarded. They were supposedly negotiated, but there are claims of a different means of allocation—for example, that Halliburton, the company once led by the US Vice-President, has been found to have vastly overcharged its client for the services that it supposedly provided. Even worse are the recent reports of corruption and bribery on top of the cronyism with which we have become familiar. I raise that point with the Minister.
UK taxpayers are contributing quite a large amount of money to the reconstruction process in Iraq. Perhaps the sum is not as big as that being contributed by the US, but it is certainly significant in our terms. I am sad to say, however, that UK firms appear to have been generally sidelined in their attempts to win contracts from the Americans in the effort to reconstruct Iraq. I think the expression used in Iraq is that the UK process for awarding contracts was "stupidly fair" compared with the way in which the Americans are tying their reconstruction budget to their own firms.
Can the Minister confirm that such is the desperate situation with regard to UK firms' inability to win any projects in Iraq that a trade Minister recently sent out this message, which was quoted in The Guardian:
"All ministers in the government who are in frequent touch with their US opposite numbers"
need
"to ensure that the US administration are in no doubt about the political importance we attach to UK firms being seen to contribute actively to the reconstruction process"?
The result, however, has been an absolute no—a big fat zero—which is of great concern.
Finally, I want to pick up on the concerns about corruption. Those of us who read The Sunday Times will be aware that, last weekend, some rather startling and far-reaching allegations were made that the CPA had been awarding contracts "improperly" on the basis of receiving bribes from companies, which then fail to deliver the project. The allegations are quite horrifying. Such behaviour is, I believe, illegal in British industry, as
80WH
I am sure it is in US industry, whether it occurs in our own country or overseas. I want to hear from the Minister whether he has picked up on that point and what our Government are doing to ensure that the reconstruction of Iraq, which is based to a degree on UK taxpayers' money, is kept free of corruption.
10.18 am
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) has done the House a service by initiating the debate. However, it may not have escaped the Minister's attention that, with the exception of the Father of the House, not a single Labour Member has seen fit to take part. I suspect that that is because there is large and growing embarrassment on the Labour Benches. Had they known then what they know now, many Labour Members would never have trooped into the Division Lobby with the Minister and his colleagues. The fact that not a single Labour Member apart from the Father of the House dares to show his face in this Chamber today is effective testament to that.
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsboro ugh (Mr. Leigh) said in his excellent speech. The House should also appreciate that the effects of the war have spread far beyond Iraq. I chair the Select Committee on International Development. Many millions of people live on less than $1 a day in central and Latin America. However, as a consequence of the war and the need to divert funds to Iraq, the Department for International Development has withdrawn all aid from the whole of central and Latin America. Every DFID office in places such as Peru is being closed. The House did not fully take that on board. It happened when the new Secretary of State was taking over from Baroness Amos. We have now completely abandoned Latin America.
When Baroness Amos was Secretary of State she appeared before the International Development Committee. It is clear that no assumption made by the Government or the coalition before the invasion of Iraq has come good. She said that
"there was preparation, there was preparation for a range of possible crises, ranging from prolonged urban warfare through large population movements and widespread disruption of essential infrastructure. As it happened what we did see was widespread looting and a breakdown in law and order. which had not been anticipated and which led to serious problems."
With some understatement, she continued by saying that
"we planned for very specific scenarios which did not occur … I think where mistakes were made were in anticipation of what we thought the problems were going to be."
That is like a statement from a general confession; the coalition prepared for eventualities that did not happen and made absolutely no preparation for those that did.
Hoshyar Zabary, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, recently observed that the coalition's greatest error was to assume in international law the role of an "occupying power." Reference has been made to United Nations

81WH
Security Council resolution 1483. The Iraqi Foreign Minister is a Kurd. The coalition is putting its trust in him. He has said:
"I reminded Tony Blair that we have pleaded with his senior officials that this language would be catastrophic. The concept of occupation instead of liberation would change the minds of the people … everything we proposed was rejected. They did not have faith in the Iraqis."
We have a coalition that fails to get United Nations support; when it does get that support, it is simply to assert the US and UK military as occupiers. The coalition rejected all the advice it received, even that which came from Iraqis whom it was purporting to trust and to put into positions of responsibility.
A year after the downfall of Saddam Hussein, it is difficult to credit how little sensitivity there is towards the Iraqis among some US soldiers. Over Easter, American soldiers who had arrested some Iraqis and bound their hands in plastic restraints were quoted as saying:
"We picked up these guys for wearing black … we are under orders to arrest anyone dressed in black."
My experience in Islamic countries is that Muslim pilgrims frequently wear black. In Iraq, Shi'ite pilgrims wear black. It may have escaped the attention of the coalition commanding officers that hundreds of thousands of Shi'ite Muslims were converging on Iraq's twin holy cities of Najaf and Karbala for the Shi'ite festival of Arba-Een.
Such cultural insensitivity and heavy-handedness is part of the reason why, for the first time, the coalition is facing the twin threats of Sunni insurgents and Sadr's Shi'ite gunmen. No wonder on Good Friday, the Foreign Secretary was obliged to observe on "The World at One" that
"there is no doubt that the situation is very serious and it is the most serious that we have faced."
Ministers in the Foreign Office would have done well to take heed of the remarks of my right hon. Friend Lord Hurd of Westwell, a distinguished Foreign Secretary under whom I was privileged to serve when he held that office. He said:
"You really don't win hearts and minds by filling hospitals and mortuaries."
Haifa Sangana, an Iraqi novelist and a former political prisoner of the Ba'ath regime observed that
"ordinary Iraqi people are appalled at the way in which the coalition Provisional Council have seemingly been watching in silence while Iraqis have been killed ".
About 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the start of the conflict, and although most of the governing council's members were once victims of Saddam's regimes they now seem to turn a blind eye to the violation of human rights by occupying troops.
One of the first things that the coalition provisional authority did was to issue a memorandum to remove the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts over any coalition personnel in both civil and criminal matters. Amnesty International recently produced a report. There was a time when Labour Members used to quote what that
82WH
organisation said, but they no longer do. That report states:
"Coalition forces appear in many cases to be using the climate of violence to justify violating the very human rights standards they are supposed to be upholding. They have shot Iraqis dead during demos, tortured and ill treated prisoners, arrested people arbitrarily and held them indefinitely, demolished houses in acts of revenge and collective punishment "
Senator Kerry described the June deadline for a handover of sovereignty to an interim Iraqi Government as a fiction; he said that it was an arbitrary decision that had
"almost certainly been affected by the elections schedule."
Those of us who voted against the war on the grounds that it did not have the authority of the United Nations can only sadly observe that far from striking a blow against terrorism, the invasion of Iraq seems to have unleashed the very forces of extremism that it was supposed to destroy.
During the Easter recess, we watched sadly as the situation in Iraq became blacker by the day, and often by the hour. Dozens of Iraqis have been killed or injured, lives of coalition troops have been lost, foreigners have been kidnapped and any scintilla of a suggestion of coalition forces being peacekeepers has been blown away; they are now clearly occupiers.
Did I dream that President Bush, some months ago, stood on the deck of US warship Abraham Lincoln to announce the end of all major military operations, beneath a banner claiming, "Mission accomplished"? Bizarrely, whatever the body count, the situation seems continuously to be one of "mission accomplished." On Good Friday, US General Sanchez, the No. 2 US military commander in Iraq, observed that
"a new dawn is approaching."
That is what US military commanders were telling us exactly a year ago.
When it suited the United States and, sadly, the United Kingdom, they ignored the United Nations. Now, apparently, Washington is lobbying countries to commit troops to protect UN personnel in the hope of convincing the UN to return to Baghdad to help organise elections and to finalise the constitution after the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi Government. Not surprisingly, neither Kofi Annan, who withdrew his staff from Iraq last October after an attack on UN headquarters had killed 22 people, including his representative, Sergio de Mello, nor individual member states are now rushing forward to endorse that suggestion. One cannot simply pick and choose when one seeks the help of the UN.
A year after coalition troops entered Baghdad, there are only 12 hours of electricity a day and there is more sewage in the streets. Why have the coalition forces failed to restore the basic necessities of life, such as power and water, for the people of Iraq? After 30 years of disastrous wars and the brutality of Saddam Hussein, the vast majority of Iraqis simply wanted to get back to normal life. All the US and the UK had to do was to get the relatively efficient Iraqi administration up and running again, and they have not done that. Few in Iraq will necessarily have been celebrating the anniversary of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein on 9 April, because what, in reality, have they to celebrate?

83WH
The Economist endorsed President Bush in the 2000 election and unequivocally supported the war against Iraq. Yet it was obliged to observe on 1 April that
"the war was one of choice not necessity. Given that, it was foolish to exaggerate Saddam's weaponry, downright misleading to imply a link between the Iraqi leader and A1 Qaeda and hubristic to do so little to prepare for post war reconstruction … mistakes soon piled up: handing the running of the country to the Pentagon; letting looters rip out the infrastructure; disbanding the Iraqi army and dismissing outside efforts to help."
Iraq was invaded by a coalition of willing countries. However, it was not a coalition of willing countries acting with the authority of the UN. The invasion has always lacked legitimacy, and that lack of legitimacy has been a tragic flaw.
Commenting on the first Gulf war, Douglas Hurd, in his book "The Search for Peace" observes that after the invasion of Kuwait:
"There was a good deal of argument about the best means of ensuring legitimacy. Article 51 of the UN Charter provides an absolute right of self defence. International lawyers argue convincingly that this right extended to allies trying to rescue Kuwait, as well as to Kuwait itself."
Douglas Hurd notes, however, that the American Secretary of State, James Baker, argued, with his strong support, that "this was not enough." In their view they needed specific authorisation of their efforts by the Security Council. As Douglas Hurd observes:
"There were hazards in this course; there was the danger of Russian or Chinese vetoes, but more subtle was the danger of fudge and obscure wording in a Security Council Resolution which might prevent our Commanders in the field from doing what was necessary."
However, he concludes:
"We managed through firm diplomacy in New York and in capitals to avoid these dangers. The specific approval of the Security Council was a necessary condition of allied success."
What a pity that President Bush Jr. did not follow the foreign policy lead of his father.
Later this summer, the inquiry led by Lord Butler of Brockwell will report, following its review of the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction that was used by Ministers as a justification for war. At that point, the House will undoubtedly need to revisit the legal case for the war, because it seems clear that Ministers at the very least misunderstood the vocabulary, language and ambiguities of the intelligence that they sought to rely on.
10.30 am
Mr. Michael Moore: This has been a most impressive and powerful debate. In particular, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley), who opened with a powerful analysis of the reasons why we went to war and cogent arguments against the Government's actions then, and since. With great expertise, the right hon. Gentleman covered a lot of that ground, which does not need repetition from me, and there have been serious contributions from other hon. Members, to which we should pay tribute.
This morning's bombings in Basra set the awful scene for the debate. More innocents—children as well as adults—are dead and British forces have been stoned as
84WH
they try to assist the wounded. It is a truly grisly and awful situation. The bombings are the latest indication of the worsening security situation in Iraq. There is ever-stronger resistance in the so-called Sunni triangle and rising militancy among the Shi'as. Deaths and injuries to Iraqis are on the rise across the country and hostage taking and deaths among the international community are increasingly prevalent. The casualties to coalition forces are increasing every day. The coalition has been weakened by the withdrawal of troops by Spain and other countries and, sadly, trained Iraqi forces have proved unreliable recently.
The deteriorating security conditions make an already difficult political situation much worse. Ten weeks from today, power is due to be transferred to the interim Iraqi Government. At this late stage, it remains unclear how those new arrangements will work. The interim constitution has not found favour with the Shi'a community in particular and the detailed planning remains obscure.
Liberal Democrats firmly opposed the war in Iraq and believe that many of the current difficulties arise from the way in which it was prosecuted and the developments since. We believe equally firmly that we have a duty to continue to play a major role in the transition of Iraq to a new democracy, but there are serious hurdles to overcome in achieving that goal.
We are increasingly concerned about the way in which the US military is handling the response to insurgency. The events of Fallujah suggest that any concept of proportionate response is in danger of being junked by the Americans. We condemn the attacks on US civilians and soldiers, as we do those against the nationals of any other country, but the scale of the civilian casualties has shocked everybody and it looks more and more as if the coalition is returning to a full-scale war footing. That is not the way to win hearts and minds or to prepare for the first meaningful steps towards a sovereign, democratic Iraq. In all dealings with the United States, the British must urge restraint.
The coalition faces both opportunity and necessity to open up the process in Iraq to broader international support. We have argued since the declaration of the end of the war that the United Nations should have a leading role in the transition process. Mr. Brahimi's efforts to find a way through to a sustainable political situation in Iraq need all the support they can get. He urgently needs a security resolution that will promote the timetable of the constitutional process, underpin the legitimacy of the current proposals and provide ways to monitor the implementation of the timetable.
The transition must be credible in Iraq and internationally if there is to be any prospect of a successful conclusion. That means that, in Iraq, they must believe that there will be a transfer of power to the Iraqi people, and not just a regime providing cover for a continued occupation. It also means that other countries will be able to see the prospect of real change legitimised by the international community and will increase the prospect of sharing the security burdens with many more countries.
Clearly, there will be a requirement for a substantial military presence in Iraq for some time to come. We expect that the existing coalition partners will continue to have the largest role in the security set-up. However,

85WH
there must be a clear status of forces agreement with the new transitional authority and clear aims for the military operations. It must be stated that the forces are there to promote the rule of law and facilitate the construction and development of democratic institutions. It must be made clear how the UK will discharge its obligations after 30 June. Currently, we are being asked to take the situation on trust. That is no longer enough.
We have a huge responsibility in that country and to its people. We have a massive responsibility to our armed forces. However, we appear to be back at the edge of a precipice. Unless a credible, sustainable plan is endorsed by the United Nations with some urgency, the increasingly dire security situation will deteriorate further. What is that plan?
10.36 am
Mr. Gary Streeter: I begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley), who made such a powerful speech with such expertise and set out the background to our reasons for going to war. I shall touch on that in a moment and then deal with some of the political and security issues on the ground.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), made an admirably brief contribution. I will do the same, because the Minister has been asked a lot of questions and I want to give him plenty of time to deal with them, particularly as powerful speeches have been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and for Banbury (Tony Baldry), which, together with the opening speech, covered much of the ground that needs to be covered.
I want to make five points, and I hope to make them in five minutes flat. The reasons why we went to war must not be allowed to drift away. It is not just Labour Members who have the right to have a grievance about how we were taken into this battle. I voted for the war; therefore, I voted to send many of my constituents, including Royal Marines and Navy personnel, to war. I voted to send my son-in-law to war three months after he married my daughter. I did so for one primary reason: I believed the Prime Minister. I say to the House today that I will not make that mistake again.
First, it is not just a question of what I believed at the time. As the Archbishop of Canterbury warned in his speech yesterday, there is now an issue of trust and confidence. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing said, this will happen again. We need to deal with this matter. It will not drift away. There will come a time when either this Prime Minister, or a successor to him, will ask the British people and the House to vote to send our troops to war. We need to deal with the issues arising out of the reasons for doing so in this instance. We hope that the Butler inquiry will get to the bottom of this, although we are not that confident that it will. The Minister must understand the strength of feeling about this issue.
Secondly, the Conservative party supported this military action. We still do. I part company from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—although we all respect him as Father of the House—in saying that it would be madness to withdraw. We have to see
86WH
this though; there is no plan B. We must help Iraq to attain a pluralistic, peaceful and prosperous democracy. The Conservative party remains committed to that enterprise.
Mr. Dalyell: Might it not also be madness to stay?
Mr. Streeter: There is no question but that it is difficult to stay. However, I believe that to withdraw would create chaos and carnage. We cannot seriously contemplate that. We must see it through.
Thirdly, it is one thing for the US Administration to be lashed by the usual suspects and its perpetual critics. However, this Government need to know—as does the Minister—and the US Administration must recognise that there are growing concerns, even from its friends, about US tactics on the ground in Iraq. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing mentioned the tactics in the early days in Fallujah and Najaf coupled with the sense that there is a disproportionate use of force and cultural insensitivity. There is a sense that these things are not helping. We need to know from the Minister the extent to which the British Government are being candid friends to the Bush Administration. Are we saying those things to them loud and clear?
I was interested to hear Sir Michael Jackson's comments yesterday to the Defence Committee. He went as far as he could in suggesting that there was a real difference of approach on the ground in Iraq between US and British troops. We need to know that the Government are being a candid friend and raising those issues with the US Administration. I speak as a pro-American friend of America. If we are not careful, we will store up a huge problem for the future.
Fourthly, as many have said, we are now 10 weeks away from the handover arrangements. We need to know much more about them. Can the Minister give an update on the Brahimi report? Can we build on the outline that we have been given? We need to know that proposals for the selection of the new Government are well in hand, and that there will be adequate consultation. I would like to know whether the Government will be consulted about the Brahimi plan before it is implemented. We need the handover to succeed.
In the hope that we can get through the current security problems and get beyond the handover to put in place an administration that can lead Iraq towards a proper election in late 2005, we need institutions and buildings to start to take shape in Iraq. What role does Britain intend to play, either through the global opportunities fund or the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, in building long-term capacity in Iraq to ensure a move towards democracy, a strong, civil society, and institutions that can support Iraq?
That takes us back to the most serious charge of all, which many have rightly made; that there was a complete absence of a proper, post-conflict reconstruction plan for Iraq. That is now freely admitted by the outgoing Secretary of State for International Development. Is it not clear that, in the past 12 months, the US-UK coalition has made it up as it went along? Does not that amount to a serious failure by the Government in respect of British foreign policy, and should not they rightly be held to account?
10.42 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): First, I thank my opposite numbers on the Front Bench for being sufficiently brief to enable me to answer the many points made in this wide-ranging debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) on raising what remain exceedingly important issues, which should concern all of us.
I am not convinced that any of us who came to this debate will change our views by the time we leave it; that is the nature of this historic conflict, and I think that that will continue to be the case. Nevertheless, it is important that we discuss the issues, and it is right that the actions of the Government and the coalition be properly scrutinised.
However, I start by expressing my deep condolences to those affected by the appalling attack in Basra yesterday; an estimated 50 Iraqi civilians died. Those attacks were clearly undertaken by people opposed to democracy. I hope that there is no division of view on that issue. It is the first time that an attack on that scale has taken place in Basra. I am confident that the vast majority of Iraqis in Basra do not support those actions, and there is evidence for that in what happened after a suicide bombing attack last month. A crowd that witnessed the incident went mad—for want of a better phrase—and took the law into its own hands against the perpetrator. Both that and the opinion poll evidence, which I will come to later, fundamentally demonstrate that, whatever the actions and views of a minority in Iraq, the overwhelming majority support the moves towards democracy, stability and reconstruction.
It is a reality that, despite continuing terrorist attacks, and notwithstanding the difficult security situation in parts of Iraq, we have made significant progress. The political process of transition remains on course. As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing acknowledges and supports, the coalition is committed to the handover of power to an Iraqi interim Government on 30 June. Elections will be held by January 2005. The terrorists will continue to do what they do, but I do not believe that they will succeed.
The increased role being taken by the United Nations will help significantly and we support the Iraqi governing council's request for the UN to help to build consensus in Iraq during the transitional period and to provide technical assistance. As was made clear in America last week by President Bush and the Prime Minister, we are open to the idea of a new UN Security Council resolution supporting the new authority. Key elements of that resolution would be to welcome the new political arrangements, clarify and support the UN's role and modify the mandate of the multinational force.
One hon. Member—I forget which—said that they hoped that in summing up I would not read from a Foreign Office brief but would answer the questions; that is what I will attempt to do. I shall start with the comments made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing. He started by saying that this conflict with Iraq was unique because no event on the ground constituted an invasion and that there was nothing like the invasion that took place in advance of the first Gulf war. By implication, that comment omits
88WH
the fact that the UN resolutions adopted unanimously by the Security Council at the end of the first Gulf war involved commitments that Iraq had to undertake to conclude that war. For 12 years, Iraq transparently defied the will of the UN and the international community by failing to respond to those resolutions.
I shall come on to the question of our intelligence material, but rather than looking at what this Government or the American Government said, we should look at Hans Blix's 173-page dossier, which was presented to the Security Council in March 2003. Saddam and his regime wilfully failed to respond to those 173 pages of unanswered questions, and that was the reason, after the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441, for deciding to go to war. The resolutions were there and the Iraqi authorities wilfully failed to make the necessary commitments; that was why we went to war.
The right hon. Gentleman made much of the 45-minute claim in the September 2002 dossier and there is no single issue in recent times on which there has been more rewriting of history subsequent to the events. To listen to the right hon. Gentleman and to other commentators, one would believe that the 45-minute claim was the central and most compelling reason for deciding to go to war. Let us look at the facts. That piece of intelligence was mentioned by the Prime Minister once in his statement to the House on 28 September and was not mentioned by him again in any statement or debate in the House. It was mentioned by no one in the crucial debate on the decision to go to war on 18 March 2003. Between 24 September and 29 May 2003, it was raised only twice in almost 40,000 written questions in the House of Commons and not once in almost 5,000 oral questions.
Sir John Stanley: I find this line of argument ridiculous. Surely, the reason why nobody mentioned this matter is that people believed the 45-minute claim because it came from the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister makes such a claim, who are we on the Back Benches to dispute it?
Mr. Rammell: With the greatest respect, and for want of a better phrase, do me a favour. If that claim was such a compelling argument and the key reason for going to war, and given that there was so much opposition from all parties, do hon. Members not think that there would have been repeated questions about it? There was no such questioning because that claim was not the compelling reason for going to war. The reason for that decision was the unanimously adopted UN resolution 1441, which gave Saddam a last chance to comply. He and his regime failed to do so.
I also listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing said about our motivation for taking the decision to go to war, and he stopped just short of questioning our integrity. All I will say to hon. Members who take that view is that three separate, independent inquiries have looked at the issues, the evidence and the key allegation that either dishonestly or in some other way we misled people about the nature of the intelligence information. Those three separate inquiries. held by the all-party Foreign Affairs and Intelligence and Security Committees and by Lord Hutton, concluded that we took reasonable decisions based on the evidence in front of us.

89WH
Nevertheless, there are questions about the intelligence that need to be addressed. As the Prime Minister made clear, there is a genuine debate to be had about weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence. That is why we agreed to establish the Butler inquiry to review and consider the intelligence information that we received. I believe that that was the right decision and we should await the outcome of those deliberations.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malting raised several matters relating to the situation on the ground in Iraq. He started by saying that there was a huge political misjudgement by the coalition authority in arresting one of Mr. al-Sadr's aides. However, the facts and the evidence of what has happened in recent weeks show that the right hon. Gentleman has made a fundamental misjudgement. Iraqi prosecutors pursuing the case of the murder of Ayatollah Abdul Majid alKhoei, the moderate Shi'a cleric, in April 2003, have rightly pushed for the arrest of a number of suspects, including al-Sadr himself.
Mustafa al-Yaqoubi, one of al-Sadr's deputies, was picked up by members of the multinational force on 3 April. That act was one of the excuses that al-Sadr used to spark off widespread violence and illegal acts across Iraq. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, what was the coalition provisional authority to do in such circumstances? Ignore the evidence before it? Ignore the fact that the Iraqi authorities, on behalf of Iraqi people, were seeking a prosecution? It would have been completely untenable to act in that way and the coalition provisional authority was right to undertake those actions in the circumstances.
Al-Sadr has been edging towards confrontation for some time; his supporters, especially his illegal militia, the Mehdi army, have been intimidating the local population of several cities—illegally occupying public buildings, abusing women at universities and attacking shopkeepers—but I am not aware that such issues have been referred to in debates or reported in the media coverage of the events in recent weeks. Although we face a difficult situation, al-Sadr's support, while vocal and violent, is limited and the vast majority of the Shi'a population oppose his actions and consider him an insignificant, low-ranking religious rabble-rouser.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: If that gentleman is insignificant and has so little support, why has he not been arrested?
Mr. Rammell: Because we are trying to act responsibly in the circumstances and to ensure that the situation is not inflamed. We recognise that military action alone is not a solution and we are sensitive to the risks of a backlash against military action. We therefore need a twin-track approach, which is what the coalition authorities are rightly pursuing, but political negotiations, backed up with reconstruction efforts, will succeed only if all parties are committed to a peaceful solution. That is what we are trying to pursue.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing said that the CPA is at best tolerated and at worst hated by Iraqis. I fundamentally reject that allegation. Do not listen to Ministers who have been to Iraq and had direct contact with Iraqis; look at the evidence of a series of opinion polls, which verify the views of ordinary Iraqis.
90WH
In the most recent poll, more than 50 per cent. said that their lives have improved since a year ago and almost 70 per cent. said that they expect their lives to get better. Other opinion polls show majority support for the CPA's actions in liberating Iraq and a clear majority who want the CPA to remain while the security situation is resolved.
That independent, verifiable evidence of the views of ordinary Iraqis is completely inconsistent with the right hon. Gentleman's accusation that the CPA is at best tolerated and at worst hated. I am sure that the CPA is hated by a small minority who do not want Iraq to move towards democracy, but that is not the view of the majority of Iraqis. Nevertheless, I accept that we have to do everything in our power to convince all Iraqis of the integrity of our actions. That is something that we are very much determined to do.
I respect the integrity, passion and commitment shown by the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), on this and other issues, but I sometimes disagree with his judgment. When he calls for a withdrawal of CPA forces at this stage I fundamentally disagree with him, as that would allow an extreme minority in Iraq to prevail. Such action would be unethical, irresponsible and lacking in credibility, and it would give a boost to extremists and violently aggressive regimes around the world.
Let me deal with the comments made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on the interim administration and what will happen post-30 June. The Iraqi governing council wrote to the UN inviting it to advise on the form of the interim caretaker Government and on preparations for elections. There are two UN teams on the ground in Iraq. Mr. Brahimi is leading on the political process, and Ms Perelli on elections. In many senses, the key event is not 30 June for the caretaker Government, but the January elections. We need to remember that the caretaker Government are only temporary for seven months. All that was set out in Mr. Brahimi's report and statement of 14 April. The IGC will confirm the shape of the caretaker Government in an annexe to the transitional administrative law following the UN's advice.
On who will vet and approve the process, it will be up to Iraqis and the UN to determine the individuals. It is clear that the Iraqis want a technocratic council of ministers, and the IGC as a body will dissolve on 30 June, although some members may serve in a different function in the caretaker Government. We will put our views forward. We will urge a more representative structure, administrative certainty and a clear change from 30 June. Mr. Brahimi is in New York briefing the Secretary-General. There will be a further report in May, which I am confident will be in full time to enable the change to take place on 30 June.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) welcomed what he called our belated conversion to the UN. Whatever view hon. Members take of this Government and our Prime Minister, we have gone out of our way from the beginning of the conflict to try to involve the UN at every turn, both in the run-up to conflict and in subsequent actions. The hon. Gentleman also referred to sharia law. Islam will be the official state religion and it is to be considered a source of legislation, but not the sole one. Significantly, the IGC recently

91WH
specifically reversed IGC order 137, which had given a much more important and supreme role to sharia law. He should take some comfort from that.
Finally, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) castigated the Government for our actions in taking this country to war. It may or may not be the case that we were justified in taking the action that we did, but I happen to believe fundamentally that we were justified. He offered his critique, but will he ponder on the role and responsibility of the official Opposition in these circumstances? If he reads in Hansard all the debates that took place in the run-up to the conflict, he will see that in no sense did the official Opposition act as a brake on or scrutinise the Government's actions. In fact, they urged the Government to move sooner, further and faster on the decision to go to war.
Tony Baldry: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Rammell: No, I do not have time. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues bear some responsibility for that decision to go to war.
Tony Baldry: The person who led us in no longer leads us.
Mr. Rammell: That is a convenient view, but that person's statements and actions were supported by the vast majority of Conservative MPs. Progress is being made. We need to remain committed and ensure that we achieve an Iraq that is free, democratic and fair for the vast majority of Iraqis.

Tuberculosis
11 am
John Barrett: For many people in this country, tuberculosis is something from the past. Many young people do not know what it is. It is something that people used to suffer from in this country. Many older people often remember when it was a problem and are glad that it is now only a bad memory. However, while we might not be seeing too much sign of TB at first hand in this country, what is happening elsewhere in the world, and also here in the UK, deserves much greater attention. I am glad to have initiated this debate, and I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State is present to respond to it. I know that he shares my concerns.
During the early 20th century, TB was the leading cause of death from infectious disease in the UK. The same was true in much of Europe and the USA. As social conditions improved, it became increasingly rare. Although it is commonly associated with poverty and overcrowding, it can affect anyone. The world has witnessed an increase in the problem, and over the past 10 years we have seen it return in the UK. There were over 7,000 cases in 2002, and in some parts of London cases have risen by 80 per cent. It is hard to believe that one area of London has a TB rate that is higher than China's.
As I walked into the building this morning, I met my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke). She told me of her own experience of suffering from TB, and of her horror when she discovered that her children would not be able to get the BCG vaccination because of a shortage in her area a few years ago. Although that does not provide 100 per cent. protection, it is still seen by many as the best way of minimising risk in the UK. She said that few people thought that the issue of the global control of TB related to the UK, but when friends and family have suffered or are suffering it brings it home that we are part of that global community. Members on both sides of the House have gone public about having suffered from TB in the past.
The British Medical Association has pointed out that although a high incidence of TB is linked to areas with high numbers of immigrants, it is the poverty and overcrowding suffered by many of them after their arrival rather than their physical health that causes the problem. Surprisingly, the health of many of them worsens after they enter the UK. The problem of TB is back, and it is right here on our doorstep. Another issue that we will have to deal with is that some doctors also think that TB is a problem of the past, and misdiagnosis is easy. One famous case in the USA was when Eleanor Roosevelt fell ill and went to Massachusetts general hospital where she died, undiagnosed, of TB. What we are seeing in the UK is a tiny tip of a very large iceberg. Worldwide, that iceberg sinks the equivalent of three or four Titanics every single day.
What is TB? Anyone who is breathing can get tuberculosis. All it takes for bacteria to be released into the air is for someone with TB to sneeze, cough or even just talk. Those bacteria can hang around for up to six hours and anyone can breathe in that air, allowing the

93WH
rod-shaped bacteria to travel down into the lung. The body reacts and white blood cells surround the bacteria.
When the bacteria are contained inside microscopic lesions, the individual has inactive—or latent—TB and cannot give it to anyone else. It is estimated that 2 billion people—a third of the world's population—are latently infected. HIV multiplies by a hundredfold the likelihood that a person with latent TB will develop the active disease. If I have time. I will talk about the increased problems of HIV and TB.
If the immune system is compromised—if the sufferer is HIV-positive or is weaker in some other way—more bacteria are produced and thousands of bacteria can spread throughout the lungs. That is active TB. Everyone around the infected person can then be infected, and it can spread to other parts of the body such as the spine.
Without any treatment, TB will take its time to kill a patient. The victim will lose weight. find it impossible to breathe, suffer night sweats, cough up lots of blood and in the end will either suffocate or drown in their own blood. That is a gruesome end. Left untreated, 50 per cent. of TB patients will die within five years. The most tragic aspect of the matter is that so many are suffering when it is so easy to cure. There are tried and tested methods, and the drugs cost only about $11 per patient.
I have touched on the situation in the UK; I should like to place on record the scale of the problem worldwide before I go on to consider what can be done about it. Every year, TB kills about 2 million people in the developing world. Some 7 to 8 million people become sick with TB every year. Some 3 million TB cases occur in south-east Asia. More than 250,000 TB cases per year occur in eastern Europe, and 8 million people develop active TB every year. Each of those active cases can affect between 10 and 15 people just by breathing.
Almost everyone could have and should have been cured. The best way to prevent TB is to treat and cure those who already have it. TB kills 5.000 people a day, equivalent to 15 jumbo jets crashing. More people die every day of TB than died on 11 September in the attack on the World Trade Centre.
As I said earlier, the problem can be cured and the approach known as the DOTS strategy was found to be the best way forward. That is the directly observed treatment short course, and on a recent trip to India, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and I saw first hand how the strategy was put into place and how effective it was; I will touch on that later.
The World Health Organisation has reported that more than 10 million people have been successfully treated since 1994. DOTS works by making patients take their medication under supervision and by coordinating Government health workers' and patients' fight against the disease. Five elements make up the DOTS strategy. One is political commitment, which means not only obtaining funding from Government and local authorities, but involving key decision makers nationally and locally. Everyone has a stake in the project and everyone benefits from its success.
Case detection is carried out by sputum smear microscopy, SSM. The hon. Member for Leicester, East and I can now both identify active TB under a
94WH
microscope. We feel suitably qualified as participants in the course. We have been able to identify the small, red. active TB viruses. What follows detection is the standard drug regime, which has now been proved successful. The drugs have been identified, and if patients take them regularly and are observed taking them, they can take the full course lasting six months.
That can mean chasing up people who have started the course. If a person does not turn up, somebody is sent out to track down the patient and make sure that they take their prescribed drugs. If they do not take them, or if they feel better halfway through the course, other problems can develop. Most patients are expected to come in on a Monday, Wednesday and Friday to take their course. The drugs come in small bubble packs. It is vital that there should be no missed doses.
It costs only $11 for a six-month dose, but if people break off their course they can develop drug-resistant TB, which can cost much more to treat. There also has to be a regular supply of drugs, the lack of which was a problem in the past. Before the DOTS strategy was implemented, people were given the prescription for a certain amount of the drugs. However, when they were halfway through their course, they would go back to the chemist and find that there were no drugs available to complete the course.
The DOTS scheme identifies sufficient drugs for one patient, which are placed in a cardboard box with the patient's name on it, so that when the patient goes to the clinic, the box can be opened; they then know that when they start the course there are enough drugs to complete it. They are then more inclined to finish a complete course because they know that it is unlikely to fall apart halfway through.
TB quickly becomes resistant to drugs if treatment is inadequate; for example, if the drugs are interrupted or run out. It is then almost certain that patients will develop multi-drug-resistant TB. Treatment for MDR TB costs more than 100 times as much as the initial treatment, and the drugs have to be taken for four times longer. If I have time, I hope to say something about MDR TB, which is a growing problem in eastern Europe, particularly in some of the EU accession states.
The fifth and final aspect of the DOTS programme is the recording and reporting system that must be put in place. Health workers and observers who watch their patients take their drugs develop a system that stops people slipping through the net. It is relatively easy to quantify the success of DOTS, unlike the fight against many diseases. It is easy to provide the statistics that say how successful the fight against TB has been. The DOTS strategy is a huge success, and the Department for International Development must be congratulated on playing its part.
Along with the hon. Member for Leicester, East, I was at a recent meeting with the Secretary of State and the Minister regarding the funding of the DFID India programme and the possible ending of a very successful project in Andhra Pradesh. Hopefully the Secretary of State will be able to say something today about plans for the future of the funding of the programme in India, especially as there is one project that has given hope to so many and could be replicated elsewhere. It would be sad to see that project come to an end, especially when there is money that has been allocated but is as yet

95WH
unspent. It might be that if slightly more time were given in which to spend the money, it could last for longer. As I said, DFID must be congratulated on committing more than £20 million between 2000 and 2005. The concern in Andhra Pradesh is that the excellent programme that they have should be built on and that it should not come to an end.
The situation in India is generally stark. It has the world's highest number of TB cases, involving more than 4.5 million people. Foreign aid and debt relief also have a major part to play in the fight against TB; the disease is intimately linked to poverty. Again, credit where it is due, the Government are moving in the right direction on the issue.
The recording of the success of the DOTS strategy is relatively easy, because the statistics are recorded in each hospital or medical centre. The WHO targets for 2005 are 70 per cent. case detection and for 85 per cent. of those cases to be cured. There is a long way to go; only 32 per cent. of TB patients worldwide are being treated by the DOTS programme, or at least that was the case in 2001. In some countries coverage is rising fast. For example, in Brazil it has increased from a low base of 7 per cent. to 32 per cent. in only four years.
It is easier to list the countries where TB is not an issue than those in which it is. Nowhere can ignore the problem. North America, Europe, Australia and Japan constitute most of the world that has a low incidence of TB, but the USA and Italy have had problems and outbreaks, as we have had in the United Kingdom. The increased number of people who travel by plane means that TB crops up everywhere. We all have a vested interest in its global control. For those who ask why we are so interested in what is happening elsewhere, we answer that as well as reducing the suffering abroad we can prevent it at home.
A quick run through some of the countries where infectious cases are being treated using DOTS is contained in the report card that was produced by the WHO. It covers countries such as Vietnam, South Africa, the Philippines, Congo, Kenya, Uganda, Mozambique, India, Bangladesh, China, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Brazil, Russia and many others. Twenty-two of the world's poorest countries account for 80 per cent. of its TB cases. DFID's work is rightly poverty-focused, and few diseases are more poverty-focused than TB.
While there is good news, it is worrying that in some countries the problem is worsening. I mentioned the problem of drug-resistant TB and the possible threat to the EU. Drug-resistant TB presents one of the most difficult challenges, but with funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with the Harvard medical school and the WHO, the fightback has started.
In the largest ever study of drug-resistant TB, the WHO examined 63 countries and more than 60,000 patients worldwide. MDR TB rates were 10 times the average in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, which are all countries from which we expect increased migration to the UK from 1 May. The only way to deal with the issue is through investment in global TB prevention.
There are positive indicators. There is an increased flow of funding through the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, a flow of anti-TB drugs
96WH
through the global drug facility and a decreased TB incidence rate in the American, Mediterranean and south-east Asia regions. I urge the Department for International Development to play its part in helping to develop new vaccines, which are needed now but will more desperately be required in years to come. The problem is well documented, and the solution is tried and tested. I look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State about the part that his Department can play in the war against tuberculosis.
11.15 am
The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) for initiating this important and timely debate. I know, from the discussions that he referred to during his speech, that he has a personal interest in this matter, as does my hon. Friend the Member for. Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). Both of them recently visited India and saw an excellent programme that my Department is helping to support. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate them on their newly found microscopic skills, which show how the talents of Members of this House spread far and wide.
I shall begin with the programme that we discussed when we met recently. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West will remember, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development and I undertook to reflect on the points that were made. We have not yet made a decision about what will happen when the current project comes to an end, and we need to talk to the Indian Government about that. We have promised that we will respond to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, and we shall do so. I am grateful for the comments about the quality of that programme, which is an example of the contribution that DFID is making to tackle the problem of TB around the world.
As we have heard, 2 million people a year die of TB. It disproportionately attacks poor people: it is a disease of poverty that is made worse by poverty. Some 92 per cent. of cases and deaths occur in developing countries, and infection transmits more readily in the conditions of poverty, where people face overcrowding, inadequate ventilation and not having enough food to eat. Once they are infected, poor people are more vulnerable to economic effects, because if they cannot work, they cannot get an income. They therefore have less to spend on food, treatment and supporting their families. It is a vicious cycle that affects all parts of their lives.
I learned more about the problem of TB and the challenges of trying to treat it from the first visit that I paid to Africa as a DFID Minister in November 2001, when I was Under-Secretary of State. I got off the plane in Lilongwe and went straight to what is known locally as the Bottom hospital to visit its TB treatment centre. In the course of that morning, and during a visit to the slums of Lilongwe, I learned exactly what can be done to treat TB. I also learned about the problems that people with the disease face.
The treatment centre had recently moved to the DOTS—directly observed treatment short course—system. As I recall, the TB ward had six or seven beds. The doctor said that if I had come three months before,

97WH
I would have seen 30 people in the room—seven in the beds and the rest sleeping on corners or the floor. However, the centre had moved to the DOTS programme, which means that patients can be treated at home.
I also learned that people wanting to go to the hospital for testing had to give up a day's pay and find the bus fare to get them there. Despite their low incomes, they had to repeat the whole process to return for the results of the sputum sample and the microscopy that had been undertaken, and they then had to find a friend or family member who was prepared to observe the treatment.
For those able to do all that, the system works, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West was right about the benefits of that approach. However, when I went to the slum area, I found that, for many people who could not afford to make the journey to the Bottom hospital, the alternative was a private provider who had set up in that part of Lilongwe. For those who could not afford the cost of seeing the private provider, the alternative was to go to the local kiosk and buy a cough sweet. At the bottom of the chain of "treatment" was the act of buying something simple to deal with the symptoms without treating the TB itself.
That crash-course lesson in the economics of health care choice—or, to be more accurate, in the lack of such choice—for people living in poverty in Lilongwe in Malawi opened my eyes to the scale of the problem and to the practical difficulties that poor people can face in accessing treatment.
John Barrett: When I visited that hospital, I was struck by the optimism there, but I was also aware that the health service workers themselves suffered from TB and HIV. Could the Secretary of State say anything about the impact that we have on these countries when we recruit their staff?
Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the code of practice that the Department of Health has drawn up, which makes it clear that the NHS will not recruit directly from poor countries and further reduce the capacity of their health service staff. Malawi is probably the most pressing example because of TB, but particularly because of HIV/AIDS. It lacks the capacity in many areas to carry on with the job of providing services and running the Government because so many nurses, doctors, police officers, members of the armed forces, teachers and civil servants are dying of AIDS. We need to address that major capacity problem in Malawi.
As we discussed in Select Committee yesterday afternoon, the fundamental problem for health service workers is the push factor that leads people to leave developing countries and take their professional knowledge and skills to earn a better living elsewhere, in much better conditions. Those issues have to be addressed in the long term, if we are going to make a difference. That is why the considerable investment of resources that DFID has put in to support better health services—£1.5 billion since 1997—is the best long-term contribution that we can make to help developing country Governments tackle the problem that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West has rightly identified.
98WH
The World Health Organisation estimates that, between 2002 and 2020, approximately 1 billion people will be newly infected with TB. It says that more than 150 million people will get sick, and that 36 million will die of the disease if we cannot make better progress in tackling the epidemic. In 1993, the organisation declared TB a global emergency. It is an emergency that affects a small number of countries in particular: 22 countries account for 80 per cent. of the global TB burden.
It is a problem that is getting worse. One of the reasons is HIV/AIDS. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West talked about the interrelationship between HIV/ AIDS and the growth of TB. The other reason—the second point to which he referred—is the growth of multi-drug-resistant TB. That arises either because patients do not complete their treatment programmes or because the drugs themselves are not of a sufficient standard. It is a particular problem in the former Soviet Union, especially among the prisoner population, where infection rates for multi-drug-resistant TB are extremely high.
One challenge that we will have to face together is the cost of treating TB, as it is so expensive. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that in the early 1990s the United States spent $1 billion on treating an outbreak of multi-drug-resistant TB in New York. That is a lot of money in the context of the scale of the epidemic that we are talking about. It is important that we should respond.
A certain amount of progress has been made towards the targets for 2005 set by the World Health Assembly for global TB control efforts—to detect 70 per cent. of TB cases and to treat successfully 85 per cent. of detected cases—but much remains to be done if we are to achieve those common goals.
In 2002, an estimated 37 per cent. of new smear-positive cases were notified under the DOTS programme, an increase from 27 per cent. in 2001 and halfway towards the 2005 target. In other words, progress is being made, especially in some high-burden countries such as India, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West recently visited. However, even with those encouraging recent trends, we expect the case detection rate to be only 50 per cent. by 2005. In other words, the target will be missed. That is another reason why we must intensify our efforts to deal with the problem.
The Stop TB partnership aims to do precisely that by encouraging social and political action to stop the spread of TB around the world. The independent external evaluation of the partnership that was undertaken in 2003 found that there had been real achievements, including sustaining a broad network of partners that commands support. Under the elements of the DOTS programme, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West spoke about the importance of political leadership, and he is right. Whether we are talking about TB, HIV/AIDS or the other problems that developing countries face, political leadership above all else is required to find the means and the will to tackle the problem. The partnership also achieved heightened political commitment and support for the global plan to stop TB, and has done work to highlight developments in new diagnostics, drugs and vaccines. It is important that we build on that.

99WH
We have seen the development of global partnerships and have put a great deal of effort into supporting them. I have talked about Stop TB, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has also been established. So far, DFID has committed itself to contributing $280 million to the fund up to 2008. About 17 per cent. of the resources disbursed from the fund so far have been in response to proposals to fight TB. We have put in £2 million to support the work of the Stop TB partnership, and to help its co-ordination efforts. That is alongside the other funding that we have put in, but more will undoubtedly be required—a big challenge for the international community. One reason why we are strongly encouraging other donor partners to consider the international finance facility—the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us the potential as a world to double development aid over the next few years—is that this is one issue that requires additional financing to enable real progress to be made.
The action that needs to be taken in order to make a real difference in tackling the scourge of TB is now reasonably clear, but we need to get on and make it happen. We need to increase funding levels and strengthen public health services, because if a village or community does not have such a service, the DOTS programme cannot be administered and drugs cannot be provided to tackle multi-drug-resistant TB. More staff resources are needed: although money is a constraint, the sheer lack of staff is also an issue. Inadequate health facilities are real obstacles to progress, and we need to fund and investigate further new technologies and treatments.
We know, from our experience in London, of the problems of TB control, and we need a concerted international effort, working across borders, if we are to make progress. DFID will remain committed to that goal, but it is above all the responsibility of the international community collectively to ensure that we will the means, the resources and the political commitment to make progress in tackling this terrible disease.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Prvilege (Correspondence)
2 pm
Mr. Andrew Dismore: This debate has an intriguing title, and a few people have asked me what it is about. I hope that as my remarks progress people will understand what my concerns are and the implications not only for correspondence with local authorities but more generally.
My original worries arose from the fact that all my correspondence with Barnet council officers, no matter how senior or junior, is copied to council "cabinet members", as they call themselves, for the relevant department. When I started to investigate the issue, I found that that practice commenced soon after the Conservatives gained control of Barnet at the local elections two years ago, but that it now happens more systematically, with every letter copied. The introduction of those arrangements coincided—perhaps it was a coincidence, perhaps not—with the Conservative Barnet council establishing its new "cabinet office".
Barnet council's cabinet office was established last year and has two "non-political" members of staff—a full-time cabinet adviser and a part-time cabinet secretary. The part-time cabinet secretary is truly non-political, but the cabinet adviser is Dr. David O'Brien, former Conservative political assistant at Surrey, Swindon and Carlisle, whose doctoral thesis was entitled, "Interpreting New Labour". There is little chance of finding out exactly what they do, but they admit to being responsible for keeping cabinet members' diaries, responding to correspondence, dealing with casework, writing to all petition signatories, speech writing, and providing overall guidance to the cabinet on policy and direction. The borough treasurer gives the cost of the cabinet office service as £50,000, and I question whether that is a good use of money given the significant cuts that Barnet has introduced.
I have no objections in principle to the unit or to it carrying out the activities that I have described—as long as that is all that it does—except for the fact that Dr. O'Brien's post should not be classed as non-political. What concerns me is the extent of the unit's role in monitoring correspondence between the council and Members of Parliament and between councillors, especially opposition councilors, and officers, on behalf of cabinet members.
You may ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why we should worry. Like most active hon. Members, I am regularly out and about meeting constituents who raise complaints and problems with me and I receive vast amounts of correspondence. An increasing number of the issues raised, especially since Barnet went Conservative, concern problems with local authority services. Constituents expect me to raise those issues fearlessly with the local authority. Of course, if the subject were highly political, such as the high level of council tax under Barnet Conservatives or the appalling cuts in support for the elderly or the disabled, I would naturally write either directly to the cabinet member councillor concerned, the director of service, or the chief executive. In that event, I would expect the letter to be seen by the relevant politicians.

101WH
We are on opposite sides of a political world, and on a political issue I would expect a political reply approved or written by the relevant council cabinet member. However, I fail to understand why cabinet members need to see every letter that I send, for example complaining of a broken pavement or a pothole, requesting traffic calming for a residential street, raising a housing repair, or the need for somebody to move house, or the poor standard of street cleaning, or asking for information about or objecting to a minor planning application. More important, why do they need to see every reply that a council officer, no matter how junior, sends to me? There are no obvious policy implications in the correspondence. Council policy is well set out on those issues. They are straightforward operational questions that do not require any political input.
Before I came to this House, I was leader of the Labour group on Westminster city council. I was a member of that council for most of the reign of terror of the gerrymandering Dame Shirley Porter. Even in those days, our correspondence as opposition councillors was not monitored to this degree.
My experience of those difficult years as the leader of an opposition group leads me to be extremely suspicious of what is going on in Barnet council. I believe that it is developing Dame Shirley Porter-style control-freakery at its worst. It is adopting her methods. They were designed to keep officers in line and under control, and to influence the way in which they approached correspondence—and perhaps to look at it a little less sympathetically if it came from opposition people. They were also designed to ensure that officers gave a political line on issues that were not really Political with a big P. Usually, they would attempt to find a way of blaming others for the council's failings—or was the motivation to enable cabinet members to piggy-back on work done by Labour MPs and councillors by responding to residents direct or taking over the casework?
I know of a couple of examples of that happening. Councillor Brian Coleman is the cabinet member with responsibility for the environment, the deputy leader, a Greater London authority member, and the spokesman for the Tory party on fire service issues. He holds about half a dozen other jobs. He is up for re-election in June, and he will probably be defeated. I am concerned that he is using correspondence from the opposition. I do not believe that he is doing so because he is a nosey-parker or a gossip, although I think that he is those things. I think that he knows what he is doing—he is using that correspondence for political ends. He is the Tory group's ideologue and he is trying to achieve political advantage unfairly from casework raised by Members of Parliament. I believe that he is behind attempts to create a Dame Shirley Porter-style regime, which was branded at the time by the district auditor in Westminster as creating a climate of fear.
I do not say that idly. Councillor Coleman has form with regard to riding roughshod over correct democratic procedures. He has a reputation for failing to consult and to listen to people. One of his early acts was to reopen a road in my constituency—Partingdale lane. He did so against the wishes of local residents. He was criticised by a judge for not consulting properly, and the review against the council succeeded.
102WH
The leader of the council has had to disown Councillor Coleman on a number of occasions as a semi-detached member of the Conservative group, most recently over his attack on Middlesex university, which he branded as a four-letter word beginning with C. I cannot repeat it because it is an unparliamentary word. His comment was immediately disowned by the leader of the council, who pointed out that the council sent staff to Middlesex university for training. Apparently, Councillor Coleman's main criticism of Middlesex university was that it takes too many foreign students.
I raised my concerns over the treatment of my correspondence with Barnet council's chief executive. A few weeks later, I received a reply from Mr. Geoff Lustig, the borough's solicitor. He stated:
"The copyright in a letter (and by corollary an e-mail) belongs to the sender not to the receiver. Whilst the receiver of the letter/ e-mail may not copy it without the consent of the sender, he may communicate the information obtained from reading it, unless the letter/e-mail is of a private and confidential character.
Therefore, you are acting within your general legal rights to ask that your e-mails are not copied. However, you cannot prevent the information gleaned from those communications from being passed on, unless private and confidential.
The next point to consider is whether we, as Council employees, can agree generally not to pass on to the elected Members of the Council information gleaned from or copies of letters/e-mails received from a third party.
The answer to that question has, I believe, to be "no". We are employed by the Council and the sovereign decision making body of the Council is the assembly of 63 elected councillors (Cabinet for executive matters)."
The political reality is that the sovereign decision-making body is the executive cabinet.
"Those councillors, additionally, have the right both legally and constitutionally to require disclosure of information which is relevant to their role as councillors. Neither members of the public nor Members of Parliament write to a council employee in his/her individual capacity, but rather write to him/her as a servant of the council. Exceptionally, particular correspondence will be of a nature that makes it inappropriate for the recipient Officer to share other than to a select few specified individuals e.g. whistleblowing allegations. However, in the main, where correspondence is sent to an individual Officer, acting in the course of his duties, in my opinion, it is sent to the Council corporately. Therefore, there is neither breach of copyright nor of confidentiality if the letter is passed on within the Council."
He goes on to the final bullet point:
"There does, of course, have to be some judgement on the part of Officers concerning what needs to be shared and what doesn't. It is not the Officers role to let Cabinet Members know what their political opponents are raising queries about, unless it can reasonably be said to fall within a policy area for which the Cabinet Member is responsible and he/she can reasonably be said to have a need to be consulted or informed of a proposed response."
If that is what is happening—if discretion is being exercised, and some thought is being given to what needs to be copied and what does not—I will not make such a fuss, but, unfortunately, that is not happening. Every single item is routinely copied. Cabinet members

103WH
know what we political opponents are asking about. There is no consideration of whether correspondence should be copied.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he uses the wording recommended by the House authorities in respect of data protection on all his correspondence?
Mr. Dismore: The hon. Lady raises the question of data protection. which I am coming to now.
The problem to which I referred raises issues of confidentiality, not only in general, but in the context of the Data Protection Act 1998. I am grateful to the Library for its brief on the issue, which refers to the Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002. That change in the law came about due to the concerns of hon. Members that their casework correspondence was not exempt from the strict requirements of the 1998 Act except when they had the explicit authority of the constituent. It was recognised that it was often difficult to get that explicit consent.
The order makes use of the power under schedule 3 of the 1998 Act enabling the Lord Chancellor to add to the list of circumstances in which the processing of sensitive personal information is allowed. The order applies to Members of Parliament and various other elected representatives, including elected members of local authorities.
Two main functions of the order apply. The first gives the relevant person, or someone acting with their authority, the authorisation necessary under the 1998 Act to process sensitive personal information without having to establish the explicit consent normally required by the Act. Secondly, the order gives others—for example, agencies or organisations that are contacted by the elected representative, such as local authorities—the authority to disclose sensitive personal information, without having to obtain the explicit consent of the individual concerned, to the Member or councillor where that is necessary to help them with its functions.
I am worried that what is happening with my correspondence is a routine breach of confidentiality. It is not geared towards helping with either my functions or those of the local authority, and is therefore probably a breach of the requirements of the order. That raises the question of why the council is copying on the correspondence. I simply do not believe that it is to help with their functions.
The Library brief says that the exemptions for elected members to enable the processing of data do not give Members of Parliament carte blanche to process constituents' personal details in a way that impinges on their rights and freedoms. Elected representatives still have to abide by the eight data protection principles in section 1 of the 1998 Act, including the duty to process data fairly and lawfully. By extension, of course, the same rules apply to the council.
I believe that the council is interfering with the rights and freedoms of my constituents, including their right to confidentiality. It cannot be said that what the council
104WH
is doing is fair or lawful under the overriding eight data protection principles. In other words, I do not believe that the council is exempt under the exemption provisions.
I raised the issue with the House authorities and I am particularly grateful to Mr. William Proctor, the Clerk of the Journals, for his help and advice. Mr. Proctor also informed me that, in recent months, a significant number of hon. Members have raised with him similar, varying concerns about aspects of constituency correspondence. Although I refer to Barnet council, the debate has a much wider application—it goes beyond local authorities into aspects of Government, too. The issue stretches beyond the political concerns that I have outlined and has serious legal implications for the privilege of correspondence, to which I will refer shortly, contempt of the House and freedom of information rules.
Many of the problems that I have described have been exacerbated by the progressive shift from the traditional, committee-based structure of local government towards a cabinet system. Although I am not opposed to that, it has complicated the relations between Members of this place and local officials and back-bench councillors. The problem highlights a further serious obstacle to our freedom as Members of the national legislature to do our job properly in serving our neighbourhoods. We need to be able to correspond with the council officers at the sharp end of delivering council services if we are to be able to assist our constituents in getting at the truth and finding solutions to their own, often personal and intimate problems. We must be able to correspond with them and our constituents with complete frankness and openness, without any fear that the local political executive will be checking not only what our correspondents and officers say, but what we say. We must be able to carry out what is now a vital function of the local Member of Parliament—probably the most important from our constituents' point of view—and be confident that we
will not find ourselves hauled before the courts for merely doing our jobs.
If there is a constant danger that our correspondence may be revealed or transmitted to the local council cabinet, there is a much greater risk of its contents being more widely disclosed, possibly for partisan reasons. It is in the nature of many of our communications with constituents that they make allegations against individuals and we are bound to retell those allegations in correspondence if we are to obtain a proper explanation.
Some allegations that are made by constituents may be true and may easily be substantiated but often a constituent may have misunderstood the circumstances, attributed improper motives where there were none, or occasionally merely vented their anger in forceful and inappropriate terms. I am sure that all of us have had rude letters of that sort from time to time. If there is a danger that any of that may be revealed to the outside world—and what Barnet council is doing means that there is—our ability to deal completely openly with councils to ascertain the truth of a case is already compromised. It is a question not just of the gossipy councillor but of whether, if the correspondence is spread more widely, it will become public information.

105WH
What happens in sensitive cases—there are many of them, as all hon. Members are all too well aware—if our correspondence on behalf of our constituents is revealed in the local media? Can we claim that correspondence is part and parcel of our job as Members of the sovereign legislature and therefore protected from action for libel or defamation by the privilege that is properly claimed by this place? In short, we cannot. We cannot rely at all on the protection of parliamentary privilege from defamation in an important and often sensitive area of our work—we can do so only if correspondence on constituency cases is specifically conducted in preparation for a formal proceeding of the House or a Committee of the House.
As some colleagues will be aware—although I suspect not many will—the much prized freedom of speech accorded under article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 extends only and exclusively to the proceedings of the House and its formally constituted Committees. We have the protection of privilege against defamation neither in our correspondence with constituents, nor in correspondence with our local authorities and agencies, or Ministers of the Crown. Of course, there is a way around that. We could, when writing to these people, say, "We are asking for this information preparatory to tabling a parliamentary question or early-day motion". in which case it would fall within the privilege afforded by the Bill of Rights. However, that defeats the object, because by putting it in those terms, we may, if it comes to tabling a parliamentary question or early-day motion, be breaching the confidentiality that we are trying to protect.
Similarly, there is no absolute protection for those who write to us. I do not believe that it would be proper. desirable or sensible to allow individuals to use the cloak of parliamentary privilege to defame or to libel their fellows with impunity. Hon. Members should be aware that those who provide us with information are not protected from intimidation, molestation or punishment as a result of anything that they may tell us. If they gave formal evidence to a Committee of the House, they would enjoy such privileges.
The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, of which I am proud to be a member, has just had a painstaking and thorough examination of the pressure that was alleged to have been put on a single witness before a Select Committee. We were able to return a verdict of guilty of contempt on a number of people, including no less a personage than the Lord Chancellor—that was the Wilaminsky case. In that circumstance, the individual concerned was a member of a public body. All the members of that body were asked to resign. She believed that she was put under a detriment because she had given evidence to the Select Committee. In fact, there was no detriment, in that she would have been treated the same. However, the correspondence and behaviour of those involved gave the appearance of her being subjected to a detriment, which led to the findings of contempt.
If an individual, whether a constituent or anybody within the jurisdiction, communicates with their constituency Member or any individual Member, they are not protected by those rules. The 22nd edition of "Erskine May", on page 129 puts it simply:
106WH
"protection is not afforded to informants, including constituents of Members of the House … who voluntarily and in their personal capacity provide information to Members, the question whether such information is subsequently used in proceedings in Parliament being immaterial."
Of course, the same applies to any council officer, particularly, unfortunately, if the officer is looking over his shoulder all the time knowing that his correspondence is being monitored. I could obtain protection from a council for such a council officer by using the process of saying that I want the information for my work on a Select Committee, for a parliamentary question or for an early-day motion. If such a person were to provide the information in response to a request that was along those lines, I suspect that they would have the protection afforded by parliamentary privilege and that, if their correspondence were interfered with or if they felt that they were under some sort of pressure to respond in a particular way, Barnet Council and its officers and members, for example, could possibly be guilty of contempt of Parliament. I think that it is using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut if I have to preface every one of my letters to the council with the comment that I am asking for information for those purposes in connection with parliamentary proceedings. If I were to do that, it might stop the council from taking action.
I could easily envisage a situation where council officers were put in such a position, if I were seeking information from the council on that basis. Then if the officer feels under pressure to reply in a particular way, or that he has been subject to disadvantage after providing information to me, even if that were not the case and he were just to feel it to be so, the chief executive, the leader or cabinet members of the council could find themselves unwittingly in contempt of Parliament. I say "unwittingly" because that was the position in relation to the Lord Chancellor.
While I would like nothing better than to see Councillor Coleman hauled up on a privilege charge before the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, so that I had to recuse myself from hearing the case, that is hardly a sensible way forward. Equally, the council officer transmitting the defamatory correspondence could be at risk of a personal libel action and they would not be protected by their role as a council officer.
Returning to the theme of defamation, Parliament must examine the extent of its privileges in the light of the modern reality of the work of a Member of this House. I acknowledge that on occasion the courts have regarded the informants of Members as enjoying qualified privilege of law. Normally, the courts would accept a similar defence in defamation proceedings against a Member. However, what does "qualified privilege" mean? Certainly it does not mean that we are protected from actions in the courts, but merely that, according to paragraph 110 of a report by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999:
"a member has a good defence to defamation proceedings so long as he acted without malice, that is, without some dishonest or improper motive."
That is all well and good, but if a case arises, it still has to be defended. Even though I understand that the House now operates an insurance scheme to provide some limited defence costs, that does not remove the worry, irritation and threat to the reputation of the

107WH
Member concerned. If any Member of the House were to talk to colleagues from almost any national Parliament in Europe about parliamentary privilege, most of them would be amazed at the lack of protection that is afforded to Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. The general rule in other national Parliaments and in the European Parliament is that Members have absolute protection from civil suit and, in some cases, from criminal prosecution in relation to all their activities arising from their membership of that Parliament.
Of course, that could go too far, as occasional instances of parliamentarians or even members of Government hiding behind privilege from criminal law demonstrate only too well. However, we have gone too far in the other direction, or have not progressed, by failing to provide any statutory protection for ourselves or our informants in the area of work that takes up the bulk of the time of most MPs.
We do not run what amounts to a combined ombudsman scheme, citizens advice bureau and counselling service as private individuals. We do so only because we represent our local communities, and those communities expect us to do that work as an important part of the job that they send us to Westminster to do. It is not a peripheral part of our job; in any job description for an MP, it would be included as one of our core functions.
In the past, the question of protection for Members' correspondence has been considered on several occasions by privileges committees and inquiries. In 1967 and 1977, the Privileges Committee agreed that at least Members' correspondence with Ministers should be covered by absolute privilege. In 1970, the Joint Committee on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament recommended a new statutory definition of proceedings, which would have specifically included correspondence between Members, and between Members and Ministers
"for the purpose of enabling any Member … to carry out his functions as such."
Such a definition would not have covered the case of correspondence with local authorities and, in any case, would not have gone far enough. However, it would have provided greater certainty of protection against libel and defamation proceedings arising from the discussion of constituency cases with Ministers.
Nothing was done in response to any of those or similar reports. In 1999, the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege considered the matter again, and dismissed out of hand not only the wider extension of protection, which I believe is needed, but the more modest proposals of its predecessors.
Paragraphs 103 to 112 of that report are worth reading. They appear to reflect the interests and concerns not of the average Member of Parliament or their constituents, but of the Law Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, who chaired the Committee. The report acknowledged that there was a problem, but argued that there was "insufficient evidence of difficulty". If absolute privilege were to be extended to all correspondence with Ministers, it asks, where would it all end?
108WH
The report accepts that the distinction between a Member's letter, which enjoys no absolute protection, and a Member's speech or parliamentary question, which does, "can be somewhat arbitrary". It takes comfort from the fact that the defence of qualified privilege
"seems to have enabled members of both Houses to carry out their functions satisfactorily"
but admits that qualified privilege is "less effective."
Most important, the members of the 1999 Joint Committee decided not to recommend the extension of absolute privilege either to communications with Ministers, or to Members' correspondence more generally, because
"this exceptional protection should remain confined to the core activities of Parliament, unless a pressing need is shown for an extension."
That is precisely my case—constituency work is, in practice, and should be recognised as one of the "core activities of Parliament", and one that is growing exponentially. We in this House all know that that is the case—most of their Lordships have no experience or understanding of the matter, or of the real nature of our jobs. Moreover, things have moved on since those reports were prepared. For example, the Data Protection Act did not exist at the time. Nor did the question of freedom of information. I believe that, as things stand under the present legislation on freedom of information, busybodies can ask for documentation that may be very personal to our constituents, while probing into central Government or local authority activities.
In November 2003. an interesting report was published by the Legislative Assembly of Queensland in Australia, to which I believe the Government of Queensland are due to respond soon. It is a weighty tome, and contains a good analysis of the problem facing today's politicians. Reading the report, my impression is that the problems facing Members of the Queensland legislature are similar to some of those that I have mentioned in my contribution this afternoon. As modern politicians, we should examine some of the recommendations that that report makes. It proposes a series of protections believed to be essential
"if members of the community are to communicate frankly and freely with their parliamentary representatives about matters of significant public or private concern."
The report states that the protections
"should achieve two main goals. Firstly, they should provide an appropriate level of immunity for disclosures to parliamentarians by members of the community, and action taken by members in response to those disclosures. Secondly,"—
and equally important—
"they should preserve the confidentiality of constituency communications."
There are a lot of worthwhile recommendations that the Government would do well to consider in that report.
I know that the Government are still considering what, if anything, to do about the 1999 Joint Committee. Some are calling for the full implementation of its recommendations and the introduction of a new privilege Bill. I urge my hon.

109WH
Friend the Minister and his ministerial colleagues to do one thing at least: not to take at face value what seems to me to be the over-complacent approach, of several years ago, to a matter that deserves the full consideration of Members of this House alone.
An inquiry into the question by a Committee would, I suggest, produce a very different answer. However, any such inquiry should consider wider concerns, too. It should consider all the issues that I have raised, legal and political, to ensure that we can do our job properly and effectively; that we can protect our constituents' privacy; that, equally important, we can ensure that those with whom we deal are themselves protected from undue influence and interference; and that we are able to respond to our constituents' problems fairly and openly, whether that involves correspondence with local authorities or local government departments. I raise those concerns not for my own protection, but to ensure that my constituents' cases are dealt with properly, effectively and fairly. I believe that that should be the objective of us all in this House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should remind the House that it is common practice to start the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before completion. We have 29 minutes remaining.
2.31 pm
Sir Sydney Chapman: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am very grateful for that advice.
I must confess that I was intrigued—and that is the correct word—when I discovered from the Order Paper that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) had secured this debate. I saw the hon. Gentleman in the Corridor before our proceedings started. I had not intended to speak, but he mentioned a borough that contains both our constituencies. We are neighbours: he is the hon. Member for Hendon and I am the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I feel impelled to intervene.
At the outset, I should say that the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, while I certainly am not. He is a former leader of the opposition on Westminster city council, whereas I have never been a councillor in any tier of local authority. The hon. Gentleman has politicised the important issue that he has raised, and I do not blame him for that. I am sure that he mentioned Councillor Brian Coleman, who is not only a councillor on Barnet council—he is cabinet member for the environment—but the directly elected member for Barnet and Camden in the London assembly. I am sure that he will be very grateful for the publicity that he has been afforded.
The fact that I am not a lawyer will become absolutely apparent, but I want to raise a number of points. First, it is worth recording how Members of Parliament get in touch with their local councils when they receive a letter from a constituent. My practice is to write to the appropriate officer of the council rather than directly to the relevant cabinet member, although some people may do that. When I first came to this House in 1970, it was not unusual for the town clerk—I think that he is now called the chief executive of a local authority—to
110WH
request that hon. Members write directly to him on any issue. He would then send the letter on to the appropriate person.
Matters can be pursued in different ways. I have always taken up an issue with the appropriate officer, regardless of whether the council is Conservative or Labour. If that officer passes on the contents of my letter to his cabinet member, if that is the right phrase, or to any councillor. I am exceedingly grateful. Usually, I am looking for publicity in trying to right what I believe to be a wrong, or in taking up what I believe to be a genuine complaint.
In general terms, when the information in a case is sensitive, my hope is that the officer involved does not divulge more than absolutely necessary. In such cases, I would take the precaution of putting "Private and Confidential" on my letter, in the hope that the officer would use his or her discretion when deciding what part of the information ought to be disseminated to a wider field. Equally, council officers have written back to me about cases and asked me to treat some information confidentially. I respect that point of view, as would the hon. Member for Hendon.
I accept that cases vary, and I am fascinated to know the Minister's thoughts on such matters. The hon. Member for Hendon spoke eloquently, but quickly, so perhaps I did not understand correctly what he said. Legally, an officer of the council is an employee of that council. Presumably, the employer is the council itself or, in our case, the 63 councillors who represent 21 wards on Barnet council. Whether we like it or not, a council officer may be obliged to inform the appropriate member of the council, or all members of the council, of the matters raised in any letter that we write. To use the phrase employed by the hon. Member for Hendon, he is trying to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We politicians must be robust, and willing to accept that, when we take up an issue, it is thoroughly ventilated. If hon. Members will permit me to express a certain vanity, the more people who know about the issues that I take up with the council, the better.
I hope that my final point is germane to this interesting debate. When I reply to a constituent, I always have at the back of my mind that what I write in my letter could appear on the front page of the local newspaper. Therefore, I must be willing to accept that what I write could be made public. That is an important point to bear in mind, although I am modest enough to accept that I can hardly expect anything that I write to my constituents to appear in the national press.
This Chamber is grateful to the hon. Member for Hendon for raising the issue, and I shall listen with interest to what other hon. Members and the Minister have to say. We should keep a sense of proportion about the matter. Members of Parliament are in the public domain, and we should accept that what we say—with the exception of some sensitive matters that we take up on behalf of constituents—will be broadcast, at least throughout our constituencies.
2.38 pm
Mr. Colin Pickthall: My tale is tangential to the powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). It has nothing to do with Barnet. If it is too tangential, no doubt you

111WH
will rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate coincides with an issue that I am wrestling with at the moment, so it was too much to resist.
A few weeks ago, my constituent Mr. McDerby, who is a firefighter, came to see me about a common problem. Next door to him is a garage service station, which has changed into a 24-hour outfit, bringing with it much trouble, noise, disruption and litter throughout the night. It has a fast-food shop, too. In response to my constituent's complaint, I wrote to the council asking about the licensing of the establishment and to the police inquiring what they were doing about the disruption in the middle of the night.
A couple of weeks later, Mr. McDerby came to see me again, bringing a letter he had received from Drallam and Glover Solicitors of Liverpool. It reads:
"Dear Mr McDerby
Re: 24 Hour Retail Licence at BP Garage, County Road, Ormskirk
It has been brought to our client's attention that you have been coordinating a petition which seeks to rescind the 24 hour licence at the premises named above. It has been further brought to our client's attention that you have sought to gain the support of the local MP, Colin Pickthall, in your endeavours to restrict the terms of my client's licence.
I wish to advise you, in the strongest possible terms, that my client considers your actions inflammatory and considers comments regarding the management of the premises to be unfounded and libellous.
I am therefore putting you on notice that, should your actions not cease immediately, my client will have no alternative but to pursue the matter through the Courts to seek recompense for any loss of trade and damage caused to his good name and reputation."
In the usual course of events such a solicitor's letter would be thrown in the bin, but had Mr. McDerby brought his petition for me to present in Parliament there would have been a clear breach of parliamentary privilege. The petition was going to the local council.
My concern is that the solicitors have bracketed together the question of the petition and Mr. McDerby's request for my help as his Member of Parliament as a reason for threatening court action. A citizen has sought help from his MP on a relatively straightforward complaint, not unlike hundreds of others that we all deal with every year. That request has resulted in a threat of court action. If that were to become a common occurrence it would paralyse MPs' constituency work. Constituents would be reluctant to consult us.
How did the garage owners and the solicitors get information about my letters to the council and the police? The council officer concerned or the policemen might have told them that there had been a complaint from the local MP and asked what was going to be done about it. I do not want to make too strong a point about that, but it is not easy to find out how the contents of my letters reached the garage owners.
I hope I am not being unduly sensitive in this matter, which seems to me to show a potential and actual danger to the citizen's access, without fear or threat, to his parliamentary representative. That should concern us all.
2.43 pm
John Mann: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on securing the debate and on the elegant and informed way in which he introduced it. I, too, am not a lawyer. If I had to declare an interest it would be that, like my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), I have a series of cases—involving, for example, planning, miners' compensation and local authority car parking—in which solicitors have threatened to sue me and my constituents. In all cases, threats have been made to attempt to stop the issue being pursued.
In my robust style, f have rebutted such threats. On a planning case, for example, I declared that I would expose the lack of insurance on various houses on a new build. My constituent was threatened with being sued if did so. It is my duty as a Member of Parliament to inform new residents coming into the area of any potential problems. I will advise any of my constituents who are buying houses on a floodplain to check that they can get full home insurance at comparative rates. That is an appropriate role for a Member of Parliament and I do not expect to be threatened with legal action for carrying out those actions, and neither do my constituents. Similarly, I do not expect to be challenged on the double charging in relation to miners' compensation, and neither do I expect my constituents, who may have to take legal action against solicitors and who contact the Law Society, to be challenged.
The interpretation of the Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002 is one of the devices being used in several cases, including those involving the local authority. That attempted defence is increasingly being used to confuse, hinder and stop the proper process of parliamentary representation. For example, the solicitors threatening me are also refusing to enter into correspondence because of their interpretation of the order. I have a range of such examples, because I throw the order back at people who refuse to allow me to represent my constituents.
The issue boils down to the definition of consent, and seek the Minister's clarification of the Government's view. If there is a matter to be resolved, what do the Government intend to do about it? If an individual asks to be represented by their Member of Parliament, and with due diligence and appropriateness the Member of Parliament takes the matter forward, he or she is representing that individual. For organisations such as local authorities to refuse to provide information in such cases would be wholly out of order and if the law in that respect needs tightening, it should be tightened. It is highly inappropriate if threats of litigation are made against Members of Parliament, as they have been against me: correspondence was copied to my constituent in an attempt to influence his willingness to pursue the case through my good self.
The best way to describe some actions taken by local authorities—I deal with several—is to use a real, but in this case theoretical, example of how I would take forward the Donnygate scenario involving Doncaster council, should such a case occur again. I remind hon. Members that Donnygate was a planning scandal. Councillors of all parties, developers and council officials were successfully prosecuted and jailed for what

113WH
could broadly be described as irregularities in the planning process. Only last week, three more people involved in the case were sent to prison.
One of my constituents is a key informant in the Donnygate case, so it would create a potentially major issue were my probing and challenging correspondence to the local authority involved to be automatically copied to the very councillors whose probity may be questioned. I seek the Minister's advice on how the law stands in that respect.
I give a more mundane example of some issues that may arise should correspondence be widely disseminated. I know of local councillors ringing up individuals who have contacted me for assistance and whom I am representing, and they attempt dually to represent them without the individuals requiring or requesting it. That is a breach of any natural process of representation. If I choose to take up an issue, which could be dealt with by a councillor, that is my prerogative as a Member of Parliament and it is my constituent's prerogative to choose to come to see me—my constituents may regard me as more effective.
However, constituents may choose to go to their local councillor because they regard him or her as more effective. Things can get even more complex in multi-member wards, where different parties are up for election in the same year. We can envisage a scenario in which three councillors might try to jump on an issue and pursue it, which is clearly not in the interests of the constituents. How local authorities and other public bodies handle sensitive information according to the Data Protection Act 1998 is becoming an ever greater issue.
I trust that the Minister will be able to clarify the situation. If there are restrictions on our ability as Members of Parliament to carry out our proper and due duty, as defined by any reasonable assumption of good practice by an elected representative, they need to be removed. We need the power, without the distractions that are being thrown around, to represent our constituents to the best of our ability and to give them the best result we can. I am interested to hear the responses of both Opposition parties and the Minister.
2.52 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: The debate has far exceeded my expectation in terms of interest, and I thank the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for triggering it.
When a Labour Member attacks a Conservative local authority, it is something of a free ball for the Liberal Democrats. In snooker terms, it is a question of whether I go for the red ball or the blue ball. If I were ever to be locked in a barrack room and short of a lawyer, it is the hon. Member for Hendon whom I would want to join me. Equally, if I were not quite sure how many angels were on top of a pin, the same hon. Gentleman would be well suited to providing me with a number of different but equally intellectually sound answers.
Mr. Dismore: All I would say to the hon. Gentleman, in response to what I think was a backhanded compliment, is that if he were to repeat that allegation outside this place, it would be libellous.
Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman has made my point admirably. In a moment, I will comment on the matters raised by the hon. Members for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who made slightly different points.
The hon. Member for Hendon had complaints at two levels. First, there was the complaint about the organisation and staffing of the cabinet office of the London borough of Barnet. Frankly, that is not a matter for this House or this debate, although I have no doubt that it makes good stuff for the front page of, say, the "Barnet Chronicle". He conceded straight away that if it were a strategic issue involving the direction of the authority or the allocation of resources, he would, in any case, write to the relevant executive member. He seemed to think that that was entirely okay. What the hon. Gentleman was really complaining about were the non-strategic matters that he writes to the council about, such as the details of paving stones, streetlamps, overgrown hedges and so on. He is complaining about entirely the wrong things, and I shall develop that point in a moment.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the application of data protection. That is a more serious concern. I hope that the Minister will deal with the issues raised by not only the hon. Gentleman but the hon. Members for West Lancashire and for Bassetlaw.
We are talking about information given in good faith by a Member being passed to a third party, whether within or beyond an organisation, not with a view to satisfying the complainant or producing a solution—as might be the case if a director of social services passed information to a social caseworker for a briefing—but for an entirely different purpose that does not fall strictly within the local authority's remit. Passing on information with the aim of monitoring the number, severity, nature and geographic distribution of received social services complaints would be legitimate. However, to pass on information with a view to scoring a political point is not, and I hope that the Minister will give some attention to that element of the criticism made by the hon. Member for Hendon.
The hon. Gentleman had an entirely different complaint about the capacity of Members of Parliament to claim privilege in their communications both inside and outside the House. Significant people though we are, it is important that we do not become too pompous or precious. We should not claim for Members of Parliament privileges and exceptions that we would not want granted to other people. I am almost certain that the hon. Gentleman contributed to the public debate about the former hon. Member for Tatton and the House's decision to change the rules of privilege in that case. I am also sure that he had some strong comments to make about claims for exemption in the case of the London borough of Westminster. We have to be careful that in setting rules designed to make it easier for us in one direction, we do not inadvertently make difficulties in a completely different one.
It was a mistake to make it compulsory for local authorities to have an executive and cabinet system. That is having a profound effect on the internal political relationships of councillors, most of which is not for the best. Nevertheless, as a member of three different local authorities in my time, I know that it is important for a local authority to have political leadership. The current

115WH
legislation makes it a matter of faith that the executive councillors are in charge and are the decision takers. Whatever one feels about that political framework, it was set up by an Act of Parliament for which the hon. Member for Hendon voted. He cannot complain too much when the political leadership of Barnet, whatever its colour, leads, tries to keep a grip on what is happening in its borough and takes an interest in the matters that come before it.
Mr. John Taylor: I profoundly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the imposition of the cabinet system in local government, but I should like to ask him not a personal but a general question. As a general proposition, would he consider it appropriate, when a constituent first brings a problem to a Member of Parliament, for that MP to share the consideration of whether the problem is more susceptible to treatment by the MP or one of the constituent's locally elected councillors? Should that discrimination be made or thought given along those lines?
Mr. Stunell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. but I remind him that there are 659 of us, none of us has a job description and we all do the job in a way that suits our constituents and us best. Every four or five years, we find out if we are right or not. I find it difficult to advocate a precise definition of our roles and the split between the work that we do and that which we believe local councillors should do.
I commend to the hon. Member for Hendon a document that is colloquially known as the Cheshire conventions, which was being developed by Cheshire county council when I was a member of it, but has been widely adopted in the 20 years since by a range of other authorities. That document deals with the distribution of information inside those authorities and tries to establish conventions on having Chinese walls. If there is a missing ingredient, it is the lack of understanding of what a Chinese wall in Barnet might be and of the channels of communication in, through and out of that authority.
As much as I think it important that Members of Parliament be able to carry out their business effectively, I am against the House taking away the right of councils to decide their internal procedures. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) pointed to the need for exceptions, for instance in the case of whistleblowing, and the hon. Member for Hendon made the same point. As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw pointed out, it is crucial in a case such as that in Doncaster that, if complaints of significant malpractice and wrongdoing are made, the accused should not be tipped off during the whistleblowing process. Given those obvious common-sense examples, a council ought to be free to arrange whatever internal procedures it thinks fit to progress fairly.
That brings me on to the question raised by the hon. Member for Hendon about expanding and extending parliamentary privilege. He conceded that a strategic question such as "Why have you cut £1 million from social services?" which is far more likely to be defamatory than "Why haven't you repaired the street lamp outside No. 26?" ought to go to the political
116WH
leadership of the local authority. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how expanding privilege or exempting us from defamation would help in the specific cases that he highlighted.
Mr. Dismore: The problem arises not necessarily when hon. Members make defamation allegations, but when a constituent brings an allegation to an hon. Member who then relays it to the local authority, that is, transmitting the defamation: the Member is potentially liable even though they are not making the allegation.
Mr. Stunell: I understand the distinction that the hon. Gentleman is making. I am not a lawyer, but it would be a perfectly adequate defence of good faith if one passed that allegation on to an appropriate investigating department or authority without putting it on the front page of a newspaper.
I shall now turn to the activities of Barnet council. I am amazed that Barnet council considers it worthwhile to circulate to its senior members the hundreds or possibly thousands of complaints that the hon. Member brings to its attention about paving stones and street lights. That cuts away the argument that the senior members are involved in the strategic management of the authority. I send roughly 1,000 letters to my local authority each year, and I can imagine the looks on the faces of my executive members if that torrent were put in front of them. I hope that the council has a wider purpose.
Mr. Dismore: That is the whole point.
Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman says that that is the whole point. The council might have a wider purpose and I shall illustrate one example in which such a purpose may be beneficial—I am not saying that it is on this occasion, but I want the hon. Gentleman to understand that his paranoia might need modification. I briefly mentioned the example of ensuring that, when complaints are received about a particular department or service, someone at a strategic level decides whether there is a systematic pattern of failure. They may need to establish whether a section of the council is not delivering a service, whether a council is failing in a particular geographical area, or whether one aspect constantly causes grief. Is that not a sensible point that should be brought to the attention of members? I am surprised by what Barnet is doing, and I hope that it has a reasonable justification. I think that it has been clumsy and overbearing, but I do not believe that we should pass an Act of Parliament to stop it.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hendon has taken it upon himself to look at the cases of Chadwick v. Sheffield and of Strak v. Hyndburn. They are historic cases, but they laid down the need for council information to be open and to be explicitly available to people—to councillors and others outside the local authority. They also laid the foundations for access to information legislation and, in part at least, to the data protection legislation. In some ways, this debate would have been much more likely to have struck gold 20 or 25 years ago. I want Members to be able to do their job without let or hindrance, whatever their party. I also want to ensure that local authorities can do their job, whatever their party.

117WH
I will conclude by asking the Minister three questions. Does he accept that the Act that his Government introduced and imposed on local authorities that brought into existence the executive and cabinet system requires there to be a chain of command that stops with the executive member—and that therefore the complaint of the hon. Member for Hendon is, in effect, a consequence of that Act? Does he have any plans to extend or clarify the extent of privilege for Members of Parliament in their dealings with local authorities and other public bodies? That addresses the essence of the cases that the hon. Members for West Lancashire and for Bassetlaw brought to the Chamber's attention. Does the Minister also accept that the Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002 contains some ambiguities? It might be clear enough legally, but it is frequently ambiguously interpreted by public bodies with whom Members of Parliament correspond. That is a nuisance for Members. It should be tidied up, especially given the purpose of the order.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for West Lancashire that it is outrageous that any solicitors should be offering to sue either him or his constituent for raising a petition against a local nuisance. I am sure that the courts would be as dismissive of such an action as this House.
3.8 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: I am standing in for the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald).
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on bringing this matter to the attention of the Chamber. I think that this was an opportunity that he felt he could not miss. One got the tad of a hint that a press release in respect of Barnet council was already winging its way. He is looking very innocent, but we all know the way the game is played. However, I shall leave aside all the personality issues.
The hon. Gentleman's opening remarks about the way in which his correspondence is dealt with troubled me. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said, Members of Parliament have their own methods of working with their local authorities: how we deal with them, whatever their political persuasion, is down to us. There are no guidelines, but perhaps we can share best practice more. There may be an opportunity for the House to look at guidelines and to share experience and advice.
When I was elected in 1992, I took over from a very well respected Member who had been an MP for 32 years. Among the small amount of correspondence that he left for me was a standard letter that went as follows; "Dear whomever, I am afraid that this is not a parliamentary matter, it is very much a local government matter, and I refer you to your local council. Yours sincerely." We all wish that we could deal with what must amount to 30 per cent. of our postbag nowadays in that way, but we cannot do so. There are legitimate matters in respect of local authorities that we must take up.
Mr. John Taylor: I wish to be even-handed with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and with my hon. Friend. Having been a Member of Parliament for 21 years and never having received a letter from a solicitor, I have developed the practice of considering whether a problem brought to me is for me, as an MP, or whether it might be more appropriate to refer it to a councillor. I am talking about there being not a strict definition but an application of common sense. Does she accept that comment?
Mrs. Browning: That is exactly right. I do not treat my constituents' applications to me to do something about a local authority problem in the way in which it was treated many years ago, but we must use our judgment. For example, it would be wrong of Members of Parliament to pretend to have powers that we do not have. We must recognise that councillors of whatever political persuasion are democratically elected. They have their responsibilities in respect of individual planning applications, for example.
Sometimes, the general public believe that the council system is the same as the school system. If they do not receive the answer that they want from the local authority, they write to me thinking that I am the head girl and that I will bat the council around the head, so that they receive an answer. I point out to my constituents that I do not have that power. What I can do, however, is to draw the views of my constituents to the attention of the appropriate planning officer, so that those views are at least known when a decision is made.
I return to the essence of what the hon. Member for Hendon said at the beginning of the debate, which was that all his correspondence was conveyed to the appropriate councillor. I am sure that he agrees that the cabinet system of local government has not been helpful in such matters. It works differently from the old committee style. However, I regard the officers of a local authority as members of the civil service with whom I deal daily. I have the opportunity to talk to them and to councillors, whether they are my party councillors or opposition councillors, which I often do if they hold portfolios. There are other avenues to use, but it is for the individual Member of Parliament to decide how to proceed in their dealings with the council.
As with all of us, the correspondence that the hon. Gentleman sends to his council will be a mixture of letters from people, for example, those with urgent housing problems. In such cases, we may telephone the housing department at the local authority to try to enable a constituent who is facing homelessness to be rehoused. In the course of such cases, we become party to much personal information that is pertinent to the representations that we make on behalf of our constituents. Moreover, my area has a county-district structure and we cover matters such as potential child abuse cases that may involve the social services department. Given some information that we, as Members of Parliament, receive, we really tread on egg shells.
I intervened earlier to ask whether the hon. Gentleman added to his correspondence the advice of the House authorities, which was given to us nine months ago. I am referring to the wording that should be placed at the bottom of our routine correspondence when dealing with personal information and the

119WH
necessity to obtain a signed piece of paper in some cases, so that health authorities share medical information with us. The Minister may like to consider that best practice to see whether it could be better disseminated among Members of Parliament to protect us. I am advised by the Library that hon. Members
"had protection for their constituency correspondence, always provided that the channel of communication was a proper one for the transmission of a complaint or other defamatory comment, to the responsible authority, and that no malice was involved".
Mr. Dismore rose—
Mrs. Browning: I shall give way in a second. The advice goes on:
"But it must be stressed this is a common-law right based on case law; every case is different, and Members are open to continued challenge in the courts in this respect."
Although it is about five years since the Standards and Privileges Committee examined such matters in some detail, now might be the opportunity for the Committee to look again at such matters and to take soundings from Members of Parliament, although not necessarily for something to be put on the statute book, for which the hon. Member for Hendon asked. At the moment, I wish to reserve my opinion as to whether we need to go that far, but times are changing.
All the new legislation that is coming in, and particularly the interpretation of the Data Protection Act by statutory organisations and bodies, give us cause for concern. I try to take a belt-and-braces approach. I put that wording at the bottom of my letters. I get signatures of consent where possible. I never discuss an individual case with the press, even when constituents themselves have gone to the press, and I am always conscious of the information that I hold on my files. Perhaps we as Members need more information because of the nature and the breadth of the information that we hold.
I am moving away a little from the initial complaint that the hon. Member for Hendon raised. He would clearly like an answer to his complaint, but it is not for me to say how the problem with his council could be resolved. Some of the wider casework that we have heard about, in particular with Members of Parliament being threatened with solicitors' letters, is outrageous. Nothing should fetter us in doing our duty with the toolbox that we have in this House—whether we are presenting a petition to Parliament, tabling an early-day motion, or securing an Adjournment debate. Nothing should intimidate us in carrying out our responsibilities, or using our judgment about what is in our constituents' best interest.
In response to the hon. Members who have made personal contributions, I do not know whether they were talking about a try-on. I know that solicitors do try it on sometimes. They think that, if a solicitor's letter crosses somebody's desk, that person will shake with fear and trepidation. In my 12 years of experience, I have found that a piece of paper with the portcullis on the top makes people shake even more. I am sure that those hon. Members with their experience of this House have been able to help their constituents, and have not been intimidated. It probably ought to be exposed who
120WH
the solicitors are who have the temerity to threaten Members of Parliament. The Law Society should be informed of who they are and their practices.
Mr. Pickthall: May I make a slight correction? I was not threatened by lawyers. My constituent was threatened for approaching me.
Mrs. Browning: Third-party intimidation, I think they call that, but the same principles apply.
I have some sympathy for the Minister. Because things have moved on, in particular with the Data Protection Act, it would be timely for him to initiate, with the Leader of the House and appropriate Committees of this House, another look at the way in which Members of Parliament correspond and the way the law may impact on us today. He could look to introduce some best practice guidelines for Members of Parliament, which would provide some security and protection for Members when applying guidelines. Clearly, we all work as individuals, and we have different relationships with local authorities and the other agencies with which we deal when sorting out constituents' problems. Such a review would be timely.
When that exercise has been completed, it may become evident whether things need to be moved forward on the statute book, as the hon. Member for Hendon suggested. I think that that would be going too far at this stage, but I have an open mind. We cannot, however, just leave things as they are because the situation has moved on and we are all having different experiences of how the legislation and rules impact on us. I hope that the Minister will take on the views that have been aired today—I am sure that he will—even though only a small number of hon. Members are present. I am sure that our views reflect what the wider membership of this House has experienced in recent years.
3.19 pm
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): I start with the traditional congratulation of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on obtaining this debate and on drawing attention to this important matter. As I listened to the debate and the contributions moving on from the specifics raised by my hon. Friend, it struck me that this is one of those debates where the title does not suggest the importance of the subject. There is evidence in this debate of consensus among Members that something needs to be done. I share that view, as I shall explain.
My hon. Friend spoke very well. He has obviously researched the issue thoroughly, and his case was well argued, particularly as he was raising what could be interpreted as exclusively a party political issue, although it is not. He was in fact raising an important issue of principle.
I shall briefly respond to points made by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), who shares a borough with my hon. Friend, mentioned the necessity for robustness among Members of Parliament, and the issue of how one handles correspondence. I think, and hope, that he agrees with the central point. which is that what is at

121WH
stake in the case raised—and, indeed, in other cases—is the use to which correspondence is put by recipients in the council. No one could seriously say that there are many instances in which directors and elected councillors should not be given information when they are solving a problem. An example was given of a managerial reason why some cases may legitimately be passed on.
To draw a parallel with the civil service and Ministers, all hon. Members would be outraged if Ministers were to use correspondence that Members sent them to pass on to their civil servants in a party political manner if it involved an individual case. That is a parallel that opens up the question of parliamentary privilege.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) raised an important case, and mentioned the growing trend of intimidation of constituents by members of the legal profession, who are ever keen to make a buck. They are often referred to as ambulance chasers, but they chase other forms of business, too. I condemn that practice in clear terms and support him in his pursuance of the case of Mr. McDerby. My hon. Friend raised an important matter. If the case had been pursuant to a petition to Parliament or a parliamentary question, there would clearly have been a breach of privilege.
Interestingly, the Joint Committee report in 1999, to which many hon. Members have referred, which argued against extending privilege, referred to the 1967 report and drew a parallel that is pertinent: Members writing to Ministers asking a question on behalf of a constituent before tabling a parliamentary question. Of course, the letter to the Minister is not covered by privilege, but the parliamentary question is. The 1967 Committee concluded:
"The practical effect of this distinction seems to"
the
"Committee to be indefensible".
That is a parallel that I want to expand upon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) mentioned threats of legal action that were made against him. I am aware of his work on the miners' compensation scheme. He raised the issue of dual representation. He pointed out that in some cases—we are all familiar with this: it is not just a party political issue—one's own councillors try to muscle in, particularly if there is an election on the horizon. Of course, a constituent may well he intimidated by an offer of help and may feel, particularly if the problem were in relation to a housing matter, or to do with council housing, that his or her case may be prejudiced by a refusal to allow that dual representation. Often, constituents come to Members of Parliament rather than councillors about council issues precisely because of such fears. They see Members of Parliament as independent.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) asked a number of questions and raised many important points. Again, it is the purpose behind the passing on of correspondence that is important; I think that he accepted that point. He drew our attention to the dangers of what the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) has referred to, on the many Standing Committees on which I have served with him, as the law of the unintended consequence. In other words, there are other ways to skin a cat.
122WH
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove asked three specific questions, the first of which was whether the problem arises as a consequence of the cabinet system. I do not believe that it does. I can see parallels with committee chairs, leaders and deputy leaders, although perhaps the roots are different. The problem existed before that system. I agree with the analysis of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), which is that the problem arises as the world becomes more complex. She would say that that happens because of legislation, but I would say that legislation is the response to the complexity of the world. Nevertheless, the point is the same. My answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is no.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked whether there are any plans to consider extended privilege. I put it on record, in response to the debate, that there are. I will explain, in the brief time that I have, how I intend to do it.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked whether there are ambiguities in the implementation of the Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002. Clearly, there are. I agree with him. Although the lack of clarity is not in the order, there is clearly ambiguity in its implementation. That matter has been raised in the House during business questions on a number of occasions with regard to a number of public bodies, not just local authorities. Again I shall explain what I hope to do about that.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton asked whether we could consider guidelines to see how we could better promote the advice available from the House authorities. I accept that that needs to be done.
We have talked about our relationship with local authorities and councillors. In Wales, there is the question of Assembly Members, and in Scotland there are the Members of the Scottish Parliament. In Northern Ireland, the issue is much more complicated because of the political situation.
Mr. John Taylor: I feel that I am getting drawn further into this debate, having been a borough councillor, leader of a metropolitan county council, an MP and, dare I say it, a solicitor. I ask the Minister the same question that I asked the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). Does he not think that in the normal, common-sense way of things, if a Member of Parliament is brought a problem by a constituent, it is worth while giving a moment's reflection to whether the problem may be more susceptible to handling by a councillor, rather than by the MP, or vice versa?
Mr. Woolas: I concur with that point. My predecessor Geoffrey Dickens taught me that. He had a sign in his office that said, "Pass this to councillor if appropriate". It was good advice from him, and it is good advice from the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon focused on privilege as it applies to one part of our work: not to the proceedings in Parliament, which, as he said, are guaranteed absolute protection by article 9 of the Bill of Rights, but to an arguably equally important part of

123WH
Members' work—the correspondence that we conduct on behalf of our constituents with local authorities and other public authorities. As he pointed out, Members' correspondence is not considered to be part of parliamentary proceedings and can enjoy only qualified privilege. Therefore, there is a risk that Members might be subject to defamation proceedings, even though they would have a good defence as long as they acted without malice.
My hon. Friend outlined the point of the 2002 order regarding the exemptions of Members of Parliament from the 1998 Act. He drew attention to the 1999 report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, to which I referred, which provides a wealth of information on Parliament's ancient rights and immunities. He thinks that we should reconsider that. I am happy to do so. I will seek the advice of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), Chairman of the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, as well as ministerial colleagues.

Churchfields School
3.30 pm
Ms Julia Drown: I wish to raise with my hon. Friend the Minister the process of deciding on specialist school status, and in particular the renewal or otherwise of that status. My concern arises because Churchfields school in my constituency was awarded specialist school status as a performing arts college in September 1999. It made a huge success of that, yet when it applied to have the status renewed from April 2004, all that success was apparently unrecognised and the school lost its designation.
The decision to de-designate Churchfields school was wrong and has, understandably, resulted in a loss of morale in the school. It will mean that the opportunities for students at Churchfields, and for the wider community in Swindon, are not maximised and that the great work that has been going on in the school is not properly rewarded. If Ministers have any powers to reverse that decision, they should do so now, but I have been told there are no such powers.
I do not want what has happened to Churchfields to happen to other schools or to Churchfields again, and that is why, in this debate today, I am asking the Minister to review the process of designating specialist schools so that either Ministers make the decision and take into account all the necessary factors, or those making the decision are charged with having a much wider view of the education and community benefits than they have at present.
The main complaint that I and the school share is that the huge achievements of the school as a performing arts college were not recognised in its application to continue as a specialist school. The one inspector who came to judge the school stayed for one day only. The school was recommended for de-designation and an appeal was considered on the basis not of further visits, but of the head teacher and two senior teachers presenting their case to an independent panel at the Department for Education and Skills. The panel seemed to be interested only in the number of five A to C grade GCSEs that the school had achieved. All they wanted to know about was why the percentage passes had not increased.
I recognise that GCSE qualifications are important, but it is just as important for people, particularly those who are disadvantaged or excluded from society, to learn, to be inspired and to achieve, be that in performing arts or elsewhere. Anyone who visits Churchfields school and sees its productions, or just walks into one of its performing arts classes, will see children, often from some of the most disadvantaged backgrounds, thoroughly absorbed in their schooling. In dance, the school achieves what many others have failed to do: it makes boys as inspired by dance as girls are. One can see students who, in other schools, would have been excluded, keen to attend and to perform in art, music, dance and drama. Yet all that the appeal panel seemed interested in was why the school's GCSE results for 2001–03 had riot exceeded those in 2000.
The Government know that results are crude indicators and that added value should be looked at. Churchfields school's value-added performance has continued to improve over the past two years at both

125WH
key stages. The whole-school value-added improvements have also taken place in separate subject areas, most notably in the performing arts.
I recognise that, at a superficial level, the results look dramatic. In 2000, 42 per cent. of Churchfields students achieved five A to Cs. That fell to only 22 per cent. in 2001, rising to 31 per cent. in 2002 and 28 per cent. in 2003. However, any serious analysis of the situation at Churchfields school fully explains why there is an improving school underlying those statistics. The school is on target to achieve 36 per cent. five A to Cs this summer and more than 45 per cent. in the summer of 2005.
So what is the bigger explanation? Performing arts status was achieved in September 1999, at the very same time when the school completely changed because a neighbouring school—Oakfield school, which served the most disadvantaged part of my constituency and whose results in 2000 were 11 per cent. five A to Cs—closed. I opposed that closure, but Ministers confirmed the borough council's decision. Churchfields school took most of the pupils from that school. There was a destabilising of the school as a result of an influx of new students, a significant number of whom were disaffected and further disrupted by their previous school having been closed against their wishes.
Churchfields now serves one of the 10 per cent. most deprived council wards in the United Kingdom, and 17 per cent. of its students are entitled to free school meals, which is a higher figure than that for other specialist schools, where the average is 14 per cent. Churchfields has increasing numbers. Currently, 23 per cent. of pupils do not have English as their first language. The number of students on the special needs register has more than doubled, going from only 13 per cent. in 1998 to 30 per cent. in 2000.
However, the big increase in the size of the school and the fact that many of those joining it had special needs was not the only issue. Because of the major change for the school and other difficulties. Churchfields school was placed in special measures in January 2000. October 2001 saw the head teacher leave, and Swindon local education authority failed its Ofsted in 2001. October 2001 saw a new head teacher appointed, and within 13 months, by November 2002, the school had turned round and was removed from special measures. That turnaround was incredible and part of the achievement resulted from the work done and the boost that the school had been given by being a specialist school.
Against that background, the school's results are impressive. It would have seen even more improvements had the results of 22 children who were not educated at the school been excluded, but that seemed to count for nothing. Nor did the great improvement in dance GCSE results seem to count; there was a near 30 per cent. increase in passes between 2002 and 2003.
I fully anticipate that results will improve further over the next few years, but I would be even more confident if the school maintained its status as a specialist arts school. The £125,000 that it received each year as a specialist school was used well to expand students' opportunities and to inspire them to learn. The money was not spent only on the students; the whole community benefited. With the loss of that status, the
126WH
school's links with 10 primary schools—allowing them, for example, to do joint productions with key stage 2 and 3 students—will not be able to continue. We have had community carnivals and there has been work with special needs pupils, and that, too, will be threatened.
We in Swindon have one of the nine national dance schools and have used performing arts status well to bring professional dancers into the school. These include Banksi, who was brought up in Swindon and is a nationally renowned professional street dancer and breakdancer. He often revisits the town and never fails to reach out and raise the expectations of some of the most disadvantaged people in our community. Through dance, he and the Churchfields staff give youngsters the confidence and self-esteem that is too often sadly lacking in young people. Without that support. they could become aggressive and be excluded from our society.
The loss of status also means that there will be fewer students able to learn a musical instrument, a probable reduction in technical and support staff and an obvious reduction in learning opportunities both in the school and in partner schools and other organisations. There has already been a need to reduce arts staffing, the funding of artists in residence and facilitated resources.
The extra money that Churchfields had was used well. People could not get better value from specialist school status, either financially or, more importantly, in terms of the impact on students' lives. Because the school is doing everything that Ministers want to see in schools, particularly those that serve disadvantaged areas, it is clear that something went wrong with the decision. There should be something such as a three-year warning system before specialist school status is taken away, and realistic targets should be set, taking into account the circumstances of individual schools, so that any hardworking school that has achieved specialist school status will stay that way.
I also question whether the appeal decision should be taken by an independent panel rather than Ministers, who can consider the bigger picture. This is about supporting a school in a disadvantaged area that competes with schools elsewhere to be a success. It is hugely disappointing that a school of which the Government should be proud is seen by an independent panel to fail on crude indicators. In my mind, Churchfields school will continue to be a specialist school and performing arts college, and it will be one of which I am extremely proud.
I am encouraging the school to continue to work with others in the town in performing arts and other fields. It has made a strong application for artsmark gold and is currently applying for performing arts status again in two years' time. I hope that, by then, the Government will have changed the designation rules to ensure that schools such as this, which can succeed with specialist arts status, are allowed to do so. I do not want any school like Churchfields to go through the disappointment and loss of morale that results from the loss of specialist school status. That is why I appeal to the Minister to change the mechanism for this in the future.
3.40 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): First, I offer my genuine congratulations to my hon. Friend on securing the debate and, more importantly, on her tireless prosecution of the case for Churchfields school and other schools in her constituency. We have talked about this at Education Questions. We have corresponded two or possibly three times about this. Her work on behalf of Churchfields is a real source of support and encouragement for the school. It has a relatively new head teacher, Mr. Steve Flavin, who is playing a critical role in both the school and some of the collaborative work that is going on between Churchfields and other schools in the constituency. The support from the wider community, including the MP, is of enormous help in taking the school forward in an obviously challenging time. That is recognised on all sides.
I want to talk about the specialist school programme and how it works, and about our approach to the re-designation process, and to add a few words about the specifics of the Churchfields case. I do not want to go into that too deeply because I do not know whether it is appropriate for the particular issues of an individual school to be advertised in quite such a public way. If my hon. Friend is keen for me to do that I will be happy to give further information in that area, but I do not want this to become a prosecution and defence of Churchfields school. It is in all our interests to support the school in its future development.
The importance of specialism and specialist status has been developed enormously over the last seven years. My hon. Friend will know that in 1997 there were just over 150 specialist schools, mainly in the technology area. There are now 1,700 specialist schools, spread across nine different specialisms. We are well on the way to the Government's ambition that every school in the country should become a specialist school and be re-designated as such.
The specialist schools programme is designed first to raise standards in the area of the specialism—the performing arts in this case—and secondly to raise standards across the school. Specialist schools deliver the whole of the national curriculum. It is an important part of the specialist schools programme that the development of a centre of excellence in one part of the curriculum should contribute to the raising of standards right across the curriculum. The third and particularly innovative aspect of the programme is the requirement that the specialist school contribute to the wider school community by partnering with five or six primary schools and/or with other secondary schools.
We know from the evidence of exam and test results, as well as from independent inspection by Ofsted and anecdotal evidence, the power that specialist status can offer in the development of school standards. I pay tribute to the work that is being done in specialist schools right around the country. The success of specialist schools—the premium in terms of exam results for all specialist schools is now about 7 per cent. on GSCE A to C grades—is explained by a number of factors. They include the challenge of becoming a specialist school, the requirement to engage with the wider community, to develop wider sponsorship and governor arrangements and to engage wider community partners.
128WH
Head teachers often say that specialism has been a tool for them to raise expectations for standards right across the school, not just in the area of specialism. It is an approach that could be characterised as one of challenge and support. In addition it brings some capital benefit, which has been used to good effect in many schools. The specialist schools programme is very much something for something. There is a capital benefit and a revenue benefit of £126 per pupil per year, and a capital investment of some £100,000. It is a challenging programme and there is a requirement, in spending public money, to ensure that the money is well spent and that it delivers what was set out at the beginning of the programme. That balance of support and investment on the one hand and challenge on the other is critical to our approach to re-designation—the second aspect on which I wanted to speak.
Specialist status has never been for life. It has always been renewed over four years through a process that is challenging and rigorous. This year 39 schools were not re-designated on the first time of asking. Virtually all of them appealed, and I think that I am right in saying that 32 gained their designation in the end. We take the process extremely seriously. There are two objectives to the process. One is to allow schools to review their progress and to build on it in the next four years. The other is to provide an informed challenge to the specialist schools that have not yet met their own targets, or that have significantly underperformed.
In that sense, re-designation is distinct from the initial process of becoming a specialist school, because after four years we expect specialism to be firmly embedded in the school and its community partners. That is why the specialist schools that apply for re-designation are assessed against three rigorous criteria. They are assessed first in relation to the objectives of the programme and the targets set by the school, to which my hon. Friend referred; secondly on improvement in academic performance, both in specialist subjects and across the school; and finally on the quality of the school and community plans submitted for the next four-year phase.
My hon. Friend was concerned about whether non-examination performance was considered in assessment. I can reassure her that at all stages in the re-designation process, non-examination as well as examination achievement was considered. At the final re-designation decision panel, the school showed some of its work in its production of "Fame". That was included in the panel's decision making. The non-examination performance is a part of the assessment.
It is important that my hon. Friend should know about two significant changes that have occurred.
Ms Drown: It may be, on paper, that more than the crude examination results are taken into account. However, those from the school who were present at the appeal panel felt that the only thing in which the panel was interested was the crude measure of five A to C results. Although Churchfields may have set targets at the beginning of the process, they were inappropriate by the time it had gone through changes. Does the Minister recognise the loss of morale that occurs when a school loses its designation? I hope that he will discuss the

129WH
question whether there should be more warning and reviews, and whether it should be possible to change targets more regularly.
Mr. Miliband: I assure my hon. Friend that I am only just getting up to full speed. There is plenty of scope for me to deal with her concern about the way in which the programme works. I was just about to deal with her point about how the re-designation process supports school improvement. Two significant changes have been made to the re-designation process in the past couple of years. They speak pretty directly to her concerns.
First, previous practice was that any school that left the specialist programme had to wait four years before re-entering it. The thinking behind that was that schools needed a period of readjustment and a chance to start afresh. We have now relaxed that requirement, so that schools need spend only one year out of the programme before they can reapply, ensuring that any school that is in that position and is confident of its future plans can re-enter the specialist fold more speedily. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that that speaks to the frustration that I understand can exist in staff rooms at the time of de-designation. It offers our commitment to the school that we want to work with it to help it back into the specialist school family.
The second change that I have made deals with something that my hon. Friend mentioned: the role of the independent panel. It was a significant decision to ask a group of experts to play a key role. However, under the framework that I have established in the new system, senior education professionals spend a significant time scrutinising the characteristics of each situation, ensuring that every contextual factor can be carefully examined and assessed. If I may provide a slight correction, it is not a matter of a school competing against another school for a limited number of slots in the specialist schools programme; it is a matter of the school showing that the specialist status is being used to good effect.
The specialist panel has introduced a degree of openness into the process and also allowed schools and others to make representations. I hear what my hon. Friend says about the frustration that those who attended the panel felt, and I take seriously what she says and what her constituents have reported about the process. If there were any suggestion that the panel had not operated the criteria fairly or had not engaged with the challenge that the school faced appropriately, I would investigate that charge seriously. The people on the panel have experience of schooling and specialist schooling, and they perform their duties with real rigour and seriousness. If there are any issues relating to the appeal, how the panel worked or how the questioning and discussions took place, I would be happy to look into them. However, my hon. Friend and her constituents might judge that that is not the right thing to do now and that we should get on with the future.
The process of re-designation is not designed to be punitive. It is designed to offer the challenge and support that we think are important. The panel has just finished its first full year of operation. We are looking at any glitches and, as I said, I would be happy to incorporate into that process anything that comes out of the case in question.
130WH
Churchfields has had significant challenges and has been subject to special measures in the past. I recognise that the loss of specialist status can be significant, and I empathise with the statements that my hon. Friend made. I do not want to dwell at length or in too much detail on all aspects of the school's performance. The school's case was considered twice. Its appeal against the initial decision was delayed until October of last year in order to allow it to present further evidence of 2003 performance, but it was unsuccessful. In both cases, school and community performance was considered.
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend refer to value added. She was right that Churchfields' performance was 0.1 per cent. above the local education authority and national average between key stages 2 and 3, but between key stages 3 and 4 there was a significant gap in the other direction. I am happy to go through those figures with my hon. Friend afterwards, if that would be helpful.
Ms Drown: Are the results at key stage 3 below the average or have they declined?
Mr. Miliband: No, the value added between key stage 3 and key stage 4—that is, at GCSE level—was significantly below the local and national average.
Ms Drown: If I may say so, the school's results at key stage 3 have been improving over the last two years and have added value at key stages 2 and 3.
Mr. Miliband: I do not believe that I have the key stage 3 results with me, but I am happy to take my hon. Friend's word for that. All I would say is that value added does not exist at key stage 2 or at key stage 3. Rather, it exists between phases. Value added measures the progress between the ages of 11 and 14 and the ages of 14 and 16. The value added between the ages of 14 and 16 was not what we might have hoped for.
My hon. Friend was also concerned about the number of visits to the school. The person who conducted the visits knew the school and had been there before. The appeals panel that considered the matter was made up of senior representatives, who of course met representatives of the school. However, I do not want to go into too much detail. I have some figures on which targets were hit and which were missed, but I am not sure whether discussing those would serve the best purpose.
There are three things to be said about the future. First, we are looking at the re-designation framework. We want to ensure that we learn from the experience of the first year. Secondly, we want to create the conditions under which schools will be prevented from becoming involved in the appeals process in the first place. We want to move from cure to prevention. We want the specialist schools re-designation programme to be rigorous and challenging, but we want schools to rise to the challenge. That is the rationale behind the funding that we have provided for the leadership incentive grant in Swindon, which offers £125,000 per year for three years to Churchfields and other schools to strengthen leadership, other important issues and the excellence cluster in which Mr. Flavin is engaged. Some 300 partnerships are funded around the country.

131WH
Finally, Churchfields is, as I said earlier, eligible to reapply for the specialist schools programme in October this year. Happily, six of the 39 schools that left the programme have since returned, and two became academies last September. Obviously, it is important that a specialist school application should be right for the school, and made at the right time; it will be for the school to judge whether, as it seeks to improve itself, it is the time to go for specialist status.
I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend that we take seriously the development and implementation of the re-designation procedure. We take her concerns seriously. We would all agree that the key is to give the maximum appropriate support to Churchfields. I think that she will agree that there is a significant amount of effort going in to support the school and to ensure that it manages to reach and go beyond the levels of academic achievement that it had two or three years ago, whether through national or local initiatives. In the end, that is key for her constituents, for the pupils in the school and their parents.
On that note, I hope that we can reflect on the issues that she has raised and be sure that we are developing a programme that is rigorous and challenging, but that is also supportive: that is the right balance for an education system that is trying to move forward.
Ms Drown: I am pleased to hear that, a year in, the Minister is going to consider the framework again. I wonder whether giving some sort of warning could be considered as part of that review. Part of this issue is
132WH
about managing expectations. Staff salaries are often at stake, but it is not only about staff morale; the issue affects a whole school and the wider community.
Would it not help to manage those expectations if, rather than it being a yes or no issue at the end of the period, one could have a review at points during the specialist school status process? Such a review could state, "If you do not achieve this and this, then you will lose specialist status." That would enable people to manage the process so much better.
Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that every school in the country, whether it is specialist or not, is engaged in a process of self-evaluation and engagement with the local education authority and beyond. Specialist schools know the targets that have been set and can follow the progress that is being made.
The specialist schools movement, far from saying that it wants earlier warning during the four-year process, has suggested that it should be stretched out in the other direction; that schools should be given longer to show how much progress they have made. The fifth year of exam performance is now taken into account in specialist school re-designations.
Although I will of course think carefully about what my hon. Friend has said, I hope that she will understand that the information from published figures, Ofsted and other inspections is there for critical self-review, and that many schools believe that an early warning system would work against their interests, because they want further time to show how much difference the specialist schools movement is making to them.
3.58 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

Shanklin Jobcentre
4.12 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: The Isle of Wight is a diamond-shaped offshore island with four major centres of population, each of which has a population of around 15,000 to 20,000. They are: Newport, in the centre of the island; Ryde, on the north-east coast; the Sandown and Shanklin area, which is called the bay area, on the south-east coast; and Cowes, which is 4 miles from Newport. The other towns are about 7 and a half miles apart. Shanklin jobcentre serves the Sandown bay area, plus the town of Ventnor, right on the south of the island, and places as far afield as Godshill, Newchurch and Chale.
We have been aware for some time of the Government's plans to roll out the Jobcentre Plus concept, a new way of providing back-to-work services in a one-stop way right across the island. It appears to have been very successful in Newport and Ryde. The Jobcentre Plus property agent wrote in a letter to the landlord of the Shanklin jobcentre on 22 May 2002:
"A significant number of properties are to be refurbished and converted as new Jobcentre Plus properties. The premises detailed above"—
that is Shanklin jobcentre at I Steephill Road and the corner of the high street—
"have been identified as one of those offices that will be refurbished to present a more welcoming environment for the Jobcentre Plus customers. The refurbishment will involve internal alterations to provide a better reception area and more space for face to face interviews to be conducted."
So, the landlord, like everyone else, believed that the centre would remain open.
Although I was told earlier this year that the district manager for Jobcentre Plus had, later in 2002, decided that the premises were unsuitable—a decision that was reversed—we heard nothing officially about closure until a letter from the district manager dated 23 January 2004. It really was a bombshell for Jobcentre Plus in Shanklin and for its customers. The district manager said:
"I had hoped to be able to secure new premises in Shanklin, as our current premises are unsuitable for future business requirements: most notably in respect of allowing access for Disabled customers. Unfortunately, no suitable premises can be found at an acceptable price and the existing office cannot be adapted at an acceptable cost. Consideration has been given to looking at building new premises … but the cost of these (in excess of £2 million) has proved prohibitive.
I have now been advised that it is unlikely that suitable premises could be secured within an acceptable cost or timescale. As a result, we are forced to consider an alternative service delivery plan for the Isle of Wight. This will entail closing the existing office in Shanklin, and expanding the facilities at Ryde, whilst establishing (subject to discussion with partners) a Jobpoint terminal locally within the Shanklin area."
I met the district manager, with the Isle of Wight manager, at Shanklin jobcentre on 1 March, and later that day I visited Ryde jobcentre to see what had been implemented there. At the meeting on 1 March, the district manager told us that Shanklin was unsuitable for disabled people and costly to convert. We asked whether a disabled access audit had been undertaken and were told that it had. However, it has not been provided to us.
134WH
The landlord is an architect and said consideration would be given to making further alterations to establish compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Alterations could include reopening the door at high street level, which opens on to the corner of the front office. The building is like one of the few bank buildings that have not been converted into wine bars. He also suggested that a lift could be installed.
We have received no evidence that the office is unsuitable, although clearly it is not ideal. The agents of Jobcentre Plus clearly did not think it unsuitable in May 2002. If they had, the local community would have made an effort to find suitable premises. We requested information at the meeting on 1 March, and confirmed that request by email on 2 March. The information we requested included details of any legislative reason why the jobcentre service could not be continued from the current building: details of the perceived operational reasons for the decision; and details of any research undertaken on the cost to the user of travelling to alternative premises should the Shanklin branch close, and the time that it would take.
In a letter on 30 March, of which I believe the Minister has a copy, I also commented on the costs of relocating Jobcentre Plus to Ryde vis-à-vis refurbishment or relocation in Shanklin. Suffice to say that it is curious that in the case against the new build the cost is given as a capital sum, while the cost of relocation is given as a revenue sum, which does not make the figures easy to compare.
I accept that the present building may not be acceptable, although I do not accept that it is not. Let us consider what Jobcentre Plus has done to find new premises. I asked the district manager what specification the agents of Jobcentre Plus had been provided with and what other premises they had looked at. In a letter to me on 12 March, the district manager provided an annexe, which said simply:
"Floor space 450 sq m
Location Shanklin or Sandown (but prepared to look at others in the vicinity)
Access requirements fully DDA compliant."
I have asked for more details on the specification, but they have not been provided.
As I said, I also asked for a list of premises that had been considered and was given four, among them the old cinema site in the high street, which was described as
"unsuitable as refurbishment was not viable."
I happen to know something about the old cinema site, because it belongs to Shanklin Conservative club. I declare an interest as a member of that club. The club was proposing an extension at ground and first floor levels, but over only one third of the footprint of the old cinema site. That would have left two thirds of the footprint plus the basement, which is accessible at high street level, for possible development. It is a pity that it was not pursued more vigorously by the Jobcentre Plus agent because it is only now that the site is being cleared for development and it looks as though the remaining two thirds, plus some floors above, will be used for housing. That would have made an excellent site.

135WH
On 30 March I reiterated a number of other requests for information, including the access audit and the list of the five alternative premises considered. I will not go through the other premises, but they did not include, for example. Spithead business park, Shanklin library, which the county council is considering relocating, and the huge and underused Shanklin railway station car park. I believe that that was because Jobcentre Plus retained only a mainland agent. Had it appointed an island agent—or if the mainland agent had appointed an island sub-agent—with a brief to find premises rather than merely find what premises were available, it would have got better value for money. For example, an agent on the island might have found that one convenient site that is available has outlying planning permission for 6,000 sq ft, which is in advance of what Jobcentre Plus needs.
The Library has supplied me with a memorandum on consultation undertaken, which was submitted by Jobcentre Plus to the Work and Pensions Committee on 9 July 2003. I will not read it in detail because it is extensive. However, having read section 2, under the heading "Consultation", I conclude that there was no adequate consultation. Let me give you some examples. Mr. Deputy Speaker. The people to be consulted include:
"Local MPs, MEPs, MSPs, Members of the National Assembly of Wales. Local authorities—both councillors and officials … Employers—a sample of key employment providers and their representative bodies, for example, the local chambers of commerce. Health authorities, primary care trusts, local GPs, landlords and joint tenants."
The memorandum continues:
"Stakeholders are provided with a description of how it is proposed to deliver services, details of which sites are planned to be refurbished, a description of any planned acquisitions, and details of which sites are considered for closure."
Sadly, there was no consultation with the county council, the town council, the Isle of Wight economic partnership, the chamber of commerce, the primary care trust, or the Member of Parliament. I was sent a letter outlining the proposal and was asked for my views, but I was not asked to respond as I could have done had I been informed earlier of the Jobcentre Plus agent's conclusion that the current premises were unsatisfactory; a conclusion with which I, as well as the people working in those premises, disagree. One of those people, Diane Graham, wrote to me to point out:
"As a Disability Employment Adviser, based in Shanklin Jobcentre for the past six years, I can confirm that there has never been an access problem for my clients. Likewise should a disabled person be seeking help from other staff in the office, it has always been the policy for the staff to come to the ground floor, if necessary, to provide the full range of services to the caller, in line with the service they would give on any floor in the building."
I am not impressed with the intensity or meaningfulness of the consultation. Furthermore, I am not confident that the needs of the local community and of users have been properly considered. The town clerk of Ventnor town council writes:
"The Town Council have noted with great concern the report"—
136WH
a report in the county press, not a letter that the town council received from Jobcentre Plus—
"that it is intended to close the Job Centre at Shanklin. Ventnor, as you will be aware, is amongst the top ten areas in the country designated as having social deprivation … Now it is being suggested that users would have to travel to Newport it beggars belief. Are those dealing with the closure aware of the difficulty of travel from Ventnor to Newport and the cost of public transport? As much as anywhere on the Island, Ventnor needs the service of a Job Centre. We cannot believe that any real understanding exists about the true position of our population."
Another service user writes:
"The Department keeps telling the staff in newsletters how we are customer focused. I cannot see how forcing the poorest people on the island to travel 8–10 miles extra by inadequate and expensive public transport is in the public interest or for their benefit … When a customer's giro doesn't arrive (or bank account is not credited) how are they supposed to find almost £4 to travel to Ryde or Newport to ask for an urgent payment?"
A local mother-to-be, again from Ventnor, wrote on 27 February:
"I am extremely unhappy with the proposal to close Shanklin jobcentre as this would cause much inconvenience to me in my condition, especially in terms of time and cost which I can ill afford. Would you be kind enough to ask whoever is responsible for this decision-making to please reconsider?"
It concerns me even more that I appear to be getting the blame. One constituent wrote:
"I went to sign on in Shanklin today and to my dismay I find that you are considering closing the jobcentre and dole office there.
I think that you need a signing on office for Sandown, Shanklin, Ventnor and surrounding areas. Also to my dismay I am told that I will have to pay my own bus fares to sign on in Ryde or Newport. Please tell me that you're taking the"
something or other.
He went on to say:
"It costs £7 from Shanklin to Newport return. Am I getting more money to cover this extra cost on an already stingy amount of cash to live on!! You try and exist on £54 per week!!"
Incidentally, I rang Southern Vectis and I found that not all buses on the service from Shanklin to Ventnor are disabled accessible. The young mum, to whom I referred, would find it a great deal easier to negotiate her way into the jobcentre at Shanklin than she would to get on to a bus, travel to Ryde, perhaps with a child in a buggy, and go to the jobcentre there.
This is something that concerns me more widely, but it is important because it illustrates what the staff of the jobcentre are doing, which is perhaps beyond their remit. Another member of the staff wrote:
"At the present time with Income Support claims being processed in Fareham and Social Fund in Cosham I consider the service to islanders wishing to claim these benefits is poor. Often we have customers coming to Shanklin job centre about these claims, sometimes in a distressed state and we are unable to help except to give these customers access to our phones. When I have phoned on behalf of customers to Income Support for instance, I have found them to be unsympathetic and unhelpful, easy for them at the end of the phone, not so pleasant for us with the customer sat in front of us."
That is a bit of a sorry tale. Most infuriating has been the difficulty of obtaining evidence from the district manager as to exactly what advice she has been given.

137WH
That is illustrated by an email that was sent to my secretary and which I received on 15 April. It said that the district manager:
"has answered the issues Andrew has raised in his letter with all information that is available to her at this time."
Well, how come it is not available to her at that time, but it was available to her when she made the decisions?
It seems to be a sorry tale of corners cut and solutions brought forward that work for the bureaucracy, but not for the community. I am grateful to Geoff Lumley of the PCS union for drawing the issue to my attention. Its members are unaffected by the proposal because their jobs are guaranteed, but they are concerned about the consequences for their clients. I am grateful to Val Urquhart and to other staff of the job centre in Shanklin for the good work that they do all of the time; to the many local residents who have put out petitions and to businesses who have made petitions available; and to David Pugh, the editor of the local "In Touch" newsletter, who has publicised the availability of the petition.
I understand that the district manager is about to move to a new district and that a new manager will be in place shortly. I ask that that new district manager undertakes a new and genuine consultation, perhaps with the assistance of Isle of Wight agents, and in particular that they consider whether a partnership approach could enable new build to take place.
4.29 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on what is clearly an important subject, not only for him, but for his constituents. He has made that quite clear in the way in which he set out his remarks.
I fully understand his concern to ensure that Jobcentre Plus provides a quality service to his constituents in Shanklin. I would hope that he would accept that it is also our concern that we are able to do that. Before I start dealing with the detail of the points that he raised, I must say that those issues arise only because of our determination to modernise the welfare state and provide an individualised service to a range of people who have not received that service in the past. They include those who are sick, disabled, on incapacity benefit, lone parents and those who have not been expected to look for work in the past.
Our active labour market policies have resulted in the highest employment figures on record, the lowest unemployment figures since 1975 and a reduction of 500,000 in the number of children living in relative low income. We have the highest employment rate and the lowest unemployment rate of the big seven industrialised nations. That has not happened accidentally: it is due in part to our active labour market policies and the transformation of old-fashioned services into much more individualised services. That is what Jobcentre Plus is about, and that is what we are trying to achieve in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
138WH
The people of the Isle of Wight are being well served by the established Jobcentre Plus offices, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. Since 1997, unemployment there has fallen by 57 per cent. and long-term unemployment has fallen by 85 per cent. Both those figures are higher than the national average. The new deals on the island have helped nearly 3,000 people into work in his constituency. I am sure that he rejoices in that record of success as much as I do.
We know that there is more to do, and that is why we want to transform the rest of the services on the island. Jobcentre Plus is about providing a new type of service, as well as helping the traditional jobseeker's allowance clients. We are also helping lone parents and disabled people to think about finding work, sometimes for the first time.
Having reduced the numbers of unemployed people, we are now working to give employment opportunities to everyone. and in particular those groups that have traditionally been ignored by previous Governments. We are making our services more accessible to everyone, and it is absolutely key that we do that in a modern and sensible way that deals with the extra challenges that the agenda poses for staff and services.
We are opening new, modern offices. The hon. Gentleman has visited some in his constituency and he will have seen the vast difference that there is between the old-style social security office—even the old-style Employment Service office—and what we can offer with
Jobcentre Plus. Customers can make inquiries about their benefits and employment opportunities in a joined-up way that makes sense to them. Telephone contact centres allow them to make the same inquiries from the comfort of their own home, which they were not always able to do in the past. New technology enables them and us to find the information that they need about jobs and training via the internet, job points and other such innovations, all of which are being placed in local sites such as libraries and supermarkets to make them more accessible.
During the national planning for the implementation of Jobcentre Plus, customer representatives and trade unions were consulted widely. At district level, managers consult the widest possible range of people about the service that they plan to provide. Local advice and welfare groups, local authorities and MPs are essential sources of guidance, and we seek to take advantage of their local knowledge and their insight into what is necessary.
Some 450 of the new-style offices have been successfully opened, but the change cannot be delivered nationally overnight. In specific instances, it presents us with specific problems, and the hon. Gentleman has highlighted one that we face on the island. We find that once the changes have been introduced, however, eight out of 10 customers are satisfied with all elements of the service. That is quite a high percentage.
The hon. Gentleman knows that our original plans for the Isle of Wight involved the creation of three integrated offices in Newport, Ryde and Shanklin. Shanklin provided a particular dilemma, partly because the new office had to handle its existing client base of 700 unemployed people and about 3,500 more people claiming income support or incapacity benefits—the

139WH
types of people whom we have not helped in the past but wish to draw into the service now. Any plans put in place had to ensure that all customers, including the new cohort whom we had not previously considered, could use the office.
We would like to have maintained the excellent service already provided to the unemployed in the Shanklin area, and extended it to lone parents and people claiming incapacity benefits, ideally from a site in Shanklin, thus improving the service we provide to those who have to travel to Newport. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, at present only JSA claimants use the Shanklin service; the 3,500 lone parents and incapacity benefit claimants who want to access our services already have to travel because they cannot access the services in Shanklin. Many people from that area have to travel to Newport.
The existing jobcentre is too small; I have seen the correspondence to which the hon. Gentleman referred and I know there is more of it, with other contacts. Figures have been bandied about on square footage, size, what is needed, what is necessary and what it is possible to squeeze out of the existing premises, which are on three floors. As the hon. Gentleman said, a town house is not ideal, and there is a slope from front to back that presents difficulties. Proper disabled access in such a building is difficult, but not impossible, to achieve. However, it is an issue, and there is no doubt that for an integrated office—a Jobcentre Plus office—we would prefer to have the best possible standards of access that we can manage.
We considered a number of alternative local properties and the possibility of a bespoke new build, which would have cost in excess of £2 million. There has been a big investment of £2 billion across the country to deal with the roll out of Jobcentre Plus, but that does not absolve us from the obligation to secure proper value for money.
The hon. Gentleman referred to some of the existing sites; it would not be helpful for me to go through them now, but I shall be happy to send him a full list of those that we considered if he does not have one. There are at least two sites on that list where we considered a new build, but that would involve the extra consideration of cost. We have to be able to show value for money and an amount in excess of £2 million would be a big investment.
Mr. Turner: I accept that the whole point of developer building is that the developer puts in the capital and the Department pays the rent.
Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman knows that some consider the arrangements in respect of our estates and the private partners that we already deal with to be quite complicated. Things are not always as simple as he might think. However, I can assure him that we have considered a range of existing properties, sites and new build, not only in the Isle of Wight. We have been rolling
140WH
out these offices throughout the country, and different sites and areas present us with different problems. Each one is unique, but there are common themes and our people are becoming skilled at tackling the issues. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have done our best to find an alternative in Shanklin that is suitable all round. We did not want the outcome to be moving out of Shanklin, but to ensure that all our customers can access our services—that is what our proposed second-order solution will require.
Newport and Ryde already have Jobcentre Plus offices, which have been upgraded, as the hon. Gentleman, who has visited them, knows. They are providing the new services, are completely accessible to all clients and are already being used by the majority of the 3,500 additional customers from Shanklin to whom I referred. Although that alternative has required an extra expansion at Ryde to be able to cope with the capacity, it is a more cost-effective, value-for-money solution than the alternatives that we identified in Shanklin.
The district manager did consult, but he made some comments about the consultation, which he considered inadequate. I am sorry he thinks that, but we did consult 18 local stakeholders. We can bandy thoughts around about what constitutes a consultation, but I assure him that final decisions had not already been taken about what the solution should be when the letter, which he does not consider to have been a consultation, went out. Since then, we have spent time trying to find a Shanklin solution. To date, only the hon. Gentleman has responded negatively. I do not mean that unpleasantly, but he responded by saying that he does not agree with the way in which we have tackled the problem. That is not to say that no one else has concerns.
I also appreciate that the distance and cost of travel for existing customers of the Shanklin jobcentre is a matter of concern, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. More than 80 per cent. of our customers in Shanklin already travel to Newport because the services that they were accessing are not available at Shanklin. For the others, the local bus and rail links—he referred to a fare of £7, with which we do not disagree—compare favourably with similarly sized towns on the mainland, and even with those in the rest of his constituency, and the distances and the lengths of journeys are not out of line with those in other parts of the country. I acknowledge his point, but they are not unusual. The only alternative is to provide in Shanklin a service that is available only to the unemployed. We believe that that would be a two-tier service, which we do not want to consider.
The Department is a key employer on the Isle of Wight. It provides jobs for about 250 people. We recently announced that one of the two sites for the new national organisation for the checking of national insurance numbers will be in Newport and will guarantee a future for about 70 jobs there. I am pleased to be able to announce today that we will increase staffing on the Isle of Wight by almost 50 per cent. in that unit in the next two years as part of the national centralisation of the work.

141WH
Jobcentre Plus is managing the integration of more than 1,500 officers, handling more than 10,000 job vacancies and helping more than 100,000 callers every working day. In doing so, it is extending its services to everyone of working age who wants to access them, including people who have been ignored in the past, such as lone parents, disabled people and the unemployed, who will all be given increased opportunities to work and to contribute more to society. We can then begin to break the cycle of benefit dependency.
142WH
The Shanklin solution is not what we originally wanted, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we have done our best and that the final outcome will produce a much better service to everyone on the island. Despite his continuing concerns, I assure him that we have done our best. I am more than willing to talk to him further if he so wishes.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Five o'clock.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Civil Servants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will list for each civil service grade within his Office, the total number of staff employed, broken down by(a) gender, (b) ethnic group and (c) age group; and how many are registered disabled. [166400]

  Mr. Woolas
  Data on staffing levels in the Civil Service are collected by the Cabinet Office and published in Civil Service Statistics. A copy of Civil Service Statistics 2002 is available in the Library, and at www.civil-service, gov.uk/statistics. The 2003 edition will be published in summer 2004.

  My Office currently employs 12 civil servants and two temporary civil servants as special advisers, including staff supporting the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons. The grading breakdown is set out in the following table:

  Grade

  Staff number

  Senior Civil Servant

  1

  Band A

  1

  B2

  3

  B1

  3

  C2

  3

  C1

  1

  Special Adviser

  2

  To provide further analysis of (a) gender, (b) ethnic group, (c) registered disabled and (d) age group would identify individual members of staff.

  Departmental Computers
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Leader of the House what plans he has to update computer(a) hardware and (b) software standard packages used in his Office. [166375]

  Mr. Woolas
  The computer hardware and software used in my office is provided by the Privy Council Office under an IS/IT services agreement managed by the Cabinet Office. This provides for desktop hardware to be regularly replaced, and for standard operating and applications software to be kept updated. A major upgrade is planned for the standard office automation software we use towards the end of 2004.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Asbestos
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the level of compliance with the duty to manage legislation 490W
  as it relates to exposure to asbestos (a) now and (b) by the time the legislation becomes legally binding in May. [166749]

  Jane Kennedy
  As a result of a commitment given by the Government to the House of Lords in 2002, the Health and Safety Executive carried out a review of the progress being made towards compliance with the duty to manage asbestos in non-domestic premises. The review shows that between 50 per cent. and 75 per cent. of dutyholders are aware of the new regulation and that approximately 40 per cent. were already complying with the duty six months before the regulation was due to come into force.

  Since the review was carried out the HSE has continued its campaign to raise awareness of the duty in order to continue to raise the level of compliance before the 21 May when the duty comes into force.

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what efforts the Department has made to raise awareness amongst small businesses and the self-employed of the duty to manage legislation as it relates to exposure to asbestos. [166750]

  Jane Kennedy
  In 2001 the Health and Safety Commission embarked on a five-year campaign to raise awareness of the duty to manage and to encourage proportionate and effective compliance with the new regulation.

  In addition to the development of comprehensive guidance, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has gained the support of over 3,000 organisations to act as Partners in cascading HSE's campaign messages to a wide and varied audience, including small businesses and the self-employed. The partnership network includes the Federation of Small Businesses which has played a key role in the production of a free 'Duty to Manage' leaflet geared towards the needs of their members. Over 400,000 of these leaflets have been distributed nation wide.

  HSE has also developed a 'duty to manage' asbestos website, which includes good practice examples for new dutyholders, and has produced a range of written guidance.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to reply to the letter to him from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, dated 8 March, with regard to Mr. David Worthington. [167259]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on 16 April 2004.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are claiming council tax benefit; and if he will make a statement. [166252]

  Mr. Pond
  The number of Council Tax Benefit recipients in Great Britain at August 2003 is 4,657,400.

  Notes:

  1. The data refers to benefit units, which may be a single person, couple or family.
  491W
  2. The figure is rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3. Council Tax Benefit totals exclude any Second Adult Rebate cases.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock-count taken in August 2003.

  Pension Forecasts
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps his Department has taken to provide everyone with a personal forecast of their complete pension position as proposed in "A New Contract for Welfare: Partnership in Pensions", page 86. [166247]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Last year the Government began the process of issuing state pension forecasts to self-employed people and we anticipate that we will have sent 1.6 million forecasts by the end of May this year.

  We also continue to work in partnership with employers and pension providers to deliver 6.3 million combined pension forecasts by the end of 2005–06. To date over 700 employers and pension providers have expressed an interest in delivering these forecasts to their employees/scheme members.

  The Government are keen to ensure that individuals who are not covered by the combined pension forecast arrangements do not lose out. We intend to issue to these people a regular forecast of their projected state pension entitlement.

  Retirement Planner
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate(a) the initial start-up cost and (b) the annual running cost of his Department's web-based retirement planner, as proposed in Simplicity, Security and Choice: Informed Choices for Working and Saving, page 28; if he will provide a breakdown of this cost to (i) pension providers and (ii) his Department; and if he will make a statement. [166232]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We anticipate that the costs of establishing and running the web-based retirement planner are likely to be less than £10 million set-up costs and less than £5 million in annual running costs. However, these figures are high-level and indicative.

  Expenditure on a new service cannot be incurred ahead of Her Majesty's consent to the Pensions Bill. Following Royal Assent we will be able to engage with suppliers and estimate the potential cost. The exact costs of the system will, therefore not be known until commercial arrangements have been completed.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the average cost per member to private pension schemes for providing personalised scheme-member information in order to facilitate his Department's proposed web-based retirement planner. [166233]

  Malcolm Wicks
  This information is not available at the present time. Expenditure on a new service cannot be incurred ahead of Her Majesty's consent to the Pensions Bill and consent to that expenditure. Following Royal Assent we will be able to engage with suppliers and estimate the potential cost.
  492W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when his Department's proposed web-based retirement planner will be launched. [166245]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As announced in February 2004 in Cm 6111, 'Simplicity, security and choice: Informed choices for working and saving', the web-based retirement planner will be launched in Spring 2006.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effect on business of elected regional assemblies in the north of England. [166261]

  Phil Hope
  Improving the economic performance of the northern regions will be at the heart of the objectives of elected regional assemblies. Business will be actively involved in, and benefit from, the work of the assemblies—including economic development, planning, housing, transport, employment, and training and skills.

  Deprived Communities
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action his Department is taking to make deprived communities better places to live. [166262]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government have introduced a range of new programmes backed by substantial investment to improve disadvantaged areas, including the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, Sure Start and neighbourhood wardens.

  Independent research published this week shows crime in warden areas has dropped by 28 per cent.

  Housing
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what studies his Department will be making of the impact of his latest housing policies on the north-west of England. [R] [166263]

  Keith Hill
  The Government's housing policies are encapsulated in the Sustainable Communities Plan. With four of the nine Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders located in the north-west, the region is set to benefit from £332 million over the next two years. A full programme evaluation for the pathfinder programme is to be commissioned. In addition, a full review of North West Regional Planning Guidance will start later this year, and will give further consideration to housing provision.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to increase the amount of affordable housing for rent in rural areas. [166264]

  Keith Hill
  The target for approvals of rural housing in small settlements within the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme has been increased from 800 in 2000–01 to 3,500 over the two years 2004–05 and 2005–06. The target for these two years has been exceeded by about 500 in the programme announced last month. The programme includes homes for both rent and low cost home ownership.
  493W
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the effect of changes in the level of council funding for housing upon residents of Wirral, South since 1997. [166635]

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the change in the level of council funding for housing has affected the residents of Birkenhead since 1997. [166214]

  Phil Hope
  Since 1997 allocations of capital funding to local authorities for housing purposes have risen consistently by about 15 per event. per annum on average. This includes the Major Repairs Allowance the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister introduced in 2001–02 specifically for the improvement of local authority stock alongside the Decent Homes standard which sets out minimum standards to be met by 2010. Wirral's allocations in the period 1997 to 2003–04 have risen by over 140 per cent. In addition to this welcome increase there is support through the Community Housing Task Force and Government Office for the North West to help the local authority and its tenants to choose the best strategy for long term improvement.

  Matthew Green
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list those respondents to the consultation paper on licensing houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) who(a) supported and (b) opposed the proposal to introduce a duty of care on the owners and managers of all HMOs to ensure the health and safety of their tenants. [166201]

  Keith Hill
  A total of 579 responses were received on the 1999 consultation paper on Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation in England. 363 of them expressed no views on the proposal to introduce a duty of care on the owners and managers of HMOs.

  The five who were opposed to the proposal were:

  Mr. D Ugustod

  South London Family Housing Association

  Mr. G Clements

  Leeds Property Association

  An anonymous respondent

  The 211 respondents in favour of the proposal were:

  National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting (NICEIC)

  Mr. Trevor Alan Murphy

  Leicestershire Fire Brigade

  Society of Mary and Martha

  Mr. Tom W M Turner

  Oxford Fire Service

  Middlesbrough borough council

  University of Newcastle

  Torbay borough council

  Mr. John Stather

  Wigan metropolitan borough council

  Mr. Duncan McCargo

  Yorkshire Coast Residential Landlords Association

  Warrington borough council

  Cornwall county council

  Landlord's Association for Wessex

  Cheshire Fire Brigade

  Leicester city council

  South Ribble borough council

  Mr. David Patey

  494W

  Kingston-upon-Hull district council

  The London borough of Croydon

  University of Sheffield Union of Students

  Preston borough council

  Havant borough council

  Reigate and Bansted borough council

  Hertfordshire county council

  The Institute of Legal Executives

  The UK Association of Letting Agents Ltd. (UKALA)

  Greater Yarmouth Tourist Authority

  Great Yarmouth Residents Association

  Lancaster city council

  London borough of Newham

  Association of Housing Advisory Services

  Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service

  The Institute of Building Control

  Tonbridge and Mailing borough council

  Nottingham Landlords Liaison Panel to Nottingham city council

  The NHS Confederation

  Redcar and Cleveland borough council

  Humberside Fire Brigade

  Guildford borough council

  Bedfordshire and Luton Fire and Rescue Service

  Slough borough council

  City of Salford Housing Services

  Cumbria Fire Service

  Ipswich borough council

  Exeter city council

  Blyth Valley council

  Winchester city council

  Royal Berkshire Fire Authority

  South West Landlords Association

  Metropolitan borough of Wirral

  Nottingham city council

  Cannock Chase district council

  Selby district council

  South Headingley Community Association

  Lancashire Combined Fire Authority

  The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

  Torridge district council

  London Fire Brigade

  Teignbridge district council

  Wyre Forest district council

  Stafford borough council

  The borough of Basingstoke and Deane

  Hartlepool borough council

  London Private Tenants Workers

  West Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  Portsmouth city council

  Southampton city council

  Cherwell district council

  Metropolitan borough of Bury

  Gloucester city council

  Hereford and Worcester Combined Fire Authority

  Maidstone borough council

  Woking borough council

  Wansbeck district council

  Norfolk County Council Fire Service

  Greater Manchester County Fire Service

  St. Helens metropolitan borough council

  Borough of Spelthorne

  Somerset Fire Brigade

  495W

  Stroud district council

  City of Sunderland Health and Housing Services

  Royal borough of Kingston upon Thames

  Stoke-on-Trent city council

  Surrey Heath borough council

  Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council

  The Energy Conservation and Solar center

  Association of Tenancy Regulations Officers

  Taunton Deane borough council

  South Hams district council

  Professional Briefings

  Ellesmere Port and Neston borough council

  The Fire Brigades Union

  Sedgemoor district council

  Henstead Road and Canton Street Residents Association

  Rushmoor borough council

  East Hampshire district council

  Stockton-on-Tees borough council

  Lewisham Organisation of Private Tenants

  Brent Private Tenants Rights Group

  Essex County Fire and Rescue Service

  Field Studies Council

  Bradford metropolitan borough council

  Tyne and Wear Metropolitan Fire Brigade

  Brentwood borough council

  City of Durham

  Swindon borough council

  Newcastle city council

  The Hull and District Landlords' Association

  Vale of White Horse

  Chester city council

  Chichester district council

  London borough of Hillingdon

  The Housing Corporation

  Bill Olner MP

  UNIPOL

  Thanet district council

  Northern Consortium of Housing Authorities

  The Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  Swale borough council

  North Hyde Park Neighbourhood Association

  British Property Federation

  Wandsworth borough council

  West Berkshire council

  City of York council

  Blackburn with Darwen borough council

  Sheffield city council

  The Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals of Universities (CVCP)

  Yorkshire Region HMO Group

  Nottinghamshire C I E H Housing Working Group

  Doncaster metropolitan borough council

  Gloucestershire Directors of Environment Services Housing Technical Sub Group

  Brent borough council

  Dudley metropolitan borough council

  Oldham metropolitan borough council

  Welwyn Hatfield council

  Eastbourne borough council

  Hart district council

  Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service

  Barnsley metropolitan borough council

  Home Office Fire Policy Unit

  496W

  Northampton borough council

  Herefordshire council

  Allerdale borough council

  Borough of Hackney

  St. Edmundsbury borough council

  Shepway district council

  Rother district council

  Leeds city council

  Chartered Institute of Environmental Health

  The National Council for Housing and Planning (ROOM)

  Canterbury city council

  Gateshead metropolitan borough council

  Alan Simpson MP-Nottingham, South

  Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire county council

  London borough of Ealing

  Solihull metropolitan borough council

  Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association

  National HMO Network

  Chartered Institute of Housing

  Mr. N Burn

  Mr. J S McConnell

  Child Accident Prevention Trust

  Association of London Government

  London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

  City of Plymouth

  East Lindsey district council

  Cardiff county council

  Powys county council

  Newport county borough council

  Greater Manchester Private Sector Housing Group

  Manchester city council

  Julia Drown MP

  Shelter

  North Somerset council

  North Hertfordshire district council

  Mrs Jean McAndrew

  Mr. Peter Brackley

  Sefton council

  London borough of Hounslow

  Bristol city council

  Reading borough council

  Trafford metropolitan borough council

  Greater Manchester House in Multiple Occupation Working Group

  Rochdale metropolitan borough council

  Hastings borough council

  Association for Student Residential Accommodation

  Cambridge city council

  Local Government Association

  The Association of Building Engineers

  Small Landlords Association

  Harold Best MP

  Lincoln city council

  Merthyr Tydfil county borough council

  Monmouthshire county council

  Isle of Anglesey county council

  Shelter Cymru

  Pembrokeshire county council

  Blaenau Gwent county borough

  National Union of Students Wales

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  City and County of Swansea

  Conwy county borough council

  497W

  Denbighshire county council

  Gwynedd council

  North Wales Society of Directors of Public Protection

  The Treforest Community Joint Committee

  Residential Landlords Association

  Mr. Ben Prescott

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to help local authorities to rehouse families on the housing waiting list. [166259]

  Yvette Cooper
  Local authorities are no longer required to hold 'housing waiting lists', and are now required to allocate housing following their published allocation scheme. In November 2002, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister issued a revised Code of Guidance on the Allocation of Accommodation; this encourages local authorities to provide housing applicants with a choice of accommodation in their allocation scheme.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced a major new affordable house building programme worth nearly £3.5 billion over this and next year, and we are allocating £260 million over 2003–04 to 2005–06 to tackle homelessness.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the(a) level of housing basic credit approvals (as included in HIP allocations), (b) volume of reserved capital receipts from Right to Buy, (c) volume of usable capital receipts from Right to Buy and (d) capital receipts used by local authorities for housing investment were for (i) each local authority with a housing revenue account and (ii) England for (A) 1990–91, (B) 2000–01, (C) 2001–02, (D) 2002–03 and (E) 2003–04. [166637]

  Keith Hill
  Information on(a) local authority capital allocations since 1990–91 is available in the Library of the House.

  The information requested at (b), (c) and (d), with the exception that no information is available yet for the year 2003–04, has been made available in the Library of the House.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average council tax increase from 2003–04 to 2004–05 was in shire counties. [166265]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The average increase in the Band D council tax in shire county areas between 2003–04 and 2004–05 is 6.2 per cent. This contrasts with an increase of 13.8 per cent. in 2003–04.

  Planning/Regeneration
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on planning and regeneration policy in areas of high population density. [166260]

  Keith Hill
  The needs of high density areas differ greatly depending on local circumstances. Regeneration strategies are best decided locally. Planning can play an important role in high-density areas helping to create well designed and planned sustainable communities.

PRIME MINISTER

  EU Constitution
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement in the House on a referendum on the EU constitution. [167220]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement on Europe in the House on 20 April 2004,Official Report, columns 155–57.

  Libya
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether(a) he raised the issue of the sale and transportation of illegal arms to the Provisional IRA when he recently met with Colonel Gaddafi in Libya and (b) he was given a full inventory of the weapons and explosives which the Provisional IRA received; [166764]

  (2) whether discussions took place with Colonel Gaddafi regarding financial compensation to those injured by, and to the families of those murdered by, illegal weapons transported to the IRA by Libya; and if he will make a statement; [166765]

  (3) whether the issue of (a) arms supplies to the IRA by Libya and (b) compensation for victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland arising from arms shipments from Libya to the IRA was raised during his meeting with Colonel Gaddafi. [167396]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) on 1 April 2004,Official Report, column 1569W.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Prime Minister what details were given by Colonel Gaddafi and the Libyan Government regarding their involvement in the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher; and if he will make a statement. [166766]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) on 1 April 2004,Official Report, column 1569W.

  Following my visit, a Metropolitan Police team visited Tripoli between 3 and 6 April to take forward the investigation into the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher.

TREASURY

  Accountancy Services
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which(a) chartered accountants and (b) chartered accountancy firms are banned from carrying out work for the Government; [166384]

  (2) which (a) chartered accountancy and (b) chartered accountant firms have had bans lifted since 1997; and what criteria are used to determine whether bans should be (i) imposed and (ii) lifted. [166385]

  Ruth Kelly
  No chartered accountants or firms of chartered accountants are currently formally banned from carrying out work for the Government. However, following the collapse of Barlow Clowes, the two
  499W
  partners of Deloitte and Touche (the auditors) who were censured by the Joint Disciplinary Scheme Committee of Enquiry (an integral part of the accountancy profession's regulatory regime) voluntarily agreed not to put themselves forward for Government work.

  The ban on the employment of Arthur Andersen for Government work was lifted in November 1997 for reasons explained on 14 November 1997, Official Report, column 695.

  There are no formal criteria for the imposition or lifting of a ban, and each case is viewed on its merits.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) nature and (b) value was of all contracts, consultancies or other services placed with the accountancy firms (i) Deloitte & Touche, (ii) Ernst & Young, (iii) KPMG and (iv) PricewaterhouseCoopers since 2000–01 by the Department and its agencies. [166097]

  Ruth Kelly
  The following information and tables provide the information required in the form in which the Chancellor's Departments and agencies have been able to compile it, without having to incur disproportionate costs.

  HM Treasury1

  Spend (£)

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Deloitte Touche

  0

  91,473

  144,628

  207,261

  Ernst & Young

  0

  0

  1,410

  0

  KPMG

  41,125

  0

  262,057

  5,006

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers

  462,251

  19,892

  203,837

  8,119

  1 Including DMO.

  Office of Government Commerce1

  Spend (£)

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Deloitte & Touche

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Ernst & Young

  0

  0

  —

  —

  KPMG

  261,000

  85,000

  —

  —

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Including OGC Buying Solutions.

  HM Customs & Excise

  Spend (£)

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Deloitte & Touche

  876,061

  38,748

  —

  —

  Ernst & Young

  253,153

  215,748

  —

  —

  KPMG

  214,190

  1,237,316

  —

  —

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers

  243,254

  111,356

  —

  —

  Inland Revenue

  Spend (£)

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Deloitte & Touche

  0

  2,115

  302,273

  48,472

  Ernst & Young/Cap Gemini1

  1,937,237

  1,673,971

  6,796

  70

  KPMG

  92,500

  0

  32,261

  83,279

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers

  141,101

  190,372

  109,680

  6,289

  1 Combined expenditure with Ernst Young/Cap Gemini-further breakdown only available at disproportionate cost.

  Inland Revenue (IR) has access to a range of services provided by the specified companies and their affiliated organisations. The expenditure detailed above for the specified companies was incurred primarily for management services.
  500W
  The Valuation Office—Executive Agency of the Inland Revenue

  During the relevant period, the IP's Valuation Office Agency (VOA) incurred expenditure only with KPMG (for business advice on the 2007 council tax revaluation) as follows:

  2002–03: £634,960

  2003–04: £1,034,925

  The Royal Mint1

  Spend (£)

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Andersen

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Deloitte & Touche

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Ernst & Young

  0

  0

  —

  —

  KPMG

  0

  0

  —

  —

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers

  137,000

  51,000

  —

  —

  1Including Audit Work.

  Office for National Statistics

  Spend (£)

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Deloitte & Touche

  699

  15

  —

  —

  Ernst & Young

  50

  0

  —

  —

  KPMG

  251,876

  191,296

  —

  —

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers

  2,198

  0

  —

  —

  National Savings

  Spend (£)

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Deloitte & Touche

  570,000

  420,000

  —

  —

  Ernst & Young

  0

  0

  —

  —

  KPMG

  0

  0

  —

  —

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers

  43,000

  0

  —

  —

  Labour Statistics
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many(a) men and (b) women are employed in The Wrekin; [166720]

  (2) how many (a) men and (b) women in The Wrekin are in (i) full and (ii) part-time employment. [166722]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Peter Bradley, dated 21 April 2004:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about employment in the Wrekin Parliamentary Constituency. I am replying in his absence. (166720, 166722)
  The table below gives estimates of the number of men and women who are in full and part-time employment in the Wrekin Parliamentary Constituency in the twelve month period ending February 2002, the latest data for which information is available.

  Men and women who are in full and part-time employment in the Wrekin parliamentary constituency

  Men

  Women

  In employment

  22,000

  19,000

  Part-time

  1—

  10,000

  Full-time

  21,000

  9,000

  1 Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  501W
  As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling variability.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many new(a) full-time and (b) part-time jobs were created between 1997 and 2003 in Liverpool, Walton; [166968]

  (2) how many jobs were lost in each year between 1997 and 2003 in Liverpool, Walton. [166969]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Peter Kilfoyle dated 21 April 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about full-time and part-time jobs, and number of jobs lost in Liverpool, Walton. (166968, 166969)

  While no statistics of new jobs created or of jobs lost are available explicitly, statistics from surveys enable comparisons to be made of net changes, from year to year.

  The attached table shows the number of full-time and part-time employee jobs in Liverpool, Walton Parliamentary Constituency in each year from 1997 to 2002, the latest year for which information is available.

  Number of full-time and part-time jobs in Liverpool, Walton2; 1997–2002

  Number of jobs

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  1997

  13,900

  9,900

  23,900

  1998

  15,400

  9,700

  25,100

  1999

  14,600

  8,400

  23,000

  2000

  17,400

  9,700

  27,000

  2001

  19,000

  11,800

  30,800

  2002

  21,600

  12,900

  34,500

  Net change 1997-2002

  + 7,700

  + 3,000

  + 10,700

  Notes:

  1 Employee jobs only, not self-employed jobs.

  2 Parliamentary constituency area.

  Source:

  1997; Annual Employment Survey, resealed 1998–2002; Annual Business Inquiry (ABI).

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many young people aged 16 or 17 he expects will be entitled to the national minimum wage in(a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside (c) the North East and (d) the United Kingdom. [166815]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Stephen Hepburn, dated 21 April 2004:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about national minimum wage. I am replying in his absence. (166815)Information about entitlement to the national minimum wage is not available.
  However, estimates for the number of employees aged 16 and 17 from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) provide an upper limit for the number of people entitled to the national minimum wage.
  The table below gives estimates of the number of employees aged 16 and 17 in the United Kingdom and in the North East for the three month period ending November 2003. They include a
  502W
  small, but not measured, number of people with a contract of apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship schemes who are not entitled to the minimum wage.

  Number of employees aged 16 and 17 in the United Kingdom and the North East

  People aged 16 and 17

  People aged 16

  People aged 17

  United Kingdom

  631,000

  247,000

  384,000

  North East

  25,000

  1

  16,000

  1 Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling variability and the sample size is too small to provide comparable estimates for the Jarrow parliamentary constituency and the south Tyneside local authority with any reliability.

  Census Statistics
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer according to the 2001 Census return, which 10 constituencies had the highest proportion of non-white population; what those proportions were; what proportion of the population indicated English or similar in the ethnicity question in(a) England and (b) each constituency; what proportion of the population lives in a mobile home in (i) England and (ii) each constituency; and what proportion of the population travels to work by other means in (A) England and (B) each constituency. [162763]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 22 March 2004]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Andrew Turner, dated 21 April 2004:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking which 10 constituencies had the highest proportion of non-white population according to the 2001 Census return; what those proportions were; what proportion of the population indicated English or similar in the ethnicity question in (a) England and (b) each constituency; what proportion of the population lives in a mobile home in (a) England and (b) each constituency; and what proportion of the population travel to work by other means in (a) England and (b) each constituency. (162763)
  The following ten Parliamentary Constituencies have the highest percentage of non-white ethnic groups in England and Wales. The percentages have been extracted from Table KS06 on the CD supplement to the Census 2001 Report for Parliamentary Constituencies, which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Parliamentary constituencies with the highest percentage of population in non-white ethnic groups, England and Wales, 2001

  Percentage of population in non-white ethnic groups

  East Ham

  66.26

  Birmingham, Ladywood

  64.89

  Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath

  64.84

  Brent, South

  64.58

  West Ham

  60.20

  Brent, North

  58.18

  Ilford, South

  54.85

  Ealing, Southall

  52.69

  Camberwell and Peckham

  50.24

  Bethnal Green and Bow

  49.83

  Source:

  2001 Census Report for Parliamentary Constituencies.

  503W
  People could identify themselves as English in the 2001 Census by writing in such a response under one of the "other" categories on the ethnic group question. The number of people who identified themselves as English in this way in England was 1,064,922.

  People were asked to identify their accommodation type in the 2001 Census. The Census did not identify 'mobile homes' separately but the number of people who identified themselves as living in a 'caravan or other mobile or temporary structure' in England was 142,857. This count has been taken from Table T07 on the CD supplement to the Census 2001 National Report for England and Wales, which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  People were asked to identify the means of travel that they used for the longest part, by distance, of their usual journey to work. The particular means identified were:

  1. work mainly from home

  2. use the underground, metro, light rail or tram

  3. use trains

  4. use a bus, minibus or coach

  5. ride a motorcycle, scooter or moped

  6. drive a car or van

  7. are a passenger in a car or van

  8. use a taxi or minicab

  9. cycle

  10. walk.

  The number of people using a means of transport other than these 10 categories in England was 104,205. This count has been taken from Table SI21 on the CD supplement to the Census 2001 National Report for England and Wales part 2, which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  I have placed in the House of Commons Library three specially commissioned tables (CO168, CO169 and CO170), respectively showing:
  the number of people recording themselves as living in a 'caravan' or other mobile or temporary structure for each Parliamentary Constituency in England and Wales;
  the number of people who use a means of transport other than those listed above for the longest part of their journey to work, for each Parliamentary Constituency in England and Wales;
  the number of people who identified themselves as 'English' by writing in this response for each Parliamentary Constituency in England and Wales.
  Further customised output may be commissioned from ONS, where requirements are not met by the standard results, via the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/op15.asp

  Child Care
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets have been set for each local authority in England for the number of child care places which will be supported by the child care element in working tax credit for this current financial year. [166521]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's aim is to ensure that every parent has access to good quality, affordable child care and to ensure that they are also aware of the availability of financial support for child care costs. The child care element of the working tax credit is available to low and moderate income working parents using eligible child care.

  Data on the number of families benefiting from the child care element are not currently available at the local authority level due to sample size constraints. Across the UK, over 300,000 working families with children are
  504W
  now benefiting from help with child care costs, 67 per cent. more than benefited under the working families' and disabled person's tax credits in November 2002.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets have been set centrally for the number of child care places that will be supported by the child care element of working tax credit in England and Wales for this current financial year. [166522]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have no targets for the number of beneficiaries of the child care element of the working tax credit. This help is available to low and moderate income working parents using eligible child care. Under the new tax credits, this help is benefiting over 300,000 families, 67 per cent. higher than the number who benefited under the working families' and disabled person's tax credits in November 2002.

  The Government have set targets to increase the supply of child care. The 2004 Spending Review settlement announced for the Department for Education and Skills as part of Budget 2004 will allow further expansion of child care in England. The Government's aim is to ensure that every parent has access to good quality, affordable child care; and to ensure that they are also aware of the availability of financial support for child care costs.

  Civil Servants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each civil service grade within his(a) Department and (b) Department's executive agencies, the total number of staff employed, broken down by (i) gender, (ii) ethnic group and (iii) age group; and how many are registered disabled. [166388]

  Ruth Kelly
  Data on staffing levels in the Chancellor's Departments and their agencies are collected by the Cabinet Office and published in "Civil Service Statistics". A copy of "Civil Service Statistics, 2002" is available in the Library, and at www.civilservice.gov.uk/statistics. The 2003 edition will be published in summer 2004.

  Efficiency Gains
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in implementing efficiency gains since his Budget statement. [165019]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my answer to him of 1 April 2004,Official Report, column 1677W.

  Gershon Review
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with Sir Peter Gershon regarding the progress of his efficiency review. [165989]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor and Treasury officials have had regular discussions with Sir Peter Gershon regarding the progress of the efficiency review.

  Gift Aid
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the amount of gift aid that has gone unclaimed in each year since 1997; [166668]

  (2) how much money was claimed in gift aid in each year since 1997. [166669]

  John Healey
  No estimate is available of the amount of extra Gift Aid that charities could have claimed since 1997.

  Amounts of tax repaid to charities on donations under Gift Aid are shown in the following table. Statistics on Gift Aid are published on the Inland Revenue website at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/charities/c_t031.htm.

  £ million

  Year

  Total

  By individuals

  By companies

  1996–97

  134

  68

  66

  1997–98

  177

  96

  81

  1998–991

  306

  110

  196

  1999–2000

  208

  128

  80

  2000–012

  222

  222

  4—

  2001–02

  415

  415

  4—

  2002–033

  506

  506

  4—

  1 Figures for company donations reflect a single exceptionally large donation in 1998–99

  2 Following the Budget of 2000 company donations are paid gross and do not involve tax repayments and hence are excluded.

  3 Provisional.

  4 Not available

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury has undertaken a study to estimate the cost of any future ID card scheme; and if he will make a statement. [166781]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has been involved in discussions on the benefits and costs of a national ID cards scheme, co-ordinated by the Home Secretary. The introduction of such a scheme is a long-term undertaking, and the Treasury will continue to be involved with ongoing analysis.

  Mutual Organisations
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has conducted of the value derived by members of mutual organisations from the process of demutualisation. [166732]

  Ruth Kelly
  Mutuality is fundamentally about members' rights to say how their organisation is governed. These rights include the right to vote to demutualise the society. It is for members to consider whether demutualisation is in their interests, taking into account the seriousness and irrevocability of the decision.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Buckmore Park Scout center
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance is being 506W
  provided by Sport England to secure the re-opening of Buckmore Park Scout center in the constituency of Chatham and Aylesford. [166423]

  Mr. Caborn
  Since the closure of Buckmore Park Scout center, Sport England have been actively pursuing options for reopening the center with interested parties in the area.

  Communications Act
  Chris Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what sums have been agreed between the BBC and Ofcom in respect of the carrying out by Ofcom of its functions in relation to the BBC, under section 198 (4) of the Communications Act 2003 for the financial year 2004–05; [166825]

  (2) what sums have been agreed between Ofcom and (a) the BBC and (b) the S4C Authority in respect of the carrying out by Ofcom of its functions in relation to the Authority under section 207(6) of the Communications Act 2003 for the financial year 2004–05. [166826]

  Estelle Morris
  The matter raised is the responsibility of the Office of Communications (Ofcom) as independent regulator. Accordingly, my officials have asked the Chief Executive of Ofcom to respond directly to my hon. Friend. Copies of the Chief Executive's letter will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Local Authority Sports/Cultural Facilities
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what powers she has to prevent local authorities from closing down(a) cultural and (b) sports facilities. [166406]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport does not have any powers to prevent local authorities from closing down cultural and sports facilities.

  However, the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 imposes a duty on local authorities that are library authorities to provide a "comprehensive and efficient" public library service, and the national library standards, published by the Secretary of State, help to inform this duty. The Secretary of State has various powers under this Act if a local authority defaults in its duties.

  The Government have also taken action to prevent the loss of playing fields by introducing the Town and Country Planning (Playing Fields) (England) Direction 1998. This provides the Deputy Prime Minister with powers to ensure that communities retain an adequate supply of playing fields to meet both their current and longer term needs. In addition, where development (as defined by the Planning Acts) is proposed on school playing fields covered by section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, both planning permission from the local planning authority and consent from the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will be required.

  New Opportunities Fund
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money from the New Opportunities Fund has been allocated to Liverpool, Walton in each year since 1997. [166975]

  Estelle Morris
  The New Opportunities Fund began making grants in 1999. The awards to Liverpool, Walton are shown in the table.

  Financial Year

  Amount (£)

  1998–99

  —

  1999–2000

  13,751

  2000–01

  38,432

  2001–02

  774,705

  2002–03

  1,137,366

  2003–04

  274,644

  Total

  2,238,898

  The information is derived from the Department's Lottery award database, which uses information provided by the Lottery distributors.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money from the New Opportunities Fund was allocated to Manchester, Gorton in each year since 1997. [167344]

  Tessa Jowell
  The New Opportunities Fund began making grants in 1999. The awards to Manchester, Gorton are shown in the table.

  Financial Year

  Amount (£)

  1998–99

  —

  1999–2000

  —

  2000–01

  238,285

  2001–02

  5,000

  2002–03

  78,810

  2003–04

  192,057

  Total

  514,152

  The information is derived from the Department's Lottery award database, which uses information provided by the Lottery distributors.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the (a) nature and (b) value was of all contracts, consultancies or other services placed with the accountancy firms (i) Deloitte & Touche, (ii) Ernst & Young, (iii) KPMG and (iv) PricewaterhouseCoopers since 2000–01 by the Department and its agencies. [166098]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department does not hold a central record of the nature of individual agreements (be they contracts, consultancies or other services) nor of their value. However, our financial records show the following total payments made by the Department to(a) Deloitte and Touche, (b) Ernst and Young, (c) KPMG and (d) PricewaterhouseCoopers in financial years 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 to date (i.e. excluding any subsequent prior year adjustments).
  508W

  £

  Organisation

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04 To date

  Deloitte and Touche

  275,594

  201,670

  249,007

  Ernst and Young

  0

  38,449

  0

  KPMG

  396,353

  1,014,559

  1,870,513

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  5,349,686

  3.847,542

  3,803,767

  Information about spend by the Department's Non Departmental Public Bodies could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Adult Education (Birkenhead)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what public funding has been spent on adult (a) literacy and (b) numeracy in Birkenhead in each of the last five years. [166297]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The estimated total spend on Skills For Life (the Government's strategy for literacy, language and numeracy needs of all post-16 learners from pre-entry level up to and including level 2) and on Key Skills (essential skills of communication, application of number and information technology), from April 2001 to July 2003, in the Greater Merseyside Learning and Skills Council (LSC) area is set out in the table below:

  (£000)

  April 2001 to July 20011

  August 2001 to July 2002

  August 2002 to July 2003

  Basic skills

  Key skills

  Basic skills

  Key skills

  Basic skills

  Key skills

  3,803

  1,094

  6,575

  1,564

  10,677

  1,755

  1 The figures for April to July 2001 include costs incurred from August 2000 on learning aims continuing into April 2001.

  From the information available to the LSC it has not been feasible to obtain estimates at constituency level or separate figures by subject without incurring disproportionate cost. Likewise it has not been feasible to obtain comparable figures for periods before April 2001 when the Skills for Life strategy was launched and the LSC was form but information shows it was considerably less than at present.

  Advanced Vocational Certificate
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the future of the advanced vocational certificate of education. [165862]

  Mr. Miliband
  The specifications for the Advanced Vocational Certificate of Education are currently being revised in order that, from September 2005, they will follow the same A S/A2 format as the GCE. Their longer-term future is being considered by the Working Group on 14-19 RAorm, whose final report is due in the autumn.

  Apprenticeships (Birkenhead)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many residents of Birkenhead have undertaken apprenticeships in each of the last five years. [166335]
  509W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is not available at parliamentary constituency level. Nor is the information available for a consistent geographical area over the last five years. However, the following table shows the number of starts on apprenticeships (formerly known as Advanced Modern Apprenticeships) and apprenticeships at level two (formerly known as

  Time period

  TEC/LSC

  Apprenticeships

  Apprenticeships at level 2

  April 1998 to March 1999

  CEWTEC1

  1,400

  300

  Merseyside

  2,400

  1,200

  St. Helens CCTE

  300

  100

  North and Mid Cheshire1

  1,200

  200

  April 1999 to March 2000

  CEWTEC1

  1,000

  900

  Merseyside

  2,600

  3,500

  St. Helens CCTE

  300

  400

  North and Mid Cheshire1

  900

  500

  April 2000 to March 2001

  CEWTEC1

  1,100

  1,300

  Merseyside

  2,500

  4,100

  St. Helens CCTE

  300

  500

  North and Mid Cheshire1

  1000

  900

  April 2001 to July 2002

  Greater Merseyside LSC

  2,600

  7,100

  March 2001 to July 2002

  Greater Merseyside LSC

  2,000

  6,000

  Notes:

  1TEC also became part of Cheshire and Warrington LSC Source:

  TEC management information.

  LSC Individualised Learner Record.

  Computer Provision (Birkenhead)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people in Birkenhead have received a computer to assist in seeking employment or retraining. [166332]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  At present no centrally funded DFES schemes exist which enable people to acquire free or low price recycled computers.

  School Budgets (Devon)
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school budgets in Devon Local Education Authority were in deficit in each of the last seven years. [164787]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is not available for the last seven years. However, the number of schools in budget deficit for the last four years is shown in the following table:

  Numbers of Devon schools with a deficit budget in each of the last four years

  Number of schools

  1999-2000

  71

  2000-2001

  48

  2001-2002

  33

  2002–2003

  27

  Notes:

  1. The data are as reported by Devon LEA as at 30 March 2004 and taken from their section 52 outturn statements submitted to the DfES.

  2. 2002–03 data are subject to changes by the LEA which may alter the results for that period.

  3. For 1999–00 to 2001–02 the data are taken from the Balance Carried Forward column. In 2002–03 data come from Other Revenue Balance.
  510W
  Foundation Modern Apprenticeships) in Greater Merseyside Learning and Skills Council (LSC) area between April 2001 and the end of July 2003, as well as the number of starts from April 98 to March 2001 in the four TECs that amalgamated to become Greater Merseyside LSC.

  Section 52 data are available from 1999–00. Prior to then the ODPM's R01 statement provides information but not at school level.

  School Budgets (North Tyneside)
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school budgets in North Tyneside local education authority were in deficit in each of the last 10 years. [164363]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is not available for the last 10 years. However, the number of schools in budget deficit in North Tyneside LEA for the last four years is shown in the following table:

  Numbers of North Tyneside schools with a deficit budget in each of the last four years

  Number of schools

  1999–2000

  21

  2000–01

  20

  2001–02

  18

  2002–03

  32

  Notes:

  1. The data are as reported by North Tyneside LEA as at 29 March 2004 and taken from their 2002–03 section 52 outturn statement submitted to the DfES.

  2. The 2002–03 data is subject to changes by the LEA which may alter the results for that period.

  3. For 1999–00 to 2001–02 the data are taken from the Balance Carried Forward column. In 2002–03 data comes from Other Revenue Balance column.

  4. Section 52 data is available from 1999–00. Prior to then the ODPM's RO1 statement provides information but not at school level.

  School Transport (North Tyneside)
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost of home to school transport in North Tyneside local education authority was in each of the last five years. [164364]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is contained within the following table:

  Cost of home to school transport in each of the last five years

  (£000)

  1997–1998

  950

  1998–1999

  985

  1999–2000

  1045

  2000-2001

  1125

  2001-2002

  1246

  Notes:

  The financial data are taken from North Tyneside LEA's Section 52 Outturn Statement submitted to the DfES from 1999–2000 onwards and the ODPM's RO1 statement prior to then.

  Figures are in £000s.

  Total transport expenditure and parental contributions includes that incurred in relation to pre-primary, primary, secondary and special school education as well as in education out of school, continuing education and the management and support elements.

  Europass Scheme
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 30 March 2004,Official Report, column 1395W, on the Europass Scheme, what steps will be taken to participate in the Europass initiative; and what the timescale is for each stage of the process. [165845]

  Alan Johnson
  The UK is already participating fully in the current implementation of Europass Training, set up under Council Decision 1999/51/EC of 21 December 1998 on the promotion of European pathways in work-linked training, including apprenticeship.

  If the current proposals for the new Europass Programme are adopted by co-decision of the European Parliament and Council of Ministers this year, it is expected that the initiative will begin on 1 January 2005. We will appoint a National Europass center to coordinate Europass activities within the UK. We expect the National center to be in place for the start of the Programme.

  Free Pre-school Places
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) free nursery and (b) pre-school places were available for (i) three and (ii) four year olds in Chorley in each of the last seven years. [161596]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Figures on the number of free nursery education places taken up by three and four year olds in Lancashire local education authority area are shown in the table.
  512W

  Number of free nursery education places1 2 taken up by three and four year old children in maintained nursery and primary schools and private, voluntary and independent providers Lancashire Local Education Authority area1997–2003

  Position in January each year

  year

  3 year olds

  4 year olds

  1997

  4,400

  13,500

  1999

  4,400

  16,000

  2000

  4,300

  15,900

  2001

  9,400

  15,700

  2002

  9,400

  13,000

  2003

  10,100

  12,600

  1 Part-time equivalent number of free nursery education places taken up by three and four year old children.

  2 A free nursery education place comprises five two and a half hour sessions of early years education per week, for thirty-three weeks of the year, usually three terms of eleven weeks.

  The latest figures on provision for three and four year olds in England were published in a Statistical Bulletin `Provision for children under five years of age in England—January which is available on the Department's website www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/.

  Since 1 April 2004, six months ahead of our original target, all three year olds in England whose parents want one, will have access to a free, part-time early education place.

  ICT Training (Birkenhead)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many women in Birkenhead have visited an information and communications technology training center in order to learn skills to return to work. [166331]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Birkenhead is served by both UK online centers and learndirect provisions.

  An estimated 226 women use UK online centers in Birkenhead each quarter. This information is calculated from UK online quarterly management information (quarter ending Dec 03) which shows that, on average, each UK online center has 101 users and that 56 per cent. of UK online users are female.

  To date, 493 women living in Birkenhead (postal districts CH41 and 42) have visited a learndirect center.

  Modern Apprenticeships Task Force
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he expects to receive a report from the Modern Apprenticeships Task Force. [166202]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Secretary of State and I are kept regularly informed of progress in the work of the Task Force. However, Sir Roy Gardner the chair of the Task Force intends to submit the group's Interim Report in Autumn 2004. The report will be sent, in the first instance, to the Task Force joint sponsors: the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Chair of the Learning and Skills Council,
  513W
  and published shortly afterwards. In the meantime information on the work of the group is available on the Task Force's website www.employersforapprentices. goy. uk.

  Teachers (North Somerset)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the pupil to teacher ratio was for the North Somerset Local Education Authority for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each year since 1997. [165604]

  Mr. Miliband
  The data requested are shown in the following table.

  Maintained Primary and Secondary Schools1: Pupil: Teacher Ratios2North Somerset Local Education Authority

  Position at January each year: 1997 to 2003

  Pupil Teacher ratios2

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  1997

  23.8

  16.0

  1908

  24.2

  17.1

  1999

  24.4

  17.0

  2000

  24.2

  17.3

  2001

  24.0

  17.6

  2002

  23.7

  17.2

  2003

  23.9

  17.2

  Notes:

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 The pupil: teacher ratio within schools is the ratio of all pupils on the schools registers (counting each part-time pupil as 0.5) to all qualified teachers (including the full-time equivalent of part-time teachers).

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census.

  Recruitment
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost of recruitment of civil servants for the Department was in each financial year since 1996-97, broken down by (a) delegated or contracted out recruitment procedures and (b) recruitment procedures carried out by the Department. [158189]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department was established in June 2001. Information is available for the first full financial year of 2002/03. The figures below include Senior Civil Service recruitment.

  (£000)

  year

  Cost of delegated or contracted out recruitment

  Cost of recruitment procedures carried out by the Department

  2002/03

  916,602.71

  76,046.52

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  City of London

  Teachers

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Teaching assistants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Camden

  Teachers

  1,500

  1,480

  1,440

  1,340

  1,430

  1,570

  1,450

  Teaching assistants

  200

  240

  250

  300

  360

  440

  470

  Targeted Capital Funds
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much in targeted capital funds for schools was allocated to each English region in the last year for which figures are available. [165870]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the value of new projects to be supported from the Targeted Capital Fund in 2004–05 for each Government Office Region.

  Government Office Region

  Targeted Capital Funding for 2004–05

  East Office Region

  24,772,307

  East of England

  28,046,121

  London

  50,260,995

  North East

  5,888,356

  North West

  30,824,502

  South East

  26,452,007

  South West

  43,143,376

  West Midlands

  21,994,219

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  28,223,284

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much in targeted capital funds was given to(a) faith schools, (b) non-faith schools, (c) faith schools with a comprehensive intake, (d) non-faith schools with a comprehensive intake, (e) Church of England schools, (f) Roman Catholic schools, (g) grammar schools and (h) Roman Catholic grammar schools in the last year for which figures are available. [165871]

  Alan Johnson
  We do not hold information in the form requested. Targeted Capital Fund(TCF) projects sometimes cover more than one school and we do not ask bids to break down costs for each school. Both local education authority (LEA) and Voluntary Aided (VA) bids can contain a mixture of schools with or without a religious character and with different admission policies. It is therefore not possible to break down allocations between the various categories requested.

  For the 2004–05 round of TCF we have supported 68 LEA projects totalling £186 million at 61 LEAs, and £74 million of support for 23 VA projects at 21 LEAs.

  Teachers (Greater London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) teachers and (b) teaching assistants there were in each local education authority in Greater London in each of the last seven years. [165839]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: The following table gives the numbers of full time equivalent regular teachers and teaching assistants employed in maintained schools in the Greater London area broken down by local education authority for each year between 1997 and 2003.
  515W

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Greenwich

  Teachers

  2,070

  2,010

  2,030

  2,040

  2,030

  2,080

  2,140

  Teaching assistants

  360

  400

  430

  510

  650

  650

  730

  Hackney

  Teachers

  1,450

  1,490

  1,520

  1,510

  1,480

  1,470

  1,600

  Teaching assistants

  210

  250

  290

  380

  420

  490

  530

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Teachers

  930

  920

  930

  1,000

  1,000

  1,010

  1,060

  Teaching assistants

  190

  200

  210

  250

  240

  260

  300

  Islington

  Teachers

  1,420

  1,410

  1,330

  1,350

  1,300

  1,460

  1,380

  Teaching assistants

  250

  250

  270

  350

  360

  350

  480

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Teachers

  680

  670

  680

  650

  660

  670

  720

  Teaching assistants

  130

  140

  140

  170

  210

  220

  260

  Lambeth

  Teachers

  1,710

  1,700

  1,660

  1,620

  1,580

  1,670

  1,620

  Teaching assistants

  300

  350

  390

  500

  560

  580

  640

  Lewisham

  Teachers

  1,870

  1,870

  1,810

  1,890

  1,980

  2,070

  2,040

  Teaching assistants

  280

  290

  320

  410

  570

  470

  560

  Southwark

  Teachers

  1,750

  1,800

  1,850

  1,840

  1,960

  2,060

  2,090

  Teaching assistants

  350

  420

  430

  650

  810

  750

  710

  Tower Hamlets

  Teachers

  2,270

  2,170

  2,310

  2,250

  2,180

  2,220

  2,310

  Teaching assistants

  370

  400

  450

  510

  800

  970

  950

  Wandsworth

  Teachers

  1,690

  1,680

  1,700

  1,680

  1,730

  1,770

  1,750

  Teaching assistants

  330

  370

  370

  460

  470

  380

  530

  Westminster

  Teachers

  1,140

  1,160

  1,160

  1,190

  1,250

  1,300

  1,320

  Teaching assistants

  150

  170

  160

  190

  190

  310

  280

  Barking and Dagenham

  Teachers

  1,450

  1,420

  1,450

  1,470

  1,480

  1,510

  1,570

  Teaching assistants

  300

  290

  310

  320

  400

  500

  510

  Barnet

  Teachers

  2,770

  2,730

  2,720

  2,710

  2,740

  2,820

  2,850

  Teaching assistants

  290

  340

  400

  480

  550

  740

  720

  Bexley

  Teachers

  1,860

  1,870

  1,940

  1,920

  2,030

  2,160

  2,090

  Teaching assistants

  200

  230

  280

  310

  380

  320

  560

  Brent

  Teachers

  2,160

  2,190

  2,160

  2,100

  2,110

  2,160

  2,380

  Teaching assistants

  260

  300

  360

  390

  440

  450

  470

  Bromley

  Teachers

  2,270

  2,330

  2,340

  2,340

  2,540

  2,640

  2,590

  Teaching assistants

  210

  230

  230

  270

  360

  440

  500

  Croydon

  Teachers

  2,620

  2,640

  2,590

  2,880

  2,820

  2,860

  2,880

  Teaching assistants

  400

  410

  510

  530

  660

  630

  870

  Ealing

  Teachers

  2,230

  2,220

  2,250

  2,240

  2,220

  2,320

  2,310

  Teaching assistants

  340

  360

  370

  400

  510

  450

  530

  Enfield

  Teachers

  2,550

  2,610

  2,650

  2,740

  2,670

  2,670

  2,820

  Teaching assistants

  250

  290

  290

  500

  590

  810

  880

  516W 517W

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Haringey

  Teachers

  1,870

  1,830

  1,860

  1,850

  1,850

  1,890

  1,910

  Teaching assistants

  350

  360

  380

  420

  490

  650

  680

  Harrow

  Teachers

  1,580

  1,500

  1,490

  1,380

  1,490

  1,500

  1,550

  Teaching assistants

  270

  270

  290

  300

  300

  330

  430

  Havering

  Teachers

  1,870

  1,870

  1,900

  1,890

  1,950

  2,040

  2,060

  Teaching assistants

  170

  170

  200

  260

  300

  310

  520

  Hillingdon

  Teachers

  2,000

  2,030

  2,030

  2,130

  2,180

  2,230

  2,230

  Teaching assistants

  300

  340

  380

  420

  510

  520

  590

  Hounslow

  Teachers

  2,000

  1,940

  1,980

  1,950

  2,020

  2,010

  2,010

  Teaching assistants

  280

  280

  290

  330

  380

  400

  400

  Kingston upon Thames

  Teachers

  1,060

  1,050

  1,040

  1,060

  1,070

  1,070

  1,170

  Teaching assistants

  130

  130

  150

  170

  220

  220

  250

  Merton

  Teachers

  1,210

  1,170

  1,190

  1,150

  1,210

  1,210

  1,240

  Teaching assistants

  190

  200

  220

  240

  290

  250

  300

  Newham

  Teachers

  2,190

  2,200

  2,290

  2,350

  2,420

  2,520

  2,570

  Teaching assistants

  280

  280

  390

  500

  960

  720

  1,070

  Redbridge

  Teachers

  2,100

  2,130

  2,180

  2,200

  2,370

  2,380

  2,470

  Teaching assistants

  190

  230

  270

  370

  450

  580

  620

  Richmond upon Thames

  Teachers

  1,070

  1,070

  1,060

  1,030

  1,040

  1,090

  1,100

  Teaching assistants

  100

  110

  110

  130

  160

  210

  220

  Sutton

  Teachers

  1,390

  1,420

  1,450

  1,480

  1,530

  1,590

  1,710

  Teaching assistants

  160

  170

  210

  230

  260

  340

  310

  Waltham Forest

  Teachers

  2,010

  2,080

  2,090

  2,060

  1,940

  2,020

  1,940

  Teaching assistants

  380

  400

  410

  470

  490

  610

  640

  Greater London

  Teachers

  56,800

  56,700

  57,100

  57,300

  58,300

  60,100

  60,900

  Teaching assistants

  8,160

  8,870

  9,790

  11,740

  14,330

  15,340

  17,510

  Source:

  Annual School Census (teaching assistants) and the Annual Survey of Teachers in Service and Teacher Vacancies.

  Vocational A-levels
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on Ofsted's Report on Vocational A Levels: the first two years. [165861]

  Mr. Miliband
  My Department and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority are considering the OFSTED report on vocational A levels. Vocational A levels are already being redeveloped so that from 2005 they will have the same AS/A2 structure as the GCE. We shall continue to make improvements to ensure that vocational A levels provide the test possible learning experience for students.

DEFENCE

  Army Medal Office
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Army Medal Office in Droitwich Spa. [165592]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the written statement I made to the House on 20 April 2004,Official Report, column 11WS.

  Army Recruitment
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a list of the traditional
  519W
  geographic areas of recruitment to the different Army regiments; and what the estimated population of each such recruitment area is. [166027]

  Mr. Caplin
  Yes. I will place in the Library the list requested and expect to do so by the end of this month.

  Climate Change
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the potential links between climate change and national security are considered when defence procurement decisions are taken; and if he will make a statement. [165287]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence is in the process of reviewing the implications of climate change for defence procurement policies and several case studies of major procurement projects are being considered.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy vessels were present in the waters surrounding the Falkland Islands when the Almirante Irizar sailed through (a) the Falklands outer conservation zone and (b) Falklands interim conservation zone. [165597]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Glasgow, RFA Gold Rover and FIMS Leeds Castle were present in the water surrounding the Falkland Islands when the Almirante Irizar sailed through the Falkland Islands Outer Conservation Zone and the Falkland Islands Interim Conservation Zone.

  Home Front Recall Scheme
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the money earmarked for the Home Front Recall Scheme he intends to retain for major national projects and services; and if he will list the national projects and services which will benefit from the retained funds. [166697]

  Estelle Morris
  I have been asked to reply.

  Home Front Recall is part of a special lottery programme called Veterans Reunited. It is funded by three National Lottery Distributors—the New Opportunities Fund, the Community Fund, and the Heritage Lottery Fund—and it will be a matter for them to decide how best to use the funding and make decisions on which projects to approve.

  There will be funding for both local and national projects within the Home Front Recall scheme, but there is no fixed allocation for each type of project. The scheme was launched in April 2004 and so, at this point, no decisions have been made on either local or national grant applications. The total budget available across the UK is £7.3 million.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken to(a) post warnings on and (b) seal tanks and armoured personnel carriers destroyed by depleted uranium weapons in southern Iraq. [153874]
  520W
  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12 January 2004, Official Report, column 537W to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith).

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his latest estimate is of the total cost to his Department of military operations in Iraq since September 2002. [166416]

  Mr. Ingram
  Information on the cost of operations in Iraq in 2002–03 was published as part of the Ministry of Defence's Annual Report and Accounts (page 135). Total operating and capital expenditure during this period amounted to –847 million. It is too early to give a definitive figure for costs in 2003–04, but total funding voted at Spring Supplementary Estimates for operations in Iraq amounted to £1.5 billion.

  Riot Control Equipment
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether British forces in (a) Iraq and (b) Kosovo are fully equipped with essential riot control equipment. [164958]

  Mr. Ingram
  British forces in both Iraq and Kosovo are fully equipped to undertake those Crowd and Riot Control (CRC) duties assigned to them.

  US/UK Mutual Defence Agreement
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether a record is kept of how many days have been expended by AWE staff under the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement. [166586]

  Mr. Ingram
  No.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Debt Recovery
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many(a) attachment of earnings, (b) charging orders, (c) third party debt orders, (d) judgment summons and (e) warrants of execution were issued in each year since 1997; what the total debt was that each enforcement method was to recover; and what the success rates in terms of debt recovery were for each enforcement method. [166803]

  Mr. Leslie
  Figures relating to the first part of the question are provided in the following table. Information relating to the amount and success rates of the enforcement methods is not available centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Attachment of earning orders

  Charging orders

  Third party debt orders

  Judgement summons issued

  Warrants of execution issued

  1997

  65,669

  11,602

  4,048

  5,234

  622,408

  1998

  43,440

  10,852

  3,646

  5,688

  543,848

  1999

  34,399

  9,820

  3,357

  5,709

  538,337

  2000

  35,545

  10,636

  3,174

  5,687

  470,270

  2001

  42,011

  15,900

  4,139

  3,640

  394,611

  2002

  39,855

  21,447

  5,499

  139

  372,505

  2003

  40,384

  25,054

  6,019

  116

  355,476

  521W
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) in how many county court judgments liability orders have been made for the payment of council tax by an enforcement agent where no levy is made in each year since 1997; [166808]

  (2) in how many county court judgments liability orders for levying distress have been made for the payment of council tax where the sum is £100 or less in each year since 1997; [166809]

  (3) in how many county court judgments walking possession orders have been made for the payment of council tax in each year since 1997. [166810]

  Mr. Leslie
  Non-payment of council tax is dealt with in each local authority area by the magistrates courts and not the county courts. The information requested and level of detail is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of Operation Scrap It in (a) London and (b) Liverpool. [166686]

  Ms Blears
  Operation Scrap It aims to ensure that all vehicles confirmed as untaxed or abandoned will be removed within 72 hours of reporting by October this year. The authorities concerned are putting systems in place to deliver this and I am confident that the target will be met.

  To remove any excuse for dumping cars, I launched a free take back service across London on 8 March.

  "Reducing Crime—Changing Lives"
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a 12 week consultation period took place before the publication of the document Reducing Crime—Changing Lives, in line with the Cabinet Office code of practice on written consultations. [160897]

  Paul Goggins
  The Government published its proposals for the reform of correctional services in its paper Reducing Crime—Changes Lives. In that paper the Home Secretary set out the initial views of the Government to Patrick Carter's Report and sought the views of stakeholders on a number of issues.

  The reform of correctional services and the creation of the National Offender Management Service is a significant undertaking. There is no suggestion that the entire reform will be carried out after a single consultation exercise of 12 weeks or otherwise. The questions for stakeholders posed in Reducing Crimes—Changing Lives represents a beginning of the consultation process. I have already undertaken to ensure that consultation is ongoing with staff and stakeholders over the period of up to five years we expect full roll out of the new service will take.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the new guidelines on anti-social behaviour issued to magistrates. [166675]

  Ms Blears
  The Magistrates Association Sentencing Guidelines, effective from 1 January 2004, dealt specifically with the offence of 'Breach of Anti-Social Behaviour Order' for the first time. The Guidance stated that the starting point should be a custodial sentence and offered a number of aggravating features, such as the recent date of the order breached, the continuation of the pattern of behaviour which the order sought to prohibit, and the use of violence and threats of intimidation.

  As the guidelines were only introduced on 1 January, it is too early to assess the effectiveness of this work, and at this stage too early for anecdotal comment.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the Trailblazer nuisance neighbour projects in(a) Birmingham, (b) Manchester, (c) Sheffield and (d) Sunderland. [166680]

  Ms Blears
  The Government's National Action Plan, 'TOGETHER, Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour' launched last October announced that we will establish `trailblazers' in Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield and Sunderland to develop excellence in tackling nuisance families. This will ensure that in these areas nuisance neighbours are not left without an effective intervention and, where necessary, a sanction.

  Each of the trailblazer areas have estimated a minimum, number of such households that will be targeted for action by March 2005, and each of them are well placed to meet and probably exceed those estimates. It is, however, early days, in terms of evaluating the success of this work. Surveys measuring the perception of antisocial behaviour by members of the public in those trailblazer areas are currently underway and will provide on-going comparisons with the national picture. Specific learning from the approaches being pursed by the nuisance neighbour trailblazers, and indeed from the national neighbour nuisance neighbour panel, will be disseminated via our TOGETHER Academy, TOGETHER ActionLine and TOGETHER website (training, telephone advice, and practical information for front line agencies on tackling antisocial behaviour.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take against those areas that have not taken up anti-social behaviour orders. [166685]

  Ms Blears
  Anti-social behaviour orders are not the only tool available to tackle anti-social behaviour. The Anti-Social Behaviour Act provides a wide range of tools to tackle antisocial behaviour. All areas should take swift action to deal with antisocial behaviour and other available interventions should also be considered such as injunctions, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts and other tenancy related interventions.
  523W
  The TOGETHER campaign will ensure that agencies on the ground are using the measures that are already in place, and those new measures introduced by the Act as effectively as possible. The campaign will help improve the response to tackling antisocial behaviour by placing the focus within the heart of our communities and providing them with the opportunity to work together and the tools to take action to tackle antisocial behaviour. The TOGETHER Academy, ActionLine and website all provide advice and information to encourage and enable local practitioners to take action against antisocial behaviour.

  Bank Automated Clearing System
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department has made to manage the changeover from the Bank Automated Clearing System to the new BACSTEL-IP system for electronic payments. [164313]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Bank Automated Clearing System (BACS) is an automated payments service provided by BACS Ltd. This provides the standard route for electronic funds transmission used across the UK. BACSTEL-IP is the platform for the future of automated payments. It is based on internet protocols and uses the latest Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) technologies for heightened levels of security.

  Home Office met with Bottomline Technologies, our supplier, and Sirius, our IT partner, in November 2003 to discuss the implementation of the new BACSTEL-IP system. The meeting concluded that as the last date for switching to BACSTEL-IP is December 2005, the partnership should firstly concentrate on the migration from BASS, the current Home Office accounting system, to the new system, Ade1phi, using the existing BACSTEL system. A further meeting will take place between all parties in the autumn of 2004 to discuss the switch to the new BACSTEL-IP system planned for the early part of 2005.

  Class A Drugs
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions a Merseyside senior police officer has issued a closure notice on premises they had reason to believe were being used for the production, supply or use of Class A drugs and causing serious nuisance or disturbance in the last four months. [165914]

  Ms Blears
  As of 14 April 2003 the new power to close premises as contained in section 1(11) of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 had been used once in the Merseyside Police Force area. As this power was enacted on the 20 January this year, more closures can be expected in the near future in line with operational needs.

  The closure notice was issued by a senior police officer in the St. Helens and Wigan Basic Command Unit against a premises with a history of being subject to police action on suspicion of the supply of class A drugs and of great concern to the local community. The case is ongoing.

  Departmental Officials
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which former officials of the Department have asked for permission to join(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Deloitte & Touche, (c) Ernst and Young and (d) KPMG. [156910]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The figures showing applications submitted to join the following companies, so far as information is available in the form requested, are as follows:

  Company

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Deloitte & Touche

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Ernst and Youne

  2

  —

  —

  —

  KPMG

  —

  —

  —

  —

  - = no comprehensive figures available.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what secondments(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Deloitte & Touche, (c) Ernst & Young and (d) KPMG have made to his Department since 2001; for what (i) periods and (ii) tasks the secondments were made; whether secondments of staff from his Department have been made to those firms; and for what (A) periods and (B) tasks. [156924]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Secondments are part of the Interchange initiative, which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organizations—public, private and voluntary. Interchange provides opportunities for civil servants to learn new skills, widen their experience and develop ideas. It also brings in skills and experiences from other sectors.

  Secondments of less than three months duration are not recorded. Since 2001. there have been secondments for periods of over three months to the organisations in question as follows:
  PricewaterhouseCoopers: none.
  Deloitte & Touche: one inward secondment for the period September 2003-March 2004. The secondee is managing delivery risks on the Identity Cards Programme.
  Ernst & Young: There have been two inward secondments:

  1. June 2003-June 2004: the secondee is working as senior analyst on criminal injuries compensation policy.

  2. September 2003-September 2004: the secondee is working on public perceptions of policing policy.

  KPMG: one outward secondment for the period November 2002-April 2004. The member of Home Office staff is working on occupational psychology in the field of recruitment.

  Merseyside Police
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions Merseyside Police has arrested an individual for carrying an air weapon or imitation firearm in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse since the inception of this power. [165922]

  Ms Blears
  Information on arrests collected centrally is based on persons arrested for "notifiable" offences by main offence group and police force area only. The information does not identify individual offences.

  National Offender Management Service
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish a Gateway Zero Report in respect of the National Offender Management Service in accordance with Office of Government Commerce procedures. [161166]

  Paul Goggins
  The implementation of the National Offender Management Service is subject to the Gateway reporting process. In keeping with normal practice, it is not intended to publish the gateway Zero Report.

  Police
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those police forces in England and Wales who have spent money on radio advertising in each of the past five years for which figures are available; and if he will give the reasons for such expenditure in each case. [165421]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: The Home Office has run central radio recruitment campaigns, but any money spent on advertising by individual forces is allocated by individual forces themselves, so the Home Office would not hold this information.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason police forces including Thames Valley Police are investing in separate mobile data systems running on public access bearer networks to deliver data services alongside the airwave system. [166524]

  Ms Blears
  Airwave has the capacity to deliver voice and data services simultaneously. The voice network is now nearly complete and implementation of national mobile data applications such as access on the move to the Police National Computer is underway. A number forces are exploring alternative mobile data options to meet specific local requirements.

  Prisons
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reasons are for the operating loss arising from Contract Services workshops in prisons. [164409]

  Paul Goggins
  It is not realistic for Contract Services workshop activities to break even. To cover all costs, including staffing would involve making charges that the market would be unlikely to bear.

  Contract Services workshops employ some 4,000 prisoners. The difference between income received and the full cost of running contract services workshops represents the investment made in providing purposeful activity for large numbers of prisoners. Contract Services activities account for some 5,000,000 hours of purposeful activity a year.

  Prisons (Alcohol Testing) Act
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many authorisations have been made under the Prisons (Alcohol Testing) Act 1997; and how many tests have been carried out. [163335]
  526W
  Paul Goggins
  Section 16B of the Prisons Act 1952, (which was inserted by the Prisons (Alcohol Testing) Act 1997) empowers a prison officer, in accordance with prison rules, to request a prisoner to provide a breath sample for the purpose of alcohol testing, in those prisons in which the Governor has authorised such action.

  Amendments are to be made to prison rules shortly to provide appropriate disciplinary offences. No authorisations have yet been made under section 16B, and therefore no tests under this power have been carried out.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) resource budget, (b) administration costs and (c) staff numbers were for 2003 of the (i) Community Development Foundation, (ii) Advisory Board on Restricted Patients, (iii) Poisons Board, (iv) Technical Advisory Board, (v) Insurance Cover Working Group, (vi) Ministerial Advisory Group on Retail Crime, (vii) Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team and (viii) Review of the Law Relating to Bribery and Corruption. [164020]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Community Development Foundation (CDF) is an Executive Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) and, for the financial year 2003-04, had:an estimated resource budget of £902,000;
  estimated administrative costs of £755,000; and
  average staff numbers of 46.7 full-time equivalents.

  Advisory NDPBs do not have a resource budget. Their secretariat and administration costs are borne by the Department. Members of the Board are public appointees and are remunerated accordingly.
  The Advisory Board for Restricted Patients has not met since 2001;
  The Poisons Board has not met for the last 12 years; and
  The Technical Advisory Board has no resource budget. The Home Office provides secretariat and administrative support. The Board consists of 13 members including a Chairman. All Board members are public appointees and work on a part-time basis. The Chairman's remuneration is £400 per day plus expenses and other members receive expenses only.

  Ad hoc advisory groups and reviews are essentially Home Office working groups. They do not have a resource budget or permanent staff.
  The Insurance Cover Working Group (ICWG) is a Home Office working group, which meets three times a year. During the Financial Year 2003–04, the ICWG incurred an estimated administration cost of £1,206.
  The Ministerial Advisory Group on Retail Crime is no longer operating and did not meet during the Financial Year 2003–04.
  The Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team (VCRAT) meets three times a year and, for the Financial Year 2003–04, incurred an estimated administration cost of £5,113.
  The Review of the Law Relating to Bribery and Corruption has not met since June 2000.

  Register of Interests
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the requirements are on officials in his
  527W
  Department to declare current interests; and what register of interests is kept for his departmental officials. [164708]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Civil Service Management Code sets out the requirement for civil servants declaring any conflict of interest. The Home Office monitor declarations of interest annually, by written request. Replies are then kept in a register. All new senior staff are made aware on appointment of their duty to declare any conflicts of interest.

  Sentencing (Magistrates Courts)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given to magistrates courts about sentencing in respect of(a) antisocial behaviour and (b) youth street crime; and if he will make a statement. [165388]

  Ms Blears
  The Government recognise that breach of an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) is a serious offence and should be treated as such by the court. We are aware that there have been some problems relating to inconsistent sentences for breach of ASBOs and this is something we are continuing to work on. In January 2004 the Magistrates Association for the first time produced sentencing guidelines for the offence of a breach of an ASBO which recognise the seriousness of the offence and direct the court to consider the impact of the offence on victims. The guideline is: "Is it so serious that only custody is appropriate?"

  The Anti-Social Behaviour Unit will continue to work with the relevant Government Departments and with local practitioners, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to improve consistency in the courts' response to antisocial behaviour. Part of this is to ensure that in every case the courts have the right information available on which to base their decisions, including understanding the effect of anti-social behaviour on victims, witnesses and the wider community.

  The Magistrates Association has issued sentencing guidelines to the magistrates courts, which cover the range of criminal offences dealt with by those courts. The Sentencing Guidelines Council, which was established by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, will in future set sentencing guidelines for the range of criminal offences, covering all criminal courts.

  The Judicial Studies Board has issued training and guidance to magistrates, and at the start of the Street Crime Initiative, the then Lord Chancellor wrote to the Chairmen of all Panels, including the Youth Panels of magistrates' courts, detailing the changes in powers to remand youth defendants. The Lord Chief Justice has handed down a relevant judgment relating to street robbery in R v. Lobban & Sawyers and R v. Q [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 274.

  Sexual Assault Referral centers
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the results of his Department's review of sexual assault referral centers will be published. [162983]
  528W
  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 23 March 2004]: We are now expecting this research to be published in the summer.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Iraq
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to offer guarantees to British companies working in the reconstruction of Iraq with regard to the safety of their(a) employees and (b) assets. [166608]

  Mr. Timms
  We do not offer guarantees to British companies regarding the safety of employees and company assets while working in Iraq. British companies considering sending staff to Iraq are advised to consult the current travel advice, published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website, www.fco. gov.uk, which advises against all but the most essential travel to Iraq and that even the most essential travel to Iraq should be delayed, if possible. Companies with planned involvement in reconstruction projects are also advised to contact the Iraq Unit in UK Trade and Investment for further information.

  We do not provide general advice and information on a range of issues to British companies wanting to assist in the reconstruction process in Iraq but it is for the companies themselves to assess the risks and take the necessary measures to ensure the safety of their employees and assets

  ACAS
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost to public funds is of the current national advertising campaign by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) to encourage greater use of its services; and what the total expenditure of ACAS on all publicity and advertising will be in financial year 2003–04. [166004]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The cost to public funds of the current advertising campaign by ACAS is £1,258,900. The total expenditure of ACAS on all publicity and advertising for the financial year 2003–04 was £1,981,000.

  Bankruptcy
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the proportion of personal bankruptcies that involve owners of businesses. [165216]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The table as follows shows the number of bankruptcies broken down by self-employed and other individuals along with related percentages. This shows that over the period the number of bankruptcies involving owners of businesses has fallen, the increase in total bankruptcies being driven by bankruptcies of other individuals. The proportion of self-employed bankruptcies has fallen from 61 per cent. in 1995 to 36 per cent. in 2002.
  529W

  Bankrupticies: Self-employed and other individuals from 1995 to 2002

  self-employed

  other individuals

  Total bankruptcies

  Per cent. self employed

  Per cent. other individuals

  1995

  13,282

  8,651

  21,933

  61

  39

  1996

  12,667

  9,136

  21,803

  58

  42

  1997

  11,269

  8,623

  19,892

  57

  43

  1998

  10,420

  9,227

  19,647

  53

  47

  1999

  10,723

  10,888

  21,611

  50

  50

  2000

  9,952

  11,598

  21,550

  46

  54

  2001

  9,839

  13,638

  23,477

  42

  58

  2002

  8,854

  15,438

  24,292

  36

  64

  Mr. Kilfoyle

  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many bankruptcies there were in Liverpool, Walton in each year between 1997 and 2003. [166970]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Bankruptcy figures are only available on the basis of the Official Receivers Office dealing with the cases, therefore it is not possible to separate bankruptcies pertaining to Liverpool, Walton. The following table gives annual figures for the number of individual bankruptcies dealt with by the Official Receivers Office in Liverpool, which covers the county courts of Birkenhead, Liverpool, St. Helens, Southport and the Wirral.

  Bankruptcies registered at the Official Receivers Office in Liverpool 1997–2003

  Official Receivers Office

  Liverpool

  1997

  414

  1998

  416

  1999

  525

  2000

  563

  2001

  696

  2002

  747

  2003

  820

  Business Start-tips
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many business start-ups there were in each ward in each county of North Wales in 2003, listed in descending order; [164855]

  (2) if she will list the 100 wards with the (a) greatest and (b) lowest number of business start-ups in 2003. [164853]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Ward level data on business start-ups are not available.

  Correspondence
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to reply to the letter of 19 December 2003 from the hon. Member for Gordon on the operations of BAE Systems in South Africa. [166812]

  Ms Hewitt
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 20 April 2004.

  Energy Production
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the 530W
  effects of clause 76(5) of the Energy Bill on the exercise by Scottish Ministers of their functions in relation to exploitation of areas outside the territorial sea for energy production. [165853]

  Mr. Timms
  The principal objective of Part 3 of the Energy Bill is both to facilitate development of the UK's considerable renewable energy resources—wind, wave and tidal—beyond territorial waters and to enable Government to regulate projects so development takes place in an appropriate manner. Clause 76(5) (now Clause 84(5)) recognises that new installations with associated safety zones and the strategy on decommissioning under the Bill could impact on devolved matters handled by Scottish Ministers such as fishing and environmental protection.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what functions Scottish Ministers have in relation to the consenting of offshore renewable energy generation plants(a) within and (b) outside the 12 nautical mile territorial seas around Scotland; and what effect the Energy Bill will have on these functions. [165854]

  Mr. Timms
  A Transfer of Functions Order made under the Scotland Act (SI 1999/1750) gave Scottish Ministers responsibility for considering applications under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for offshore renewable energy generation plants in Scottish territorial waters. They also have powers to grant consents under the Coast Protection Act 1949 and licences under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, which are both required for offshore renewable energy installations.

  The Government has agreed that Scottish Ministers should also have responsibility for granting section 36 consents for any installations planned for the Renewable Energy Zone off Scotland. Once the Energy Bill has been enacted, and section 36 powers are extended to the Renewable Energy Zone, the Government and the Scottish Executive intend to bring forward an Order under the Scotland Act 1998 to provide that this function be executively devolved to Scottish Ministers.

  Clause 101 of the Energy Bill will give a power to Scottish Ministers to extinguish public rights of navigation where an applicant applies at the same time for a section 36 consent for a generating station which is planned for waters between the low water mark and the limit of the territorial sea around Scotland.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many workers in Manchester, Gorton have benefited from the national minimum wage. [167353]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It is not possible to provide estimate specifically for the constituency of Manchester, Gorton. However, based on the Office for National Statistics' Low Pay data released 2003, the DTI estimates that around 140,000 people in the North West stood to benefit from the introduction of the national minimum wage in April 1999. Between 130,000 and 160,000 people were expected to have benefited from the October 2003 uprating of the national minimum wage.
  531W
  The DTI estimates that between 210,000 and 240,000 people in the North West stand to benefit from the October 2004 uprating of the national minimum wage.

  New Businesses
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many new businesses have started up in Birkenhead since 1997; [166491]

  (2) how many new businesses have been established in Birkenhead since 1997. [166493]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Barclays Bank's latest survey of business creation (published 31 March 2004) includes non-VAT registered firms and shows that there were 115,000 business start-ups in England and Wales, including 500 in Wirral Local Authority (which contains the constituency of Birkenhead), in the fourth quarter of 2003. The latest yearly figures show 465,000 business start-ups in England and Wales in 2003. This represents a 19 per cent. increase on the year before. There were 2,100 business start-ups in Wirral Local Authority in 2003. Data for local authorities are not available for before 2003.

  DTI figures based solely on VAT registrations for Wirral Local Authority (which contains the constituency of Birkenhead) are shown in the table for the period 1997 to 2002. Data for 2003 will be available in autumn 2004.

  VAT Registration 1997–2002

  Wirral

  1997

  660

  1998

  595

  1999

  600

  2000

  600

  2001

  555

  2002

  510

  Source:

  Business Start-ups and Closures

  VAT Registrations and De-registrations 1994-2002, Small Business Service.

  VAT registrations do not capture all start-up activity. Businesses are unlikely to be registered if they fall below the compulsory VAT threshold, which has risen in each year since 1997. Similarly, businesses that de-register will not necessarily have closed. Only 1.8 million out of 3.8 million enterprises were registered for VAT at the start of 2002.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government has taken to help small businesses in Birkenhead since 1997. [166492]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Business Link Operator for Greater Merseyside (GME) has provided assistance to 194 businesses in the Birkenhead constituency since 2001. The Small Business Service was set up as an agency of the Department of Trade and Industry in April 2000. Contracts were exchanged with a national network of 45 business Link operators (seven in the north west) to provide Business Support to small and medium sized enterprises from April 2001. Before this date Government support to businesses was provided through Training and Enterprise Councils and the SBS does not have access to these data.
  532W
  The Business Link Operator has provided Business Start Advice to the 194 businesses, and in addition have provided assistance regarding Investors in People, Specialist Business Advice, Workforce development and the Consultancy projects to those companies needing help in these areas.

  Eleven companies have received offers of grant from the Research and Development Grant scheme with a total value of £696,160 since 1997.

  Under the Enterprise Grant Scheme which has now just come to a close (31 March 2004) 13 companies have received offers of grant with a total value of £334,170.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new businesses have started up in Wirral, South since 1997. [166628]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Barclays Bank's latest survey of business creation (published 31 March 2004) includes non-VAT registered firms and shows that there were 115,000 business start-ups in England and Wales, including 500 in Wirral Local Authority (which contains the constituency of Wirral, South), in the fourth quarter of 2003. The latest yearly figures show 465,000 business start-ups in England and Wales in 2003. This represents a 19 per cent. increase on the year before. There were 2,100 business start-ups in Wirral Local Authority in 2003. Data for local authorities are not available for before 2003.

  DTI figures based solely on VAT registrations for Wirral Local Authority (which contains the constituency of Wirral, South) are shown in the table for the period 1997 to 2002. Data for 2003 will be available in autumn 2004.

  VAT Registrations 1997–2002

  Wirral

  1997

  660

  1998

  595

  1999

  600

  2000

  600

  2001

  555

  2002

  510

  Source:

  Business Start-ups and Closures: VAT Registrations and De-registrations 1994–2002, Small Business Service.

  VAT registrations do not capture all start-up activity. Businesses are unlikely to be registered if they fall below the compulsory VAT threshold, which has risen in each year since 1997. Similarly, businesses that de-register will not necessarily have closed. Only 1.8 million out of 3.8 million enterprises were registered for VAT at the start of 2002.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government has taken to help small businesses in Wirral, South since 1997. [166629]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Business Link Operator for Greater Merseyside (GME) has provided assistance to 109 businesses in the Wirral, South constituency since 2001. The Small Business Service was set up as an agency of the Department of Trade and Industry in April 2000. Contracts were exchanged with a national network of 45 Business Link Operators (seven in the north west) to provide Business Support to small and
  533W
  medium sized enterprises form April 2001. Before this date Government Support to businesses was provided through Training and Enterprise Councils and the SBS does not have access to these data.

  The Business Link Operator I as provided Business Start Advice to the 109 businesses, and in addition have provided Specialist business advice, workforce development and consultancy projects to those companies needing help in these areas.

  Fourteen companies have received offers of grant from the Research and Development Grant Scheme with a total value of £465,700 sin 1997.

  Under the Enterprise Grant Scheme which has just come to a close (31 March 2004) 11 companies have received offers of grant with a total value of £696,160.

  Paid Leave
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many residents of Liverpool, Walton are qualified for paid leave entitlement. [166972]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  All workers resident in Liverpool, Walton qualify for paid leave entitlements at least four weeks as set out in the Working Time Regulations.

  Post Office
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how soon the outcome of and lessons learned from the process of the Post Office Urban Reinvention programme will be evaluated and published following the conclusion of that programme. [166820]

  Mr. Timms
  The urban reinvention programme is managed by Post Office Ltd. and decisions on any evaluation will be a matter for the company. The Government do, of course, monitor its expenditure on this programme and will require the company to confirm on completion that it has met its obligation to ensure that 95 per cent. of the urban population nationally continue to live within one mile of their nearest post office.

  Since the programme began, Post Office Ltd. has worked with Postwatch, the consumer watchdog, to improve and refine the processes. This evolutionary nature of the programme has seen a number of significant developments, including my written statement to the House of Commons of 5 February 2004, which details changes to the programme in the light of concerns expressed in Parliament and elsewhere.

  In addition, Postcomm, the independent regulator, reports annually to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on developments in the post office network. These annual reports are published on Postcomm's's website and copies are placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make the independent review of the facilities at the Crown post office in Bedford part of a wider review into the facilities of the post office network as a whole in Bedford and Kempston. [166821]
  534W
  Mr. Timms
  This is an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the process leading to the decisions Post Office Ltd. has made concerning the closure of sub-post offices are covered by the Government Code of Practice on the release of official information. [167272]

  Mr. Timms
  No. The final decisions on post office closures following public consultation are operational matters for Post Office Ltd.

  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether the rationale of the statement made by the Minister for Energy, E Commerce and Postal Services on 5 February concerning the Post Office Urban Reinvention Network was intended to apply as far as possible to the Area Plan proposals for the Bedford and Kempston parliamentary constituency which were subject to public consultation until 17 February; [167270]

  (2) whether the statement made by the Minister for Energy, E Commerce and Postal Services on 5 February concerning the Post Office Urban Reinvention Network came into force with immediate effect. [167271]

  Mr. Timms
  The changes to the public consultation arrangements for closure proposals under Post Office Ltd.'s urban network reinvention programme announced in my statement of 5 February came into force with immediate effect but were not retrospective in their application. The changes therefore applied to the consultation on closure proposals for Bedford and Kempston to the extent compatible with the stage those consultations had reached as at 5 February.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment has been made of the case for Post Office Ltd. developing a role for post offices as government general practitioners and of Government support for this as mentioned in the Performance and Innovation Unit Report of 2000, Chapter 8, page 16, conclusion 18; [166779]

  (2) what assessment has been made of the case for Post Office Ltd. developing a role for the Post Office Network as internet and learning and access points as mentioned in the Performance and Innovation Unit Report of 2000, Chapter 8. page 16, conclusion 17. [166827]

  Mr. Timms
  In line with the Performance and Innovation Unit's recommendations, the Government contributed £25 million to the 'Your Guide' pilot to test the concept of the role for post offices as 'Government General Practitioner' and as internet learning and access points. It was made clear from the outset that the decision on whether or not to roll out a national service would depend on the results of the pilot. The 'Your Guide' pilot showed that a publicly funded national scheme would not represent value for money and we concluded that it should not be rolled out. However, Your Guide highlighted a number of areas in which Government Departments might deliver services through post offices in the future particularly if they could be linked with or channelled through a
  535W
  commercially-based kiosk network. The evaluation report of the Your Guide pilot was published on 23 July 2002 and a copy placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Call centers
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations her Department has received as part of her review of the off-shoring of UK call centers. [166857]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has received a number of responses to our paper "Services and Offshoring: the impact of increasing international competition on services" which will be reflected in our Trade and Investment White Paper to be published in the summer. We have also commissioned a study to inform our understanding of the UK call center sector and the key factors impacting on its competitiveness including offshoring. We expect to publish a report on the study in early May.

  UK Trade and Investment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) running costs of, (b) cost of staff salaries for and (c) number of people employed, broken down by grade, by UK Trade and Investment were in the last financial year for which figures are available. [165483]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 20 April 2004]: The information is as follows:

  (a) Total administration costs for 2002–03, including an apportionment of central overheads attributable to UK Trade & Investment (UKTI) activities by DTI and FCO, were as follows:

  DTI: £45,464,000

  FCO: £141,235,000

  (b) The aggregate payroll costs of the DTI and FCO employees working for UKTI were as follows:

  DTI: £21,402,000

  FCO: £48,691,000

  (c) UKTI is not an employing organisation. Staff working for UKTI remain the employees of either the DTI or the FCO. The average number of whole-time equivalent (WTE) persons working for UKTI during 2002–03, broken down by grade, was as follows:

  Number of whole-time equivalent persons

  DTI

  1620

  Of which: Range

  2

  18.6

  3

  8.0

  4

  148.2

  5

  8.5

  6

  174.5

  7

  13.4

  8

  119.8

  9

  35.8

  10

  55.6

  11

  20.9

  SCS

  17.0

  536W

  Number of whole-time equivalent persons

  FCO

  1,638

  Of which:

  UK-based total

  353

  Of which:

  SMS

  64.7

  D7/D6

  61.8

  C5

  65.68

  C4

  105.97

  B3

  37.19

  A2

  15.04

  Al

  2.0

  Locally engaged staff

  1,285

  Of which:

  LEI

  348

  LE2

  154

  LE3

  712

  LE4

  61

  LE5

  10

  1 This figure varies from the figure published in the UK Trade & Investment Resource Accounts for 2002–03 as it does not include temporary/agency staff.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new money his Department pledged to Afghanistan at the recent Donor Conference in Berlin. [166723]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK made a total pledge of £500 million over five years (2002–03 to 2006–07) at the international conference on Afghanistan in Berlin on 31 March-1 April 2004. That total includes funding for conflict prevention and counter-narcotics work to which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) contributes, together with other Government departments, through the Global Conflict Prevention Pool and UK Counter-Narcotics strategy.

  The Global Conflict Prevention: Pool (funded jointly by FCO, DFID and MOD) has a three-year strategy totalling £52 million from 2003–04 to 2005–06. £11 million was disbursed in 2003–04, leaving £41 million to be spent in 2004–6.

  The FCO component of the three-year UK Counter-Narcotics strategy (2003–04 to 2005–06) totals £47.2 million. £12.7 million of this was disbursed in 2003–04, leaving £31.5 million to be committed in 2004–06.

  The British Embassy in Kabul also has an FCO budget of £250,000 for local project work in 2004–05.

  British Citizens (Deaths Abroad)
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many deaths abroad of Britons(a) travelling and (b) living overseas, broken down by the numbers dying of (i) natural causes and (ii) the main categories of non-natural causes. [166526]
  537W
  Mr. Mullin
  In financial year 2002–03 3,998 Britons died overseas. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) only records the deaths of British nationals where our consular staff have been directly involved. We do not record statistics where our staff have been informed of a death and need take no further action.

  The FCO does not maintain statistics recording either the nature of each death or the breakdown between the numbers of deaths of Britons travelling and living overseas.

  Convention on Conventional Weapons
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps his Department has taken to promote the Convention on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects, with particular reference to the ratification of Protocol V. [165848]

  Mr. MacShane
  A legally binding Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War was agreed at the meeting of States Panics to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons on 27/28 November 2003. The UK, along with EU partners, had long pushed for the adoption of a legally binding protocol and we are delighted that a consensus was reached. We received our certified true copy of the instrument from the United Nations in March 2004 and are currently looking at the necessary measures needed to implement the new Protocol. We hope to ratify in the near future. We would also encourage all states to ratify as soon as they are able and to keep to the spirit of the new Protocol in the interim period.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings he plans to have with representatives of British peace organisations in advance of the next Preparatory Committee Meeting for the 2005 UN Review Conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. [166349]

  Mr. MacShane
  Officials have already met with members of a number of peace organisations prior to the forthcoming Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory Committee which is due to take place in New York on 26 April to 7 May. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), Christian CND, Abolition 20005 Network for Peace, and the World Court Project have all been represented on these occasions. The Government are committed to regular exchanges with representatives of non-governmental organisations as part of our on-going consultations during the NPT review cycle.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will represent the UK at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee in April/May in New York. [166418]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK delegation will be headed by David Brouchen the United Kingdom's Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament in 538W
  Geneva. He will be accompanied by officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in advance statements to be presented by the British delegation at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee. [166419]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government do not intend to publish in advance any statements to be presented by the UK delegation to the Non-proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee. These are intended to reflect the latest developments including those at the conference itself. However, all statements will be placed in the Library of the House and on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website following the Preparatory Committee meeting.

  Palestine
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with the US Administration before the UK cast its vote in the UN Special Security Council meeting called to discuss the assassination of Sheikh Yassin; and if he will make a statement. [166611]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK engaged in negotiations with other United Nations Security Council members—including the US—to try to establish a resolution which would be acceptable to all. The UK made it clear that it would have voted for this resolution if its proposers had accepted an amendment condemning terrorist atrocities by Hamas against Israel. This would have reflected the position of the European Union. We regret that our proposed amendment was not accommodated.

  US/UK Mutual Defence Agreement
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to lay before the House any amendments to the renewal of the 1958 Agreement for Co-operation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes between Her Majesty's Government and the United States of America; and if he will make a statement. [166575]

  Mr. MacShane
  Subject to the outcome of our continuing discussions with the Government of the United States, we expect to lay before the House some amendments to the Mutual Defence Agreement, including provision for its renewal for a further 10 years. We would expect these amendments to be laid before the House later this year in accordance with normal procedures.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the scope of the discussions is between the United Kingdom and the United States Governments on the renewal of the 1958 Agreement for Co-operation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes; and if he will make a statement. [166576]

  Mr. MacShane
  Discussions are continuing between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the
  539W
  United States concerning the 1958 Agreement for Cooperation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes. The Agreement requires renewal every 10 years and was last renewed in 1994. The present discussions concern the minor amendments and updating necessary to enable the Agreement to be renewed before it expires in December 2004.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will post a copy of the US-UK Agreement for Cooperation on the Uses of 540W
  Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes (as amended in 1994) on his Department's website. [166577]

  Mr. MacShane
  When any amendments to the Mutual Defence Agreement are laid before Parliament, copies of the Command Paper and accompanying Explanatory Memorandum will be posted on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) website in accordance with the practice established in 2002.

  The FCO will also place a copy of the original Agreement and subsequent amendments on its website at that time.

HEALTH

  Acrylamide
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the(a) prevalence of acrylamide in cooked and prepared food and (b) results of recent research commissioned by the Food Standards Agency. [165901]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Acrylamide has been found in a wide range of cooked and processed foods.

  The Food Standards Agency has commissioned several research projects, including a survey of acrylamide levels in the United Kingdom diet. The dietary survey is due to be published this summer.

  Health Services (Birkenhead)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many senior citizens in Birkenhead have access to free eye tests; [166215]

  (2) how many residents in Birkenhead aged over 60 years have benefited from the abolition of charges for eye tests. [166216]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data for the number of sight tests by constituency or by the number of senior citizens are not collected centrally.

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff in the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority area be grade and by each specified organisation as at 30 September each specified year headcount

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Q15 Cheshire & Merseyside SHA

  4,922

  5,122

  5,324

  5,562

  5,959

  6,317

  6,702

  of which

  Total specified organizations

  1,201

  1,215

  1,246

  1,256

  1,281

  1,406

  1,439

  5H2 Birkenhead and Wallasey PCT

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  76

  59

  Manager

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Therapist

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  69

  38

  Scientist

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Technician

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  18

  RBL Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  497

  512

  530

  541

  540

  554

  570

  Manager

  3

  4

  5

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Therapist

  241

  241

  246

  254

  240

  260

  268

  Scientist

  37

  38

  55

  54

  57

  8

  11

  Scientific officer

  81

  78

  73

  73

  71

  133

  142

  Technician

  131

  148

  148

  151

  163

  145

  141

  Instructor/teacher

  4

  3

  3

  3

  3

  2

  2

  RQ6 Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen

  704

  703

  716

  715

  741

  776

  810

  Manager

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Therapist

  231

  245

  256

  261

  267

  277

  286

  Scientist

  58

  55

  57

  58

  58

  68

  79

  Scientific officer

  205

  191

  190

  181

  192

  195

  195

  Technician

  202

  200

  202

  205

  210

  221

  235

  Instructor/teacher

  6

  6

  5

  4

  4

  6

  6

  Tutor

  1

  6

  6

  6

  10

  8

  8

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes there have been to NHS waiting list time for the residents of Birkenhead in the last seven years. [166219]
  542W
  In 2002–03, the total number of national health service sight tests paid for patients aged 60 and over in Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority was 201,180. The total number eligible for a free sight test for those aged 60 and over was 507,080. Sight tests cannot be equated to the numbers of patients.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Birkenhead are receiving drug treatment. [166489]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Birkenhead is part of Wirral drug action team. There were 2,269 people receiving drug treatment in Wirral in 2000–01. This is the latest available data. Data broken down by drug action team for 2001–02 and 2002–03 have not been finalised and published.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) doctors and (b) nurses were employed in Birkenhead in each of the last seven years. [166217]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS (a) therapists and (b) scientists were located in Birkenhead in each of the last seven years. [166218]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the tables.
  543W

  Out-patients waiting to be seen over 13 weeks for the Birkenhead area (Provider based)

  Patients waiting to be seen in number of weeks

  Quarter

  Unit code

  Unit name

  Speciality

  Not seen 13 to 25

  Not seen 26+

  1995–96

  4

  RBL

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  All specialties

  873

  704

  1996–97

  4

  RBL

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  All specialties

  1,316

  818

  1997–98

  4

  RBL

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  All specialties

  1,202

  558

  1998–99

  4

  RBL

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  All specialties

  1,597

  1,236

  1999–2000

  4

  RBL

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  All specialties

  3,853

  3,025

  2000–01

  4

  RBL

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  All specialties

  1,586

  2,419

  2001–02

  4

  RBL

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  All specialties

  1,720

  0

  Patients waiting to be seen in number of weeks

  Quarter

  Unit code

  Name

  Speciality

  Not seen 13 to 17

  Not seen 17 to 21

  Not seen 21-26

  Not seen 26+

  2002–03

  4

  RBL

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  All specialties

  600

  458

  0

  0

  2003–04

  3

  RBL

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  All specialties

  370

  0

  0

  0

  Source:

  Department of Health QM08.

  Out-patients waiting to be seen over 13 weeks for the Birkenhead area (Resident based)

  Patients waiting to be seen in number of weeks

  Quarter

  Unit code

  Name

  Speciality

  Not seen 13 to 25

  Not seen 26+

  1997–98

  4

  QDC

  Wirral HA

  All specialties

  1,443

  654

  1998–99

  4

  QDC

  Wirral HA

  All specialties

  1,781

  1,351

  1999–2000

  4

  QDC

  Wirral HA

  All specialties

  4,130

  3,261

  2000–01

  4

  QDC

  Wirral HA

  All specialties

  1.644

  2,464

  2001–02

  4

  QDC

  Wirral HA

  All specialties

  1,684

  1

  Patients waiting to be seen in number of weeks

  Collection ID

  StHA code

  Unit code

  Name

  Speciality

  Not Seen 13 to 17

  Not seen 17 to 21

  Not seen 21 to 26

  Not seen 26+

  2002–03

  4

  5F8

  Bebington and West Wirral PCT

  All specialties

  204

  137

  0

  0

  2002–03

  4

  5H2

  Birkenhead and Wallasey PCT

  All specialties

  375

  292

  0

  0

  2003–04

  3

  5F8

  Bebington and West Wirral PCT

  All specialties

  117

  2

  0

  0

  2003–04

  3

  5H2

  Birkenhead and Wallasey PCT

  All specialties

  269

  3

  0

  0

  Source:

  Department of Health QMO8R.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of suspected cancer patients in Birkenhead saw an NHS consultant within two weeks in each of the last seven years. [166220]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Waiting times for patients with suspected cancer referred urgently by their GP to first out-patient appointment: Wirral Hospitals NHS Trust

  Quarter

  Percentage of patients seen in two weeks

  Total patients seen

  Patients seen in two weeks

  2000–01

  4

  97.8

  450

  440

  2001–02

  1

  97.7

  474

  463

  2001–02

  2

  98.6

  553

  545

  2001–02

  3

  99.5

  611

  608

  2001–02

  4

  98.2

  625

  614

  2002–03

  1

  93.6

  706

  661

  2002–03

  2

  89.9

  714

  642

  2002–03

  3

  80.2

  696

  558

  2002–03

  4

  93.5

  650

  608

  544W

  Waiting times for patients with suspected cancer referred urgently by their GP to first out patient appointment: Wirral Hospitals NHS Trust

  Quarter

  Percentage of patients seen in two weeks

  Total patients seen

  Patients seen in two weeks

  2003–04

  1

  98.0

  756

  741

  2003–04

  2

  98.3

  835

  821

  2003–04

  3

  99.6

  810

  807

  Source:

  Department of Health form QMCW.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS waiting times for heart surgery in Birkenhead. [166221]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In March 1997 there were 138 people waiting nine months and 40 people waiting over 12 months for heart surgery at the cardiothoracic center—Liverpool National Health Service Trust. The latest available figures show that in February 2004, there were no people waiting nine months and over for surgery.
  545W
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the secretary of State for Health how many residents in Birkenhead awaiting heart surgery have had the option of choosing an alternative hospital for quicker treatment in the last 12 months. [166222]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the secretary of State for Health how many rapid access chest pain clinics there are in Birkenhead. [166224]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are no rapid access chest pain clinics in Birkenhead. Rapid access chest pain clinics are held at Arrowe Park Hospital, Wirral.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there is a diagnostic and treatment center located in Birkenhead. [166225]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There is no treatment center in Birkenhead. There is a treatment center on the Clatterbridge Hospital site, which is managed by the Wirral Hospital National Health Service Trust.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been spent on (a) heart disease and (b) cancer care in Birkenhead in each of the last five years. [166569]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Allocations of funding for particular treatments are matters for the local primary care trust.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been spent on health in Birkenhead in each of the last seven years. [166571]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available in the format requested. Expenditure per weighted head in the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority (SHA) area, which includes the constituency of Birkenhead, has increased from £596.24 in 1997–98 to £1,103.34 in 200:!-03 (the latest year available). This does not represent the total expenditure per head as an element of health expenditure cannot be identified by SHA area.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has evaluated on the impact of electro-magnetic fields on the dielectric properties of cells, in relation to mobile phones. [166837]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government established the independent expert group on mobile phones (IEGMP) under the chairmanship of Sir William Stewart and the IEGMP report on mobile phones and health was published in May 2000. That report considered both thermal and non-thermal mechanisms of interaction of electromagnetic fields from mobile phones and evaluated a wide range of biological effects including cellular effects.

  A further review of health effects was carried out by an independent advisory group on non-ionising radiation (AGNIR), entitled "Health Effects from Radiofrequency (RF) Electromagnetic Fields", this is available at www.nrpb.org. This report was issued in
  546W
  January 2004 and provided an updated review of the biological effects including cellular effects and interaction mechanisms, noting that
  "Although there has been a wide range of diverse exposures and models investigated, no consistent pattern has emerged from the cellular studies of RF exposure. The balance of the findings on carcinogenesis is that there is little evidence and no known mechanism to support a direct or indirect effect of RF radiation on this process. Positive findings are not confirmed by other independent studies; apparently similar experiments fail to confirm each other and may even show contradictory results."

  The AGNIR will continue to review the scientific literature both national and international that is relevant to the issue of mobile telephony and health.

  Further research is being undertaken by the mobile telecommunications and health research (MTHR) programme with funding of £7.4 million. This was set up to investigate areas of scientific uncertainty highlighted by the IEGMP report and areas identified as important by the MTHR programme management committee. A range of research projects have been funded by MTHR including studies on cells, brain physiology and the fundamental dielectric properties of biological tissues. A number of these projects are scheduled for completion over the next year.

  Accidents (Children)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many non-fatal accidents were recorded to have happened to children in England in each of the last five years. [165581]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information is not available in the form requested. Estimates of the number of accidents are available from the health survey for England and are shown in the table. For children, aged two to 15, the annual accident rate per 100 persons for major and minor accidents from data for the three survey years 1995–97, aggregated together, and the two survey years 2001–02, aggregated together are shown. In the health survey, 'major accidents' include all those where a doctor was consulted or a hospital was visited, and 'minor accidents' include all accidents that caused pain or discomfort for over 24 hours.

  Annual accident rate per 100 persons, 1995–97 and 2001–02, by age and sex

  Annual accident rate per 100 children

  Males 2 to 15-years-old

  Females 2 to 15-years-old

  1995–97

  Major accidents

  31

  22

  Standard error

  1.1

  0.9

  Minor accidents

  216

  144

  Standard error

  11.6

  8.9

  2001–02

  Major accidents

  26

  19

  Standard error

  1.0

  0.8

  Minor accidents

  226

  174

  Standard error

  13.0

  10.7

  Bases

  1995–97

  7,365

  7,365

  2001–02

  5,372

  5,283

  Alcohol Treatment Services
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the alcohol treatment services in the North West offered by each NHS trust; and what the budget was for each of these services in each of the last three financial years. [165504]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will estimate the number of patients with moderately-severe and severe Alzheimer's disease living(a) at home and (b) in institutional care; and if he will make a statement; [166203]

  (2) how many patients are suffering from moderately-severe and severe Alzheimer's disease; and if he will make a statement. [166204]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Although the Department does not routinely collect this information, we estimate that of the 700,000 or so people with dementia in England and Wales, around 400,000 have Alzheimer's disease. Of these, we estimate around 200,000 have moderately severe or severe Alzheimer's disease.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list for each(a) primary care trust and (b) strategic health authority area the total amount spent on drugs for severe Alzheimer's disease in the last year for which figures are available; [166562]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the availability of drugs for advanced Alzheimer's disease throughout the UK; and if he will make a statement; [166563]

  (3) what guidelines he has sent to primary care trusts regarding the availability of drug treatments for severe Alzheimer's disease patients; and if he will make a statement; [166564]

  (4) what discussions he has held with (a) patient groups, (b) charities, (c) old age psychiatrists and (d) the drug industry concerning the availability of drug treatment for severe Alzheimer's disease patients; [166565]

  (5) if he will make a statement on the funding for drug treatments for severe Alzheimer's disease in advance of a National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal; [166566]

  (6) if he will list the licensed treatments currently available for moderately-severe to severe Alzheimer's disease patients. [166567]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), on behalf of the Licensing Authority, grants marketing authorisations for medicinal products provided that satisfactory quality, safety and efficacy data have been submitted for the medicinal product for use in the proposed indication and that the risk benefit is deemed favourable. According to the MHRA records, there is one licensed product, Ebixa (memantine hydrochloride), which is indicated for the treatment of moderately-severe to severe Alzheimer's disease.
  548W
  Information on Ebixa dispensed at primary care trust and strategic health authority (SHA) level is not publicly available due to the small numbers involved. However, it is known that Ebixa was dispensed in the community in all 28 SHAs in England in 2002–03.

  No formal discussions have taken place between Ministers and stakeholders concerning the availability of drug treatment for severe Alzheimer's disease patients.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is, however, appraising Ebixa as part of the eighth wave of its work programme. The anticipated publication date of its guidance May 2005.

  The Department has asked National Health Service bodies (in HSC 1999/176) to continue with local arrangements for the managed introduction of new technologies, including drugs such as Ebixa, where guidance from NICE is not published at the time the technology first became available. These arrangements should involve an assessment of all the available evidence.

  When considering the funding of any treatment currently being appraised by NICE, or where no appraisal has been commissioned, funding authorities are expected to use their existing prescribing arrangements and consider the evidence available to them on the clinical effectiveness of the treatment.

  Bank Nurses
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to NHS trusts with regard to checking the credentials of bank nurses; and how the system is monitored. [164821]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department issued a code of practice for the supply of temporary staff in July 2002. A copy is available on the Department's website. All temporary staff employed in the national health service, whether employed through NHS Professionals, private recruitment agencies or from local banks, are subject to the same checks as anyone applying for a substantive post. This includes criminal records checks, qualification checks, taking up references and checks on Nursing and Midwifery Council registrations.

  Blood Donation
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work is being undertaken by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence into the most efficient use of blood donations in the NHS. [163565]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Erythropoietin for the treatment of chemotherapy induced anaemia, as an alternative to blood transfusion, was referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the ninth wave work programme in October 2003. Full details of the technology appraisal can be
  549W
  found on NICE's website at www.nice.org.uk. No other topics on alternatives to blood transfusion are planned for referral to NICE at this time.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health upon what evidence his Department based its position that there is less risk of variant CJD infection via blood transfusions of pooled plasma than via blood transfusions from one blood donor. [163472]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A paper by Llewelyn CA. et al (2004);Lancet; Vol. 363, pp 417–421 reported that the risks from products prepared from large pools of plasma to a recipient are probably less than from blood transfusion. The paper has been placed in the Library. The lower individual risk is also indicated by the risk assessment carried out by Det Norske Veritas.

  Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the introduction of the new liquid-based cytology method of cervical cancer screening to have been completed in each of the strategic health authority regions, broken down by expected introduction date. [165912]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: We expect full implementation of liquid based cytology (LBC) to take up to five years, due to the retraining of all laboratory staff who read cervical screening tests and all sample takers in primary care. We provided £1.2 million in 2003–04 and are providing a further £6 million in 2004–05 to kick-start this process. The intention is that cytology training schools should be converted first in order to be in a position to train the rest of the programme. Strategic health authorities have been issued with advice on how best they can roll out LBC for their local populations, laboratories and primary care, and are developing plans accordingly. A national timetable of conversion over the next five years will become apparent as these plans progress.

  Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in(a) Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency and (b) Morecambe Bay Primary Care Trust area; [165407]

  (2) when the National Institute for Clinical Excellence Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease will be implemented by the Morecambe Bay Primary Care Trust; [165416]

  (3) whether pulmonary rehabilitation is offered by the Morecambe Bay Primary Care Trust to patients who consider themselves functionally disabled by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. [165417]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  These data are not collected on a constituency basis. However, the Department commissioned the Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development to produce a report on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The report estimated that, in a typical health authority of 500,000 people, around 3,000 in the 45 plus age group would have COPD.
  550W
  As part of our commitment to improve services for patients with COPD, we commissioned the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to prepare clinical guidelines for the national health service in England and Wales for the prevention, diagnosis, management and treatment of COPD.

  Now that the guidelines have been published, primary care trusts, in partnership with local stakeholders, will decide what local service improvements need to be made. They have the responsibility for deciding what services to provide for their populations, including those with COPD and other respiratory diseases. They are best placed to understand local health needs and commission services to meet them.

  Civil Servants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each civil service grade within his(a) Department and (b) Department's executive agencies, the total number of staff employed, broken down by (i) gender, (ii) ethnic group and (iii) age group; and how many are registered disabled. [166393]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is available in the annual publication, Civil Service Statistics, which is published by the Cabinet Office. Copies of Civil Service Statistics 2002, which was published on 24 July 2003, is available in the Library and at www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics. Civil Service Statistics 2003 will be published by the Cabinet Office in due course.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to his answer of 24 March 2004,Official Report, column 913W, on the Committee on Safety of Medicines, what information was assessed by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency in 2002; [165299]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 24 March 2004, Official Report, column 913W, on the Committee on Safety of Medicines, what changes were made to the product information on risperidone in 2002. [165300]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information assessed by the Medicies and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in 2002 relating to cerebrovascular events associated with risperidone comprised: a review of serious cerebrovascular events in four randomised placebo controlled trials in dementia; two open-label extension trials in dementia and non-dementia studies; an analysis of non-serious cerebrovascular events (for example, very transient or mild transient ischaemic attack symptoms) in dementia studies; a review of relevant spontaneously reported suspected adverse drug reaction from the marketing authorisation holder's pharmacovigilance database. A review of the scientific literature was performed but did not locate any relevant articles or case reports.

  The following warnings were added to the summary of product characteristics for risperidone:
  "Cerebrovascular accidents have been observed during treatment with risperidone".

  551W
  "Risperidal should be used with caution in patients with known cardiovascular disease including those associated with prolongation of the QT interval and the dose should be gradually titrated".

  Consequential changes to the side-effects section of the patient information leaflet were made to clearly describe various symptoms of stroke, with an instruction to seek medical attention should these occur.

  Consultant Contracts
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS consultants had signed the new consultants' contract at 1 April. [166074]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 April 2004]: Data is not available centrally on the take up of the consultant contract as at 1 April. Information on take up during April as a whole should be available by early May.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many of those NHS consultants who have not signed the new contract have reduced their commitment to NHS sessions below that indicated in their workload review; [166075]

  (2) how many of those NHS consultants who have signed the new contract are contracted to provide fewer sessions than their workload review indicated they were formerly undertaking in the NHS. [166076]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answers 20 April 2004]: Information on the content of individual consultant job plans is not held centrally.

  Contraception
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many girls in England of school age were prescribed(a) contraceptive pills, (b) a contraceptive injection and (c) a contraceptive implant in each of the last seven years. [165492]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Contraceptives may be prescribed by general practitioners or by family planning clinics. Information regarding GP prescriptions broken down according to age is not available. The number of girls aged under 16 whose primary method of contraception was the pill, injection or implant obtained from family planning clinics in the period 1996–97 to 2002–03 is shown in the table.

  First contacts with women aged under 16 at NHS family planning clinics by primary method of contraception, England, 1996–97 to 2002–03

  Pill

  Injection

  Implant

  1996–97

  23,000

  1,000

  100

  1997–98

  22,700

  1,200

  0

  1998–99

  21,800

  1,300

  0

  1999–2000

  22,700

  1,500

  0

  2000–01

  23,900

  2,000

  100

  2001–02

  24,100

  2,300

  100

  2002–03

  24,500

  2,500

  200

  Source:

  Department of Health Statistics Division; return KT31. Numbers rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of adults in the Cumbria and Lancashire Health Authority were registered with an NHS dentist in each of the last seven years. [165511]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The table shows registration numbers and registration rates for Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority (SHA) for September in each year from 1997. These are for the general dental service (GDS).

  Adult dental registrations in the general dental service (GDS) and registration rate in Cumbria and Lancashire SHA areal

  September each year

  Adult registration (thousands)

  Adult registrations rate (percentage of population)

  19972

  760.4

  52.0

  1998

  675.0

  46.1

  1999

  684.4

  46.8

  2000

  688.5

  47.0

  2001

  674.6

  45.9

  2002

  669.9

  45.3

  2003

  662.3

  45.2

  1 Cumbria and Lancashire SHA area comprised five HAs before October 1992: South Lancashire, Morecambe Bay, East Lancashire, North West Lancashire and North Cumbria

  2 1997 figures are not comparable with figures for later years. The registration period was reduced for new registrations to 15 months from September 1996 which affected registration numbers between September 1997 and September 1998.

  Note:

  Registration numbers cover people who have attended a general dental service dentist within the past 15 months. The figures exclude patients receiving GDS treatment on an occasional basis as well as occasional attenders, who have not attended within the past 15 months. The registrations figures exclude some national health service services as well as private dental services which many people may choose to have.

  Source:

  Dental Practice Board

  Diabetes center
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding is made available to the Diabetes center at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire; and what changes are planned to this allocation in coming years. [166719]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not held centrally.

  Doctors
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors there were per head of population in (a) England and (b) each strategic health authority in each year since 1997. [166652]

  Mr. Hutton
  The standard ratio used by the Department is per 100,000 population.

  The data requested has been placed in the Library.

  Drinking Water Standards
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to require bottled water to meet drinking water standards applicable to tap water. [165686]
  553W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: Spring water and bottled drinking water already have to comply with the standards for tap water. Natural mineral water, which must come from a natural source and cannot be treated, may contain higher levels of minerals than those permitted in tap water. However, limits are in place for potentially toxic substances and microbiological parameters. The limits for natural mineral water, as with drinking water, spring water and bottled drinking water, are set on health grounds.

  Health Services (Wirral, South)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been spent on(a) heart disease and (b) cancer care in Wirral, South in each of the last five years. [166617]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Allocations of funding for particular treatments are matters for the local primary care trust.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS waiting times for heart surgery in Wirral, South. [166619]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In March 1997 there were 138 people waiting nine months and 40 people waiting over 12 months for heart surgery at the cardiothoracic center, Liverpool National Health Service Trust. The latest available figures show that in February 2004 there were no people waiting nine months and over for surgery.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many residents in Wirral, South aged over 60 years have benefited from the abolition of charges for eye tests; [166620]

  (2) how many citizens in Wirral, South had access to free eye tests in 2003–04. [166621]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data for the number of sight tests by constituency or by the number of senior citizens are not collected centrally.

  In 2002–03, the total number of national health service sight tests paid for patients aged 60 and over in Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority (SHA) was 201,180. The total number eligible for a free sight test for those aged 60 and over was 507,080. The total number of NHS sight tests paid for by Cheshire and Merseyside SHA in the year 2002–03 was 453,250.

  Sight tests cannot be equated to the numbers of patients.

  Heart Choice Pilots
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which(a) NHS and (b) independent sector providers have treated patients under the Heart Choice pilots. [166649]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the lists.

  NHS Providers

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  St Mary's NHS Trust

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust

  554W

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust Barts and the London NHS Trust

  Guy's & St Thomasl Hospital NHS Trust

  King's College Hospital NHS Trust

  St George's Healthcare NHS Trust

  The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust

  South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre Hospitals NHS Trust

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Central Manchester & Manchester Children's University Hospitals

  NHS Trust

  Cardiothoracic center Liverpool NHS Trust

  The Oxford Radcliffe Hospital NHS Trust

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust

  United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

  Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

  North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust

  Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

  University Hospital of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust

  Independent Sector Providers

  BMI Park, Nottingham

  BMI Priory, Birmingham

  BMI, London Independent

  BMI Thornbury, Sheffield

  BUPA Bristol

  BUPA Cambridge

  BUPA Chalybeate, Southampton

  BUPA Leeds

  BUPA Leicester

  BUPA Washington

  Cromwell Hospital, London

  HCA, (Harley St Clinic, London Bridge Hospital/ Wellington Hospital)

  HCI, Glasgow

  King Edward VII Hospital, Midhurst, Sussex

  Nuffield Leicester

  Yorkshire Clinic

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of patients who have participated in the Heart Choice pilot have chosen an alternative provider; and what proportion of patients have been treated in the independent sector. [166650]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Of those clinically eligible, the proportion of patients who have participated in the heart choice pilot that have chosen an alternative provider is 50 per cent. We do not hold figures on the breakdown of heart choice between the national health service and independent sector.

  This data is based on voluntary returns from NHS trusts during the pilot phase.
  555W
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients have participated in the Heart Choice pilots. [166651]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The total number of patients that were eligible to participate in the heart choice pilots was 9,090. Of these 6,328 were deemed to be clinically eligible. The number of patients who made a choice was 6,010 and of these, 3,034 opted for treatment elsewhere.

  This data is based on voluntary returns from national health service trusts during the pilot phase.

  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scanners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken towards ensuring that there is a magnetic resonance imaging scanner on site at every major hospital trust in England. [165346]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  After decades of underinvestment, there has been an unprecedented level of central capital funding provided to purchase magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners since 2000, first through the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) and now through central Department of Health capital. These programmes are providing over 160 new MRI scanners from 2000 to 2006, resulting in a 150 per cent. increase in the number of MRI scanners available to the national health service since 1997.

  Once the central programmes have been completed in 2006, all large acute and/or teaching NHS hospital trusts will have MRI on at least one hospital site.

  The allocation of new MRI scanners has been agreed in conjunction with strategic health authorities. Allocations have been made to ensure equitable access to MRI services across the country.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Government have spent in each of the last five years on(a) procurement of new magnetic resonance imaging scanners and (b) training staff to operate them; and what the projected expenditure is in each of the next five years. [165348]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  From 1999 to 2004, approximately £38.5 million was spent in providing 57 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners via the New Opportunities Fund.

  In 2003–04, approximately £33.5 million of Department of Health cancer capital was spent in providing new and replacement MRI scanners.

  It is estimated that departmental cancer capital spending on MRI in 2004–05 will be approximately £46 million and in 2004–05 will be approximately £30 million.

  The projected expenditure on MRI beyond 2005–06 is not known at this stage, although, on 8 April 2004, the Department launched a procurement from the private sector to provide an extra 80,000 mobile MRI scans per year for the national health service for five years.

  Initial applications training for the use of new MRI equipment is included in the capital cost of that equipment and has therefore been provided to all NHS
  556W
  trusts in the central procurement programmes. Further training requirements will vary from center to center and are the responsibility of local NHS institutions.

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level and quality of service provided by the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service on the weekend of 26 and 27 March. [165342]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: The Department does not collect information from ambulance trusts on a daily basis. Information is collected annually on volume of service and performance against required standards-details of the returns are in the statistical bulletin Ambulance Service, England: 2002–03.

  A copy is available in the Library and also on the Department's website at www.publications.doh,gov.uk/ public/sb0313.htm.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total spending on NHS dentistry in Morley and Rothwell in each year since 1997. [165169]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Gross fees paid to general dental service dentists in Leeds Health Authority area

  £ million

  Gross fees

  1997–98

  20.7

  1998–99

  22.2

  1999–2000

  22.7

  2000–01

  23.0

  2001–02

  24.3

  2002–031

  12.2

  1 First half of year only

  Source:

  Department of Health.

  NHS Staff (Oxfordshire)
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) age, (b) gender, (c) ethnic background and (d) length of employment within the NHS breakdowns are of NHS staff working in the (i) Oxfordshire community hospitals of Townlands, Wallingford, Abingdon, Wantage, Wattington and Didcot and (ii) Oxford Radcliffe and Royal Berkshire hospitals. [166761]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not held centrally at individual hospital level. The information requested for age, gender and ethnic background is available at trust level. Information for the trusts responsible for the above hospitals has been placed in the Library.

  The length of employment within the National Health Service for the above hospitals is not collected centrally.

  Nursing
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's projected spending plans on the
  557W
  Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (a) were for 2003 and (b) are for (i) 2004, (i) 2005 and (iii) 2006. [166352]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In 2003–04, the budget for the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH) was £34.9 million. This included £5.2 million for the national independent complaints advocacy service (ICAS) and around £8 million to support Community Health Councils until 1 December 2003. The budget for the CPPIH in 2004–05 and 2005–06 is £33.3 million and an additional £6.8 million is being made available for ICAS.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets have been set on introducing modern matrons; what the (a) baselines and (b) deadlines for these targets are; and what progress has been made against the targets. [166407]

  Mr. Hutton
  The introduction of modern matrons was signalled in the NHS Plan in 2000. In April 2001, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) said there would be 500 modern matrons by April 2002 and up to 2,000 by 2004.

  A detailed progress report was published in April 2002, including results of a survey that showed that there were nearly 1,900 posts across England.

  The most recent data show that there are now nearly 3,000 modern matrons across England.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on arrangements for the assessment of an individual for funded nursing home placement; under what circumstances a process is caused to be commenced; and how a relative can ensure that an assessment is performed. [164922]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Individuals should receive an assessment to determine their needs and then a care plan as to how those needs will be met. A here their needs will be best met in a care home providing nursing care, the national health service will determine whether their needs are such that the NHS will fund all their care, or whether the NHS will fund only the care provided by a registered nurse.

  The Community Care (Delayed Discharges, etc.) Act 2003, requires the NHS and social services in England to assess patients who need further care from the NHS or social services before they are discharged from hospital. For others, the NHS and social services should provide an assessment when it appears necessary or when requested. Relatives and carers may request assessment or re-assessment of an older person's needs, and in doing so may specify the type of assessment they feel is most appropriate.

  Personal Care Plans
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of providing every patient with a long-term condition with a personal care plan. [164860]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We do not have information on how much it would cost to provide everyone with a long-term condition with a personal care plan
  558W
  Care plans are an important part of responding to the individual needs of patients with chronic conditions and managing their care to keep them healthier for longer. For example the first standard of the national service framework on renal disease states that:
  "all children, young people and adults with chronic kidney disease are to have access to information that enables them to make informed decisions and encourages partnership in decision-making, with an agreed care plan that supports them in managing their condition to achieve the best possible quality of life."

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has evaluated on the effects of frequent ejaculation in protecting men from prostate cancer; and what advice his Department provides on this. [166852]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department's prostate cancer risk management programme was announced by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) as part of the National Health Service prostate cancer programme in September 2000. However, no specific research has been carried out or evaluated on whether frequent ejaculation protects men from prostate cancer. A prostate cancer information sheet is available through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence website at www.nice.org.uk/.

  Respiratory Conditions
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of school aged children in England suffer from respiratory conditions. [165540]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally. The latest hospital episode statistics which relate to diseases of the respiratory system in the age group five to 16 years of age are shown in the table. Admissions may relate to more than one episode for the same child.

  Count of finished admissions episodes: age group 5 to 16 years. Primary diagnosis—Diseases of the respiratory system in NHS hospitals in England 2002–03

  Finished admissions

  2002–03

  65,939

  Notes:

  Ungrossed Data—figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).

  Diagnosis (Primary Diagnosis)—the primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (7 prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Security Incidents (NHS)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many security incidents he estimates there were in the NHS in England in each year since 1997. [163504]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on security incidents is available for the period 1999 to 2002. This is shown in the table.
  559W

  Number

  2001–02

  166,667

  2000–01

  112,095

  1999–2000

  106,935

  No statistics are available for the period 1997 to 1999 and 2002 to present.

  Policy on the management of security in the national health service passed to the NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service on 1 April 2003.

  Trust Finances
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (a) primary care trusts and (b) NHS trusts recorded a deficit at the end of the financial year 2003–04. [166659]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 April 2004]: The audited information in respect of the 2003–04 financial position of all primary care trusts and national health service trusts will be published in their individual annual accounts and will be available centrally in autumn 2004.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Location Monitoring
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer of 15 March,Official Report, column 129W, on electronic tagging, if he will have a pilot scheme on location monitoring satellite tracking technology in Northern Ireland. [164947]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Pursuant to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr Goggins), there is no legislation to permit electronic monitoring in Northern Ireland.

  Alcohol Consumption
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what restrictions apply to the consumption of alcohol on local(a) trains and (b) buses. [166703]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Public Service Vehicles Regulations (NI) 1985 prohibit the consumption of alcohol on buses but not on trains. Railway Byelaws allow the consumption of alcohol to be banned on certain pre-advertised train journeys.

  Animal Welfare
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to deliver a high standard of animal welfare within agriculture in Northern Ireland. [166829]

  Mr. Pearson
  A wide range of legislation has already been introduced in Northern Ireland to protect all species of animals, including farm animals, from cruelty and neglect, to provide them with adequate housing and transport conditions. In addition, DARD officials are currently actively engaged in replacing the existing 560W
  range of advisory Welfare Codes for all the major species of farm animals with revised versions incorporating fresh developments in technology and our understanding of animal behaviours.

  The main general welfare provisions are laid down in the Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations (NI) 2000 which consolidates and replaces previous legislation, implements four EU Council Directives and reflects the European Convention on the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes. The regulations lay down a general principle that the owners and keepers of animals kept for farming purposes must take reasonable steps to ensure the welfare on animals in their care and prevent them experiencing any unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. The requirements of the legislation are comprehensive, and DARD veterinary staff and meat hygiene officials actively enforce all of their provisions.

  Asbestos
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his Department's policy is regarding the disposal of asbestos at district council amenity sites in (a) North Down and (b) Northern Ireland. [164538]

  Angela Smith
  Waste asbestos arising from households or commercial/industrial premises is classified as special waste under the Special Waste Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998. Any facility, located in Northern Ireland, receiving such waste must be licensed to accept it under the Waste Management Licensing Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003.

  Ballybeen Estate
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding contingency is held with respect to the current exclusion of the Ballybeen Estate in Dundonald from the Belfast Regeneration Offices Business Plan, should it become part of the East Belfast constituency as a result of the Boundary Commission Report. [166746]

  Mr. Spellar
  The level of funding available to an area is not determined by the parliamentary constituency within which it is situated and the outcome of the Boundary Commission Review will have no impact on the level of funds available to Ballybeen Estate in Dundonald. However, if following the Boundary Commission's report Ballybeen is included in a new East Belfast constituency the Department for Social Development will review internal administrative boundaries and the regeneration of the area may fall to the Belfast Regeneration Office. This would be a purely administrative change that will have no impact on how Government funding is allocated.

  Benefit Entitlements
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the benefit entitlement available to those living in Northern Ireland on an ancestral visa. [165365]

  Mr. Spellar
  Immigration rules require that people who wish to travel to the United Kingdom through UK ancestry must intend to take or seek employment. They
  561W
  should therefore be able to support and accommodate themselves without claiming certain state benefits. These include:

  Income Support

  Jobseeker's Allowance

  Housing Benefit

  Tax Credits

  Social Fund Payments

  Child Benefit

  Any disability allowance

  Boundary Reviews
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the timetable is for the forthcoming review of parliamentary boundaries and local government boundaries in Northern Ireland. [164432]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland intend to publish Provisional Recommendations in the spring of this year. Because the Review of Public Administration is continuing, the Secretary of State is not yet in a position to appoint a Local Government Boundaries Commissioner to undertake a review of local boundaries in Northern Ireland.

  Brucellosis
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action is being taken to limit potential brucellosis outbreaks in cattle in Northern Ireland. [164921]

  Mr. Pearson
  My Department has in place a Brucellosis control programme which aims to bring about a substantial reduction in disease levels and the eventual eradication of brucellosis from Northern Ireland. The control measures are based on a programme of testing, the slaughter of infected animals, the restriction of movements of animals to and from infected herds and surrounding herds, and the tracing of contact animals.

  The implementation of the Brucellosis Policy Review recommendations, which I announced last June, will ensure further progress towards eradication of the disease. The process of extending annual Brucellosis testing throughout Northern Ireland got under way in November. The public consultation exercise on the subordinate legislation needed to implement further revised measures was launched on 30 January 2004 and I hope to have the necessary subordinate legislation in place by mid 2004. Work is also under way on the feasibility of further measures that we hope to implement.

  We are already seeing some effect from the control measures that have been implemented. During the year we have seen a reduction in the number of new herds restricted because of brucellosis. The number of new herds restricted during 2003 was 261. The comparable figure for 2002 was 361.

  College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the answer of 3 February 562W
  2004, Official Report, column 868W on Peace II Programme, under what measure number the money was awarded to the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE); who authorised the approval to distribute the money to CAFRE; under whose name money was awarded to CAFRE; and what items of expenditure in addition to normal running costs of CAFRE the money funded. [166831]

  Mr. Pearson
  The money in respect of this project was awarded under Priority 1, Measure 6 (Training for Farmers) of the PEACE II Programme.

  Training through technology development and transfer is an on-going programme delivered through the College of Agriculture Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) which has been operational since January 2000. During 2003 when the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) was assessing how the PEACE II N + 2 targets could be met, this programme was considered under the "Innovative Actions" strand of activities seeking to ensure expenditure targets could be achieved. Such innovative actions were approved by the PEACE II Monitoring Committee.

  The technology development and transfer programme was considered consistent with the terms of the PEACE II Programme and an application was submitted by CAFRE to Measure 1.6 for the project titled, Developing Agriculture through Technology Adoption (DATA). The application was considered in the normal manner by a three person Selection Panel against the Peace and Reconciliation and Measure Specific criteria and judged successful. The Selection Panel included a person independent of DARD. The success of this application enabled DARD to meet its N + 2 targets and ensured no loss of PEACE II funding.

  The Letter of Offer in respect of the DATA project was issued by Pauline McCloy, Director of Rural Development, on behalf of DARD, and accepted on behalf of the College by Paul McGurnaghan, CAFRE Deputy Director and John Fay, CAFRE Director.

  As the DATA project is a training programme the money allocated covers staff costs and other expenditure solely related to the delivery of the project such as set-up costs associated with demonstrations and publicity booklets for the programme. None of the money allocated is used to fund any of the running costs associated with other CAFRE activities.

  Contaminated Land
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of part 3 of the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 in tackling contaminated land in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [164540]

  Angela Smith
  The provisions of part 3 of the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 have not yet been brought into operation. In order to do so, it will be necessary to supplement the provisions of part 3 by further policy development and subordinate legislation. Until now priority in the allocation of resources within the Department of the Environment has had to be given to dealing with a backlog of overdue EU directives.
  563W
  However, in preparation for the implementation of the forthcoming EU Directive on Environmental Liability, the Department is currently examining the work and resources that will be necessary to bring the statutory contaminated land regime into operation in advance of the directive.

  Cory Reports Inquiry
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is on meeting from public funds the costs of legal advice and representation to(a) present and (b) former servants of the Crown who are summoned to give evidence to a public inquiry established as a result of the Cory Reports. [166641]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Once the inquiries begin, reasonable costs of legal assistance will be met from the

  Detection rates by DCU for 2002–2003 and 2003–2004

  Percentage

  Antrim

  Ards

  East Belfast

  North Belfast

  South Belfast

  West Belfast

  Carrickfergus

  Castlereagh

  Larne

  2002–03

  April 2002

  30.4

  21

  9.7

  11.6

  18.0

  22.7

  28.1

  11.7

  42.3

  May 2002

  16.5

  21.5

  11.2

  12.2

  12.3

  21.1

  21.8

  13.2

  19.0

  June 2002

  15.6

  23.2

  10.1

  13.2

  12.5

  21.1

  14.2

  9.7

  29.8

  July 2002

  16.0

  34.3

  15.5

  11.6

  20.4

  21.6

  23.3

  16.4

  36.7

  August 2002

  19.9

  19.6

  21.2

  12.6

  13.4

  20.0

  23.3

  13.1

  27.2

  September 2002

  17.9

  24.1

  12.7

  17.9

  15.7

  16.8

  37.8

  11.8

  44.2

  October 2002

  9.3

  28.8

  16.3

  22.6

  18.3

  17.6

  30.3

  16.7

  25.9

  November 2002

  9.2

  26.4

  19.0

  21.3

  17.6

  22.3

  25.9

  20.2

  49.2

  December 2002

  16.4

  27.2

  14.8

  18.8

  15.7

  21.6

  28.3

  16.7

  35.0

  January 2003

  10.3

  24.9

  21.8

  17.0

  16.3

  21.4

  27.3

  17.7

  25.4

  February 2003

  8.9

  29

  27.4

  18.4

  17.2

  12.9

  21.1

  25.5

  38.1

  March 2003

  10.7

  32.4

  23.4

  15.7

  14.1

  17.4

  28.8

  18.2

  47.1

  2003–20041

  April 2003

  15.0

  26.5

  19.1

  15.7

  17.0

  20.6

  25.2

  14.9

  42.3

  May 2003

  10.5

  23.9

  25.3

  18.0

  16.1

  26.2

  34.1

  18.6

  57.4

  June 2003

  15.6

  25.9

  20.5

  15.7

  23.0

  19.4

  26.2

  13.5

  35.3

  July 2003

  16.6

  25.3

  20.1

  15.1

  22.6

  18.1

  26.5

  19.8

  43.0

  August 2003

  14.2

  24.0

  23.1

  17.6

  20.4

  18.4

  26.7

  32.9

  33.1

  September 2003

  19.2

  24.3

  33.1

  16.9

  22.3

  15.8

  38.3

  19.9

  37.6

  October 2003

  20.7

  29.5

  35.5

  21.3

  17.6

  16.9

  35.7

  14.1

  39.5

  November 2003

  16.4

  28.2

  25.8

  21.3

  19.2

  21.6

  24.8

  18.4

  49.0

  December 2003

  18.5

  22.6

  33.2

  23.5

  17.1

  18.9

  30.6

  23.9

  31.7

  January 2004

  25.3

  31.9

  31.4

  18.6

  18.5

  15.0

  29.3

  23.1

  38.6

  February 2004

  23.1

  36.0

  40.8

  23.2

  19.3

  12.4

  58.5

  20.3

  30.4

  Detection rates by DCU for 2002–2003 and 2003–2004

  Percentage

  Down Fermanagh

  Foyle

  Limavady

  Magherafelt

  Moyle

  Newry and Mourne

  Omagh

  Strabane

  2002–03

  April 2002

  20.1

  25.3

  25.7

  28.4

  34.7

  41.5

  23.5

  48.79

  67.9

  May 2002

  21.9

  30.0

  26.6

  26.9

  31.0

  43.1

  22.5

  39.9

  32.0

  June 2002

  22.9

  29.8

  21.4

  21.0

  35.2

  29.7

  25.2

  37.8

  28.9

  July 2002

  17.7

  21.7

  22.8

  27.3

  21.2

  18.9

  29.5

  45.7

  42.9

  August 2002

  21.9

  33.0

  20.2

  27.3

  23.6

  40.0

  21.3

  39.3

  39.7

  September 2002

  28.6

  39.6

  22.3

  24.2

  20.6

  41.6

  23.9

  60.2

  44.7

  October 2002

  30.9

  24.9

  27.8

  40.1

  31.2

  58.0

  22.8

  39.3

  42.7

  November 2002

  25.2

  35.0

  26.3

  39.4

  21.1

  29.6

  24.3

  38.2

  60.4

  December 2002

  24.9

  25.3

  25.3

  32.5

  32.6

  20.0

  23.7

  45.6

  38.7

  January 2003

  37.6

  30.2

  30.6

  29.5

  34.2

  39.5

  28.0

  41.7

  46.7

  February 2003

  31.8

  33.9

  25.4

  24.9

  40.7

  25.8

  24.4

  36.7

  55.1

  March 2003

  25.2

  25.7

  21.3

  37.3

  41.1

  48.5

  24.0

  31.1

  70.2

  2003–20041

  April 2003

  27.6

  28.2

  24.5

  37.0

  38.3

  39.2

  24.6

  39.9

  29.1

  May 2003

  29.3

  24.8

  26.6

  23.3

  36.9

  20.5

  24.9

  29.6

  45.1

  June 2003

  25.6

  30.3

  23.3

  35.6

  40.7

  62.7

  22.3

  48.5

  39.1

  July 2003

  30.0

  36.3

  25.0

  38.8

  36.8

  34.0

  34.0

  42.1

  47.9

  564W
  public purse for those invited to assist them, in accordance with the procedures that will apply to each inquiry. This will include any present or former public servants who are called to give evidence.

  Crime Detection Rates
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the Police Service of Northern Ireland crime detection rates were in each month during the last two years, broken down by named geographic areas designated by individual district command units.

  Mr. Pearson
  The following table provides the information requested with the exception of figures for March 2004 which are not currently available.
  565W

  Detection rates by DCU for 2002–2003 and 2003–2004

  Percentage

  Down

  Fermanagh

  Foyle

  Limavady

  Magherafelt

  Moyle

  Newry and Mourne

  Omagh

  Strabane

  August 2003

  23.7

  25.4

  23.7

  27.3

  35.8

  35.0

  29.4

  55.7

  44.6

  September 2003

  26.5

  21.2

  26.3

  29.9

  34.3

  26.1

  33.8

  42.2

  43.0

  October 2003

  30.5

  33.3

  31.5

  37.7

  41.1

  43.5

  27.7

  55.1

  52.5

  November 2003

  30.4

  29.5

  21.9

  31.3

  31.0

  22.4

  19.3

  32.4

  48.5

  December 2003

  27.0

  23.3

  17.5

  24.3

  21.7

  30.1

  28.1

  39.2

  44.1

  January 2004

  27.0

  23.5

  21.7

  33.3

  27.0

  13.4

  31.4

  47.1

  46.7

  February 2004

  29.7

  36.1

  23.1

  33.9

  52.3

  25.4

  30.0

  33.5

  61.4

  Detection rates by DCU for 2002–2003 and 2003–2004

  Percentage

  Lisburn

  Newtownabbey

  North Down

  Armagh

  Banbridge

  Ballymeana

  Ballymoney

  Coleraine

  Cookstown

  2002–03

  April 2002

  19.4

  11.5

  15.7

  33.6

  34.5

  49.3

  32.7

  29.3

  33.5

  May 2002

  17.4

  10.0

  13.9

  46.0

  29.7

  26.1

  22.6

  24.6

  32.2

  June 2002

  28.4

  10.8

  13.4

  38.7

  37.5

  30.8

  26.1

  18.3

  29.1

  July 2002

  23.4

  12.3

  14.8

  29.0

  35.5

  32.6

  31.5

  25.5

  38.8

  August

  22.2

  18.9

  17.4

  39.7

  38.8

  27.0

  26.8

  21.6

  26.5

  September 2002

  21.3

  13.5

  21.9

  28.1

  52.0

  27.5

  47.4

  22.0

  25.7

  October 2002

  21.0

  15.0

  19.1

  28.1

  43.6

  26.6

  38.5

  34.7

  37.0

  November 2002

  24.2

  15.9

  20.5

  39.6

  38.7

  41.1

  31.5

  30.5

  27.3

  December 2002

  23.3

  14.7

  24.8

  29.5

  32.6

  22.6

  22.2

  22.8

  29.3

  January 2003

  24.3

  15.6

  33.4

  29.8

  37.6

  24.7

  61.7

  30.5

  31.8

  February 2003

  18.3

  17.7

  25.3

  31.6

  46.2

  25.1

  43.6

  35.0

  27.1

  March 2003

  11.5

  27.2

  38.0

  43.6

  38.3

  28.3

  59.8

  46.4

  21.7

  2003–20041

  April 2003

  18.6

  18.1

  20.7

  45.1

  52.4

  23.6

  28.7

  24.4

  45.1

  May 2003

  23.8

  18.4

  26.5

  53.5

  40.6

  35.6

  23.8

  22.1

  35.6

  June 2003

  24.2

  18.4

  20.5

  38.8

  38.8

  32.1

  48.2

  20.5

  40.7

  July 2003

  22.4

  19.8

  28.5

  39.0

  38.3

  26.1

  39.8

  36.0

  41.5

  August 2003

  21.5

  24.2

  24.8

  34.4

  35.6

  27.2

  47.9

  31.2

  34.0

  September 2003

  24.1

  22.7

  27.0

  33.0

  32.6

  36.1

  27.5

  32.7

  37.6

  October 2003

  26.6

  20.7

  29.0

  47.7

  32.4

  43.8

  54.2

  25.4

  50.0

  November 2003

  22.5

  19.0

  31.7

  44.3

  31.1

  37.7

  40.0

  28.4

  49.7

  December 2003

  24.5

  31.7

  27.5

  31.5

  35.1

  29.4

  23.6

  21.2

  52.7

  January 2004

  20.9

  20.7

  28.2

  36.0

  30.3

  43.7

  25.8

  27.3

  56.3

  February 2004

  20.5

  24.7

  36.2

  45.5

  26.4

  46.9

  42.9

  34.7

  51.9

  Percentage

  Craigavon

  Dungannon and South Tyrone

  2002–03

  April 2002

  28.0

  42.2

  May 2002

  21.2

  35.1

  June 2002

  303

  22.9

  July 2002

  21.3

  34.5

  August 2002

  19.0

  40.8

  September 2002

  180

  24.4

  October 2002

  256

  59.0

  November 2002

  227

  28.9

  December 2002

  27.7

  28.8

  January 2003

  17.6

  23.0

  February 2003

  129

  41.3

  March 2003

  184

  30.2

  2003–20041

  April 2003

  218

  37.4

  May 2003

  122

  29.9

  June 2003

  172

  37.6

  July 2003

  242

  45.9

  August 2003

  249

  41.2

  September 2003

  289

  48.7

  October 2003

  250

  42.0

  November 2003

  212

  35.8

  December 2003

  254

  45.2

  January 2004

  299

  47.1

  February 2004

  218

  29.5

  1Please note that clearance rates for March 2004 are not yet available. Clearance rates for 2003-2004 are provisional and as such are liable to revision.

  Drugs
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) arrests were made, (b) people were charged, (c) cautions were issued and (d) convictions were made, for drug offences in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years, broken down by (i) drug classification category and (ii) Northern Ireland parliamentary constituency. [165771]

  Mr. Pearson
  I have placed in the Library, tables that provide the information requested for arrests, charges, and caution for the financial years 2001–02 and 2002–03. Figures for 2002–04 are not yet available. As it is not possible to provide an abalysis by parliamentary constituency a breakdown by PSNI District Command Unit is provided instead. Data relating to convictions can be provided only by calendar year.

  Education Ancillary Workers
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the secretary of state for Northern Ireland if he will undertake a review of the effect of Jarvis PPP contract proposals on education ancillary workers. [166048]
  567W
  Mr. Gardiner
  A review of the effect of particular PPP contract proposals would not be appropriate. PPP projects are publicly advertised and contractors selected through an open competitive process. Successful contractors must satisfy all the criteria set for each project.

  TUPE (Transfer of Undertaking Protection of Employment Regulations) will apply to the transferring staff, which means that their current contractual terms and conditions will be protected. On pensions, Jarvis has also given a commitment that it will apply for membership of the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers Superannuation Scheme.

  I also understand the Chief Executive of the South Eastern Board has written to you recently offering a meeting to discuss your concerns.

  Environmental Prosecutions
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prosecutions have been brought under part 3 of the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 since its introduction; and what the average penalty has been. [164573]

  Angela Smith
  Part 3 of the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 has not yet been brought into operation. Consequently no prosecutions have been brought under its provisions.

  Farm Fraud
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what types of farming fraud offences were detected; and how many cases of each occurred in the last 12 months. [166702]

  Mr. Pearson
  The types of farming fraud and the number of cases detected during the last year (April 2003 to March 2004) were as follows:

  number of cases

  Livestock Subsidy (Sheep Annual Premium Scheme)

  65

  Cattle Identification/Livestock Subsidy (Cattle)

  28

  Ear Tag Interference

  2

  Integrated Administration and Control (IACS)

  8

  Animal Disease Compensation

  6

  Fishing Industry
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications have been received under the current fishing vessel(a) decommissioning scheme and (b) tie-up scheme; how many applications have been granted for boats in (i) Portavogie, (ii) Ardglass and (iii) Kilkeel in each case; and how much money has been allocated to each scheme in each case. [166830]

  Mr. Pearson
  Requested information in respect of the 2003 Decommissioning Scheme and The Temporary Cessation Tie up scheme 2004 as at 16 April 2004 is shown in the tables.
  568W

  Decommissioning

  Application received

  Application Approved

  Grant paid to date 16 April 2004(£)

  Portavogie

  20

  5

  1,077,767

  Ardglass

  7

  3

  489,900

  Kilkeel

  25

  11

  2,932,369

  Total

  52

  19

  4,500,037

  Tie Up Scheme

  Application Received

  Application Approved

  Grant paid to date 16 April 2004 (£)

  Portavogie

  14

  13

  256,152

  Ardglass

  1

  1

  1,632

  Kilkeel

  15

  13

  190,569

  Total

  30

  27

  448,355

  General de Chastelain
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the Answer of 17 March 2004,Official Report, column 300W, on General de Chastelain, if he will list the full days since 1 January that General de Chastelain has spent in the Province. [165758]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning has now advised that, on average, General de Chastelain spends one week per month in Northern Ireland on decommissioning work. In the year 2003, the General was in Northern Ireland for 82 days. So far this year he was in NI for 6 days in February. Further visits have been planned for April and May.

  Hospital Shuttle Bus Services
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the cost in 2003–04 of the shuttle buses currently serving the Royal Victoria Hospital. [166701]

  Mr. Spellar
  Translink has advised that for the year 2003–04 the cost of providing the shuttle bus service to the Royal Victoria Hospital from Belfast City center was £80,300. Income from fares amounting to £69,400 went towards supporting this service.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the cost of introducing a shuttle bus service between the Ulster Hospital and Belfast City center. [166710]

  Mr. Spellar
  Translink has advised that the estimated cost of providing a shuttle bus service between Belfast City center and the Ulster Hospital at Dundonald would be approximately £156,600 per year, depending on the required hours of operation and frequency of service. Although Translink do not supply a dedicated bus to the Ulster Hospital, approximately 190 buses per day stop at a terminus, located adjacent to the hospital.

  Local Area Partnerships
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the
  569W
  membership and timetable for local area partnerships recommended by the Costello report, broken down by education board area. [166712]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Local Planning and Development Partnerships will comprise representatives of schools and school managing authorities in local areas. The arrangements to establish these partnerships are currently under consideration by the Department of Education with the aim of having them in place by the beginning of the next school year.

  Nursing Homes
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what restrictions there are on the rates charged to residents by nursing homes. [166699]

  Angela Smith
  The rates charged to private residents by nursing homes are a matter for negotiation and agreement between both parties. In the case of residents who are supported with public funds it is the Health and Social Services (HSS) Trust that arranges the nursing home placement and agrees to pay an appropriate tariff to the nursing home. Nursing homes may not charge residents for accommodation or care, including the nursing care of private residents paid for by HSS Trusts.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether nursing homes are permitted to charge different residents at differing rates. [166700]

  Angela Smith
  Nursing homes may charge individual residents different amounts based on the type and extent of care needed and the standard of facilities and accommodation provided. Nursing homes providing care for different classes of resident, i.e. elderly, mental health or other disablement, charge rates that are based on the level of care usually given to the specific class of resident the nursing home is authorised to accommodate. The four Health and Social Services Boards have set regional tariffs that Health and Social Services Trusts will normally pay for the appropriate standard placement for each class of resident. Trusts retain the authority to vary the amount payable where the resident is assessed to require additional services.

  Paramilitary Offences
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer of 17 March,Official Report, columns 305–6W, on paramilitary offences, how many of the 106 deaths have been solved through the arrest and conviction of the people responsible; and if he will make a statement. [165690]

  Month

  PEACE II Measure

  Project

  Amount paid (£)

  July 2003

  Nil

  August 2003

  1.6

  DDA Training Services

  72,160

  Acorn Business center

  75,647

  Fermanagh College

  75,003

  North Down and Ards Institute

  90,444

  GG Enterprises Ltd.

  68,020

  Info-Net IT Services

  38,986

  570W
  Mr. Pearson
  The following table provides details of the number of security related murders and charges in respect of these murders.

  Persons murdered as a result of the security situation 11 April 1998 to 29 February 2004

  Perceived attribution1

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  Total

  Number of persons murdered

  53

  49

  2102

  Number of murders for which someone has been charged

  18

  1

  19

  1Attribution is as perceived by PSNI based on the information available.

  2 Excludes 4 deaths where the deceased was not murdered by terrorists but died in security related circumstances.

  With regard to criminal proceedings there have been convictions for murder in respect of four deaths; convictions for lesser offences in respect of three deaths (including two for manslaughter); and directions of no prosecutions by the DPP or acquittals at trial in respect of five deaths. Of the remaining seven deaths where murder charges have been brought by police, the relevant cases are awaiting direction by the DPP or have yet to reach trial.

  Peace II Programme
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the answer of 3 February 2004,Official Report, column 868W on PEACE II Programme, if he will break down each of the monthly figures by organisation to which money was allocated; under what measure number the PEACE II money was allocated; and how much money not allocated from the PEACE II funds is accessible by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. [166832]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's budget for 2003–04, excluding PEACE II, totalled £478.5 million.

  It is not possible to provide a breakdown of the monthly expenditure figures provided in my answer of 3 February 2004, Official Report, column 868W. The figures given then were extracted from data that was collected by the Special EU Programmes Body for weekly reports and was not broken down at that time to project level.

  The following data is drawn from the Structural Funds database at 16 April 2004 and represents a more up-to-date position of the expenditure entered onto the database during the six months in question:
  571W

  Month

  PEACE II Measure

  Project

  Amount paid (£)

  1.7A

  Fermanagh College

  44,565

  Family Farm Development Ltd.

  163,312

  Countryside Services Ltd.

  113,459

  Laganside Rural Development Ltd.

  66,643

  Rural Area Partnership In Derry

  23,617

  September 2003

  5.7

  Northern Ireland Seafood

  33,774

  October 2003

  1.6

  Acorn Business center

  23,353

  Loughgiel Farmers Development Group Ltd.

  2,315

  Coleraine LAG for Enterprise

  70,416

  GG Enterprises Ltd.

  30,318

  Info-Net IT Services

  31,442

  Magherafelt Area Partnership Ltd.

  73,051

  1.7A

  Family Farm Development Ltd.

  210,629

  Laganside Rural Development Ltd.

  70,376

  Countryside Services Ltd.

  179,937

  Fermanagh College

  67,500

  Rural Area Partnership In Derry

  1,925

  5.7

  Northern Ireland Seafood

  89,748

  November 2003

  1.2B

  Mourne Heritage Trust

  73,896

  Fermanagh Lakeland Tourism

  48,100

  Causeway Coast and Glens Heritage Trust

  12,817

  1.6

  Armagh College

  65,227

  DDA Training Services

  3,879

  Fermanagh College

  26,725

  Info-Net IT Services

  6,706

  Desertmartin and District Farming Group

  1,580

  North Down and Ards Institute

  6,246

  College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise

  8,652,472

  Magherafelt Area Partnership Ltd.

  2,494

  Newry and Kilkeel Institute of Further and Higher Education

  62,358

  1.7A

  Fermanagh College

  26,648

  Laganside Rural Development Ltd.

  16,749

  Newry and Kilkeel Institute of Further and Higher Education

  80,747

  Rural Area Partnership In Perry

  75,477

  4.2B

  Mourne Heritage Trust

  20,000

  5.7

  Northern Ireland Seafood

  197,861

  December 2003

  1.2B

  National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland

  2,934

  1.6

  Trillick and District Farmers Countryside Group

  5,300

  Down Livestock Group

  1,128

  Loughgiel Farmers Development Group Ltd.

  2.315

  DDA Training Services

  7,820

  Coleraine LAG for Enterprise

  6,929

  Markethill Suckler Farmers Devt Gp Ltd.

  2,000

  1.7A

  Laganside Rural Development Ltd.

  57,233

  4.2B

  Cookstown Tourist Information center

  4,698

  5.7

  Northern Ireland Seafood

  51,456

  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) regular, (b) full-time reserve and (c) part-time reserve police officers were (i) in the establishment plan and (ii) in place in North Belfast in each year since 1996. [156629]

  Numbers of regular, full-time reserve and part-time reserve officers based in North Belfast since 1996

  Regular officers

  Full-time reserve officers

  Part-time reserve officers

  Established

  Actual

  Established

  Actual

  Established

  Actual

  April 19961

  2—

  343

  2—

  154

  2—

  139

  April 19971

  2—

  346

  2—

  139

  2—

  128

  April 19981

  2—

  355

  2—

  147

  2—

  121

  April 19991

  2—

  353

  2—

  145

  2—

  119

  April2000

  362

  336

  148

  128

  153

  108

  April 2001

  446

  394

  159

  130

  153

  104

  572W
  Mr. Pearson
  The following table shows the numbers of regular, full-time reserve and part-time reserve officers based in North Belfast since 1996. It should be noted that the establishment figure for each District Command Unit is determined by the Chief Constable.
  573W

  Numbers of regular, full-time reserve and part-time reserve officers based in North Belfast since 1996

  Regular officers

  Full-time reserve officers

  Part-time reserve officers

  Established

  Actual

  Established

  Actual

  Established

  Actual

  April 2002

  436

  349

  159

  109

  153

  100

  April 2003

  377

  355

  151

  86

  153

  91

  February 2004

  389

  357

  101

  73

  200

  80

  1CID not included.

  2No establishment data available.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the number of police reservists who would lose their jobs within each Police Service of Northern Ireland District Command Unit if the police reserve were to be phased out. [164659]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Patten Report recommended that "the future police service should not include a Full Time Reserve", and this recommendation was accepted by the Government, subject to the security situation. In October 2002, the Chief Constable submitted a human resource strategy to the Policing. Board. It proposed that, subject to no further deterioration in the security situation, and the continued success of recruitment to the Police Service, the Full Time Reserve would be phased out over an 18 month period starting in April 2005.

  The Chief Constable will review these matters later this year, and will subsequently put forward advice to the Board. An assessment of the potential operational impact on individual District Command Units of any phasing out process will form part of the Chief Constable's review.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) protestant and (b) Roman Catholic applicants who have qualified for appointment to the Police Service of Northern Ireland since the introduction of 50:50 recruiting have not been offered employment with the PSNI; and how many such applicants have passed the entrance examinations on more than one occasion.[152461]

  Jane Kennedy
  From competitions 1 to 4, 1,706 non-Catholic and 604 Catholic applicants have qualified for appointment to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Of these, 530 of each community background have been appointed. Of the qualified Catholic candidates, all were offered appointment, but some withdrew in the time intervening between qualification for appointment and the time of appointment.

  Appointments from competition 5 have started, although the pool is not yet finalised, and the pool for competition 6 is not expected to be ready until April this year.

  The information on the number of candidates who have passed the entrance examinations (i.e. have been successful in becoming qualified candidates and reaching the merit pool) more than once is taking some time to collate. As soon as the figures are available, they will be forwarded.
  574W
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the transgressions that bar an individual from becoming a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland are.[164924]

  Mr. Pearson
  Transgressions that bar an individual from becoming a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland are set out in Schedule 1 of the Police (Recruitment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2001, entitled "Criminal Convictions etc", in respect of eligibility for appointment as a police trainee in the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

  The Police Service of Northern Ireland (Recruitment of Police Support Staff) Regulations 2002 similarly set out the procedures in relation to support staff appointments.

  Potato Ring Rot
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the answer of 3 February,Official Report, column 871W on potato ring rot, what vehicles purchased from modulation money for these purposes are now used. [166833]

  Mr. Pearson
  Following the recent finding of potato ring rot in Wales, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development increased its existing stringent preventive measures to ensure that there was no plant health risk to the Northern Ireland potato industry. The majority of the costs associated with these additional measures related to DARD staff time, though small capital expenditure was incurred in 2003 on diagnostic work related to potato ring rot. No vehicles were purchased for the purposes of potato ring rot control.

  Power-sharing
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what power sharing arrangements have been adopted for the appointment of mayor, deputy mayor and committee chairs in each district council area. [166780]

  Angela Smith
  There are a number of formal and informal power sharing arrangements operated by district councils for the appointment of mayor, deputy mayor and committee chairs. These include proportionality systems such as the D'Hondt system, the rotation of posts or a combination of these. The following table is based on information provided to the Department of the Environment by district councils and shows for each district council whether power sharing arrangements are in place.
  575W

  District council1

  Mayor

  Deputy mayor

  Committee chair

  Antrim BC

  Formal (Rotation)

  Informal (Rotation)

  Informal (Rotation)

  Ards BC

  Information unavailable

  Information unavailable

  Information unavailable

  Armagh C and DC

  Information unavailable

  Information unavailable

  Information unavailable

  Ballymena BC

  Informal (Power Sharing by Unionist parties)

  Informal (Power Sharing by Unionist parties)

  Informal (Power Sharing by all parties)

  Ballymoney BC

  None

  None

  None

  Banbridge DC

  Formal (Proportionality)

  Formal (Proportionality)

  Formal (Proportionality)

  Belfast CC

  No formal arrangement

  No formal arrangement

  Formal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  Carrickfergus BC

  Information unavailable

  Information unavailable

  Information unavailable

  Castlereagh BC

  None

  None

  None

  Coleraine BC

  Formal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  Formal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  Formal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  Cookstown DC

  Formal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  Formal (Rotation)

  Formal (Rotation)

  Craigavon BC

  None

  None

  None

  Derry CC

  Formal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  Formal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  Formal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  Down DC

  Information unavailable

  Information unavailable

  Information unavailable

  Dungannon and ST BC

  Formal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  Formal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  Formal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  Fermanagh DC

  Formal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  Formal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  Formal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  Lame BC

  Informal (Power Sharing)

  Informal (Power Sharing)

  Informal (Power Sharing)

  Limavady BC

  Formal (Power Sharing)

  Formal (Power Sharing)

  Formal (Power Sharing)

  Lisburn BC

  None

  None

  None

  Magherafelt DC

  Formal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  None

  None

  Moyle DC

  Formal (Rotation)

  Formal (Rotation)

  2n/a

  Newry and Mourne DC

  Formal (Mix of Proportionality and D'Hondt)

  Formal (Mix of Proportionality and D'Hondt)

  Formal (Mix of Proportionality and D'Hondt)

  Newtownabbey BC

  Informal (Based on party strengths)

  Informal (Based on party strengths)

  Informal (Based on party strengths)

  North Down BC

  None

  None

  None

  Omagh DC

  Formal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  Formal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  Formal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  Strabane DC

  Informal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  Informal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  Informal (Proportionality—D'Hondt)

  1A number of councils have not been able to respond in the time available.

  2Moyle District Council does not operate a committee system.

  Punishment Beatings
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals now serving a sentence in Hydebank Wood Young Offenders center(a) were victims of punishment beatings and (b) were classed as exiles prior to being detained in the center. [163604]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Northern Ireland Prison Service does not collect data in the manner requested above. This is due to the fact that many inmates refuse to disclose the level of threat to which they have been subject; nor do we have any information on 'exiles'.

  The only information available to us is from a survey of the inmate population of Hydebank Wood, conducted in March 2004 by representatives from Queens University Belfast. In the course of this survey they did receive responses from the inmates regarding their experiences of violence and threats.

  Out of a sample size of 187 inmates the following was obtained:

  Inmates were asked:
  "Have you ever been threatened or assaulted by paramilitaries"

  59.4 per cent. said that they had been threatened.

  51 per cent. said that they had been assaulted.

  576W
  The inmates were asked a supplementary question:
  "and in the last year, were you threatened or assaulted by paramilitaries".

  12.8 per cent. said that they had been threatened in the last year.

  7 per cent. said that they had been assaulted in the last year.

  23.5 per cent. said that they had been threatened and assaulted in the last year.

  The inmates were finally asked:
  "By which grouping, Loyalist or Republican"

  21 per cent. (39 people) said they had been threatened or assaulted by Loyalists in the last year

  21 per cent. (39 people) said that they had been threatened or assaulted by Republicans in the last year.

  1 per cent. (two people) said that they had been threatened or assaulted by both groups in the last year.

  Pupil Behavioural Surveys
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the(a) cost, (b) number and (c) results of pupil behavioural surveys carried out in each education board area in the last year [166715]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The information requested is not available in that form. However, each Education and Library Board does submit an annual statistical return
  577W
  to the Department of Education giving details of the total number of pupils who have been suspended or expelled. The statistics for the 2002/03 school year are as follows:

  Number of Pupils Suspended

  5,320

  Number of Pupils Expelled

  70

  In addition the Belfast Education and Library Board has recently published the findings of its "Behaviour in a Learning City—Best Value Review of the Provision of Behaviour Support".

  Racism
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to combat racism in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [165772]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government have frequently put on record ifs abhorrence of all forms of intolerance and racism. It is committed to eradicating such manifestations of hatred, whether based on racism or based on sectarianism and is developing a co-ordinated response to the problem in Northern Ireland.

  Enforcement action by Police Service of Northern Ireland will continue to be the key to tackling such attacks, and PSNI enforcement action will be accompanied by a range of actions by the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments. As well as new legislative proposals, these will include measures on education, housing, health and social policy issues. The final version of the Race Equality Strategy (which takes account of extensive consultation with all sections of NI society) will be published by the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister this summer and specific actions will be included in a detailed implementation plan developed in line with the strategy.

  The Government's Community Safety Strategy, being implemented through the Community Safety Unit of the Northern Ireland Office, identified offences motivated by prejudice and hatred as a central theme in making Northern Ireland a safer place for all its citizens. Specifically, the Strategy seeks to reduce the levels of crime motivated by sectarianism, and to promote and enhance the safety of minority ethnic residents. Currently, the Unit is facilitating a working group of voluntary and statutory organisations which aims to establish a clear framework and operational system for the recording and monitoring of a number of hate crimes. These will include sectarian, racist and homophobic incidents. It is hoped to bring forward the consultation on such an agreed framework by the end of June, with implementation intended by October 2004. Within its Community Safety grant programme, the Challenge Competition, the Unit has also provided funding towards four projects which have a central theme of countering prejudice and hatred to a total value of £273255.
  578W
  I have also published for consultation, draft legislation for Northern Ireland aimed at tackling racially motivated offences. The draft Order proposes provisions that will require sentencers, where offences are aggravated by such hostility, to treat racial and religious aggravation as an aggravating factor when sentencing. The legislation will also cover offences motivated by hatred of sexual orientation. The proposals will also increase maximum sentences available for certain specified, mainly violent, offences including where racial, religious or sexual aggravation is proven.

  The issues raised by racism are issues for all sections of society in Northern Ireland and in expressing abhorrence of racism, all of us must avoid the temptation to demonise entire areas and communities. It would be an act of prejudice itself to stereotype people because of where they live or because of their community background. I reiterate the acknowledgement in the Belfast Agreement of the unique opportunity that exists here to bring about a society which will recognise the full and equal legitimacy and worth of identities, senses of allegiance and ethos of all sections of the community in Northern Ireland.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes have been made to the number of special advisers employed at the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister since suspension of devolution in October 2002. [165737]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  During devolution six Special Advisers were employed by the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. The employment of all six terminated on suspension but four were subsequently re-appointed and continue to be employed by that Department.

  Special Needs Education
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what differences there are between the methods of delivering special needs education in integrated and mainstream schools; [163605]

  (2) what provision for special needs education is made in the (a) integrated and (b) mainstream sector. [156104]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The assessment process and the provision put in place to meet a child's special educational needs (SEN) are determined by the needs of the individual and not the school sector in which the child is placed and there is therefore no difference across sectors in terms of the nature of support provided.

  Each Education and Library Board is responsible for Statements of Special Educational Needs for pupils resident in its area. The Board will meet the educational costs associated with the Statement in respect of pupils in maintained schools and in controlled schools (including controlled integrated schools). The cost of the educational provision in Statements for children in grant—maintained integrated (GMI) schools is met by the Department because it has direct funding responsibility for these schools.
  579W
  In addition, resources are allocated to schools (including GMI schools) through the various LMS formulae to assist pupils with special educational needs who do not require a Statement.

  Stormont Castle
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost to the public purse has been of the recent refurbishment of Stormont Castle. [165993]

  Mr. Pearson
  Stormont Castle was refurbished on behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive. The refurbishment was completed in 2001. The total cost of the work was £8 million.

  Terrorism
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he made to the Prime Minister prior to his visit to Libya last week about the victims of terrorists supplied by Libyan arms and explosives. [165220]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government are aware of the recent calls by representatives of IRA victims and others that Libya should provide compensation for IRA victims.

  The Prime Minister discussed a wide range of issues with Colonel Gadaffi including international and regional security issues, including terrorism.

  Tree Preservation Orders
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what applications for tree preservation orders in the vicinity of Danesfort Crescent, Steelstown Road and Greenhaw Road, Derry have been received. [166777]

  Angela Smith
  Planning Service has received five applications for tree preservation orders in the vicinity of Danesfort Crescent, Steelstown Road and Greenhaw Road, Derry.

  Ulster-Scots
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has made to the Government of the Irish Republic on ratifying the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages in respect of Ulster-Scots in the Republic of Ireland. [166439]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No representation has been made to the Irish Government.

  UVF Ceasefire
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his current assessment is of the UVF ceasefire. [164941]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Secretary of State keeps the ceasefires of all paramilitary organisations under review. The current judgment is that the UVF do not intend to end their ceasefire.

DEFENCE

  Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  I am pleased to be able to announce that we will be buying 64 Tomahawk land attack missiles from the United States under the terms of a foreign military sales case. These are conventionally armed land attack missiles. These new missiles will be to higher—Block IV—specification than our existing Block III missiles. As such, they will provide the ability to retarget or abort a mission in flight and will also provide battle damage indication. They will be capable of being fired from our current Trafalgar Class submarines as well as from our new Astute Class submarines when they enter service.

  This decision shows our continued commitment to enabling precision attack at long range against selected targets.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Discretionary Social Fund
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar)
  I am pleased to announce that the Northern Ireland discretionary social fund budget for 2004–05 will be £58.25 million; £12.64 million will be allocated to grants, £45.51 million to loans and £0.1 million will be held as a contingency reserve. The new allocations represent an increase of £1.65 million over the initial gross budget set at April 2004. This increase will be funded through higher loan recoveries, plus an increase in net treasury finding of £0.94 million for this year. This £0.94 million is the second of three annual increases from a £8.2 million boost for the discretionary social fund announced in the autumn 2002 pre-Budget report.

  The community care grant budget has been increased by £0.94 million to £12.64 million. This will provide more help to customers, in particular families with children and the disabled.

  The loans budget has been increased to £45.51 million, an increase of £0.71 million on the initial 2003–04 loans budget. To improve the fairness of the scheme, budgets will be allocated in a way that will over time achieve greater consistency of outcome for customers wherever they live.

  Details of the budget allocations, together with a note explaining the basis on which they have been made, have been placed in the House of Commons Library today.
  18WS

  Youth Justice Agency
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar)
  I have placed copies of the Youth Justice Agency's Corporate Plan for 2004–07 and Business Plan for 2004–05 in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Business Plan contains eight key performance targets I have set for the Service for 2004–05. These are:
  Contribute towards the development and publication of an NIO Public Service Agreement target to reduce the reconviction rate for all offenders (compared to a predicted rate for Northern Ireland).
  During term-time, 95 per cent. of children in the Juvenile Justice center will receive 20 hours a week of education and training.
  No escapes from the Juvenile Justice center.
  Over the year no more than 3 per cent. of the total new admissions to the Juvenile Justice center should be non-accidentally injured.
  Over the year no more than 2 per cent. of the total members of staff should be non-accidentally injured while engaged in the work of the Agency.
  No members of the public should be non-accidentally injured on Agency premises.
  Deliver at least 70 per cent. of the planned training days specified in the Corporate Training Priorities Plan for 2004–05.
  Expenditure is within budget allocated.

CABINET OFFICE

  Election Guidance
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  The Government have today issued guidance to civil servants on the principles which they should observe in relation to the conduct of Government business in the period before the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament, Greater London Authority and to local authorities in England and Wales.

  The guidance stresses that civil servants should conduct themselves in accordance with the civil service code and is based on the need to maintain the political impartiality of the civil service and the need to ensure that public resources are not used for party political purposes.

  The guidance will come into force on Thursday 20 May 2004, ahead of the elections on Thursday 10 June 2004.

  Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Sustainable Development
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  I am delighted to announce that the consultation "Taking it on: Developing UK Sustainable Development Strategy" was launched today.

  The UK Government, together with the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government and Northern Ireland are consulting to develop new

  19WS
  sustainable strategy for the UK. The consultation will include local and regional events and an online consultation facility, and will provide a strong basis for renewed action to deliver sustainable development.

  The consultation will close on 31 July. We aim to publish the new UK strategic framework, and the UK Government's strategy, in spring 2005.

  The consultation document will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and is also available on the UK Government's sustainable development website.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Support
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  The new arrangements for child support came into operation for new cases and some linked old scheme cases from 3 March 2003. Progress has been slower than anticipated, chiefly due to problems with the new computer and telephony systems. However, over the course of the first year of operation of the new scheme, progress in performance has grown steadily. For example, more than a third of all maintenance

  Summary of Agency Performance to March 2004

  Agency Performance

  Quarter 1 Mar-Jun 2003

  Quarter 2 Jul-Sep 2003

  Quarter 3 Oct-Dec 2003

  Quarter 4 Jan-Mar 2004

  Scheme to Mar 2004

  Applications received

  73,582

  78,982

  85,306

  83,652

  321,522

  Applications cleared of which:

  12,648

  38,583

  49,453

  151,876

  1152,560

  Maintenance Calculations

  6,671

  23,857

  29,672

  131,229

  191,429

  Closures2

  5,977

  14,726

  19,781

  120,647

  161,131

  First payments made through the Agency

  461

  5,164

  11,473

  14,017

  31,115

  First Child Maintenance Premium payments made

  77

  3,314

  6,173

  7,484

  17,048

  Agency Performance (March 2003 to June 2003)

  March 2003

  April 2003

  May 2003

  June 2003

  Total in Quarter

  Applications Received

  3,444

  25,228

  19,951

  24,959

  73,582

  Applications Cleared of which:

  43

  1,616

  3,441

  7,548

  12,648

  Maintenance Calculations

  10

  721

  1,810

  4,130

  6,671

  Closures2

  33

  895

  1,631

  3,418

  5,977

  First payments made through the Agency

  136 for 1st 3 months3

  325

  461

  First Child Maintenance Premium payments made

  17 for 1st 3 months3

  60

  77

  Agency Performance (July 2003 to September 2003)

  July 2003

  August 2003

  September 2003

  Total in Quarter

  Scheme to September 2003

  Applications Received

  28,897

  23,761

  26,324

  78,982

  152,564

  Applications Cleared of which

  10,526

  11,923

  16,134

  38,583

  51,231

  Maintenance Calculations

  6,922

  7,199

  9,736

  23,857

  30,528

  Closures2

  3,604

  4.724

  6,398

  14,726

  20,703

  First Payment made through the Agency

  1,032

  1,752

  2,380

  5,164

  5,625

  First Child Maintenance Premium payments made

  267

  1,596

  1,451

  3,314

  3,391

  20WS
  calculations and over 45 per cent. of all first payments were made in the latest quarter. Further improvement is expected.

  The number of cases cleared in the final quarter rose above 50,000 taking the total number of clearances (calculations and closures) to over 150,000. The ratio of cases reaching calculation compared to those that closed continued to be 6:4 to the year's end, comparing favourably with the ratio of 4:6 under the old scheme.

  Technical issues continue to preclude reliable figures on compliance and throughput for the latest quarter. The Department continues to retain around 15–20 per cent. of each monthly payment due to EDS, the service provider, due to the continuing problems with the computer and telephony systems. A special exercise is being undertaken to test accuracy to the year-end.

  Average weekly child support maintenance payments to parents with care are shown below. Figures are for March 2004 only and are calculated as the total amount received and allocated divided by the number of cases.

  1 Qualifying Child

  2 Qualifying Child

  3 Qualifying Child

  Average Weekly Payment

  £34.25

  £48.84

  £53.91

  21WS

  Agency Performance (October 2003 to December 2003)

  October 2003

  November 2003

  December 2003

  Total in Quarter

  Scheme to December 2003

  Applications Received

  35,724

  28,841

  20,741

  85,306

  237,870

  Applications Cleared of which:

  19,832

  16,011

  13,610

  49,453

  100,684

  Maintenance Calculations

  11,807

  9,975

  7,890

  29,672

  60,200

  Closures2

  8,025

  6,036

  5,720

  19,781

  40,484

  First Payments made through the Agency

  3,978

  3,503

  3,992

  11,473

  17,098

  First Child Maintenance Premium payments made

  2,108

  1,915

  2,150

  6,173

  9,564

  Agency Performance (January 2004 to March 2004)

  January 2004

  February 2004

  March 2004

  Total in Quarter

  Scheme to March 2004

  Applications Received

  27,950

  24,680

  31,022

  83,652

  321,522

  Applications Cleared of which:

  16,418

  16,316

  18,318

  151,876

  1152,560

  Maintenance Calculations

  9,803

  9,780

  10,931

  131,229

  191,429

  Closures2

  6,615

  6,536

  7,387

  120,647

  161,131

  First Payments made through the Agency

  4,193

  4,284

  5,540

  14,017

  31,115

  First Child Maintenance Premium payments made

  2,283

  2,220

  2,981

  7,484

  17,048

  Notes:

  1 Quarter 4 totals and Scheme to March 2004 figures include clerical cases (new scheme cases unable to be progressed on the new system) which are not included in the month by-month figures. Figures for these are as follows:

  Applications cleared

  824

  Maintenance Calculations

  715

  Closures

  109

  2 Closures: Applications close for a variety of reasons. The main reasons are that the parent with care withdraws the application, perhaps due to reconciliation, or having agreed private arrangements with the non-resident parent.

  3 Figures marked with * are not available on a monthly basis for this period.

  A proportion of cases that have a maintenance calculation in place may already be receiving payment directly, but will not be reflected in the figures shown above.

  Figures for child maintenance premium payments include an estimate of the number of parents who receive the premium by way of a disregard to their income support/income-based jobseekers allowance. The disregard has been added from August as data were not available prior to this, and has also been included in the scheme to date figure.

  Pension Credit
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  I can now provide latest monthly progress report on the take-up of pension credit, which became payable on 6 October 2003.

  There are now 2.40 million pensioner households (2.91 million individuals) being paid pension credit, including 138,000 pension credit households (176,000 individuals) added in March. This is the greatest monthly increase in the number of pension credit households (so far to date) and a means that we have met our published target for the end of March. As at 31 March, there are 1.74 million households (2.09 million individuals) now receiving more money as a result of the introduction of pension credit. The pension
  22WS
  credit application line, at our four sites across the country, has received millions of calls since it became operational on 7 April 2003 and 95 per cent. of calls have been answered within 30 seconds. The average pension credit award is £41.34 per week.

  Our direct mail campaign is continuing, supported by a major advertising campaign on TV and in the press. By the end of this month we will have written to every pensioner household in the country to tell them about pension credit. We are continuing to work with organisations such as Help The Aged, Age Concern and Citizens Advice, among others, both at national and local level, to encourage eligible people to take up their entitlement. In particular, the pension service is focusing on those customers who are less likely to take up their entitlement.

  There is plenty of time for pensioners to apply for pension credit. To ensure that pensioners do not lose out there is a twelve-month backdating provision, as announced in the Budget statement. This will allow applications to be backdated for a year, or to the date entitlement begins if this is later.

  I am placing in the Library a report showing progress so far, including regional breakdowns of the number of pension credit households and numbers of pension credit cards in parliamentary constituencies in Great Britain. Copies of the report are also available for hon. Members in the Vote Office.

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

Rural Delivery Review
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Following their acceptance of the Lord Haskins's report, when they will announce in detail their changes to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Countryside Agency and English Nature; and whether these changes require primary legislation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Secretary of State intends to publish a refreshed rural strategy for England in the spring, which will include a full response to the recommendations coming out of the Rural Delivery Review undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. The work being undertaken to develop that plan includes consideration of the detailed legal implications of the proposals, and changes to legislation will need to be addressed as part of the implementation plan.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that interesting reply. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of my interest in this matter. I am chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. Does the Minister agree that the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, are of considerable complexity and possibly of great opportunity? Given the reform in the common agricultural policy, will it be necessary for single-farm payments to be tied in with environmental targets? Will they be able to avoid the Byzantine bureaucracy which often requires farmers to have nerves of steel to till in the application forms when asking for a grant or a subsidy? Is Defra up to such a complex task?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the time and care that we are taking to study the detailed recommendations—33 of them—is evidence of our commitment to ensure that implementation runs smoothly. I cannot but agree with the noble Lord's first statement about the importance of ensuring full integration of all aspects of Defra policy in this area in order to make sense of the remarkably sound and farseeing work of my noble friend Lord Haskins.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, will the noble Baroness indicate whether the delay in the implementation of the Haskins report is due to its proposals to reduce the number of civil servants, or is there departmental
282
resistance to the good recommendations in the report to give the administration of Defra services to the region where they will be more accessible to the public and to the farming community alike?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, on the contrary, we are taking time because of the depth of the issues and the importance of ensuring that we tackle them all together and at the same time. At this stage the staffing implications cannot be known in detail. I share the support of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for the proposal that is fundamental to this review, which is that there must be greater co-ordination and, on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, that we must ensure that we minimise bureaucracy. Farmers do not have time to deal with a myriad of different bureaucracies.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many people are controlled by rural affairs or the countryside? These days how many people who live in the countryside are rural?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it depends what one means by "rural". I have seen a reply to an article by Roger Skrewton which referred to the importance of someone who lives in a rural community eating pests that abound in the countryside. The follow-up letter asked what one did with the leftovers; for example, the Barbour jackets, the four-wheel drives and the green wellingtons. In such a complex area, I cannot possibly answer the noble Lord.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I can tempt the Minister to say whether she agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, who, when he gave evidence to the EFRA Select Committee on 17 December, said that,
"if you cannot implement big chunks of my proposals you will not be able to deliver Curry and you will not be able to deliver CAP reform".
While Defra dithers, does the Minister accept that the report was due to be out on 1 April? That date has passed, so how long will it be before the consultation concludes and how long will it be before the department puts those proposals into effect?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already started to deal with some of the recommendations in the report. I cannot possibly agree that we are dithering. Were the Secretary of State not to receive views from those most affected by some of the proposals, I am sure that there would be the opposite criticism from the Opposition Benches that we were not listening to stakeholders' views with regard to implementation. We shall act as speedily as we can, consequent on the need to ensure that we have sound policy judgment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that inevitably this will involve primary legislation?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, were the Government to decide to implement in full all the proposals contained in the report, the answer would be yes. The degree to which primary legislation is involved will depend on the detailed scrutiny of proposals affecting statutory agencies and some of their statutory duties; but that must await the outcome of consideration.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, lest my noble friend appears to be friendless on this side, could I ask her when she is deliberating the Haskins report not to become obsessed with the idea that the common agricultural policy reforms, as they are called, have gone anything like far enough? It is only a staging post to the present realm of reforms. What we really need to see is reform that shows significant changes in the common agricultural policy budget, so that we do not continue to spend approximately 50 per cent of the budget on such a wasteful process as that by comparison with all the other demands made upon it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I agree with almost everything that my noble friend Lord Tomlinson has said, and bow to his even greater knowledge than that of most noble Lords, and especially my own, with regard to EU budgets. It may be a staging post, but it is one that is on a road which at long last is going in the right direction—that is, away from stimulating overproduction and into regard for the countryside and the environment. I know that all noble Lords share that aim.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, the description given by the Minister is that the Government Front Bench may pretend to be rather picky and choosy about which recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, they will follow up and which they will not. Can she give us an assurance that at the end of the day at least the whole system will be more efficient, much more streamlined and less bureaucratic than it is at present?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, far from being picky, the Government wish to ensure that we achieve the objectives outlined by the noble Lord.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
2.45 p.m.
Lord Taverne Lord Taverne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the economic and statistical work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we are satisfied that the economic and statistical work of the IPCC is the most comprehensive assessment available. We note that it represents consensus between governments based on careful analysis.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that forecasts of global warming depend not only on scientific forecasts but on economic forecasts? Is the department aware that some extremely pertinent criticisms have been made of the special report and emissions scenarios by two very distinguished economists—Mr Ian Castles, the former head of Australia's Bureau of Statistics, and Mr David Henderson, the former head of the economic division of the OECD? They point out that the measure used—the market exchange rate—is quite inappropriate for measuring the difference between rich and poor countries: it exaggerates them. Some questionable assumptions are also made about the rate of closure of the gap between rich and poor nations.
As that will affect policy and is very important in relation to future policy, will the Minister urge her colleagues at the Treasury to get involved in the process of economic forecasting? At the moment something is very wrong.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot agree with the basic premise of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. The result of the report and the views expressed by Mr Castles and Mr Henderson were considered extremely carefully both by the Government and by the IPCC. I note the noble Lord's view about the MEX form of analysis as opposed to PPP.
The difficulty that everyone has is that we are inevitably in an imprecise area because we are looking at long-range forecasting over the next century. However, we owe it to future generations to ensure that we err on the side of caution. The noble Lord's reference to Castles and Henderson would lead us in the direction of perhaps being far too laid back in our attitude towards the future and of failing to take steps now with devastating environmental results.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, I realise that the Minister did not know that she was going to be answering this Question, but might it not be more sensible to lean in the direction of truth? Is she aware that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has put his finger on what is potentially a major scandal?
Under the flawed proceedings of the IPCC even the lowest emissions scenario, which leads to the lowest extent of projected global warming, is based on a rate of growth of the developing countries in the coming century that is far faster than has ever been known. As a result, by the end of the century under its projections, the average income of Algerians, South Africans and North Koreans will be higher than that of the citizens of the United States. Is the noble Baroness really content that this very important matter on which major policy and public expenditure decisions have to be taken should be left to what is little more than an environmentalist closed shop that is unsullied by any acquaintance with economics, statistics or, indeed, economic history?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, never for a moment did I believe that one day I would challenge some of the assumptions of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. I cannot agree with him. Very careful consideration has been given to the methodology that is to be used. I think that the noble Lord is in error in some of the points he makes. It is extremely important to recognise that once, for example, Castles and Henderson complained about the methodology, they were given an opportunity to express their views. It is not a closed shop of environmentalists; it is people who are taking very seriously the future of the planet. One has only to look, for example, at the rate of growth in China to see that there could be grave errors in switching the methodology in the opposite direction.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned that the intergovernmental panel covered a whole century. Has it seen the latest from some scientists who have reported alarming change in the circulation of the Atlantic currents, which, from the sediments of the Antarctic that have been checked, means that global warming could create global freezing in a matter of a few decades rather than centuries? Any approach should surely be flexible to take those new factors into consideration. Has the intergovernmental panel done that, or is it still a little behind on the scientific facts?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, is speaking in support of the Government's position. The implications of the rate of change to our planet are so serious that the Government are committed to continuing to be very cautious about listening to those of whom the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, spoke who say that we are taking the matter too seriously and assuming the worst. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, is right in his assertion that we must look with a degree of alarm, be prepared and ensure that British industry and activity are in a position to benefit from low-carbon economies and related research, which will give them opportunities to help other countries.
Lord Desai: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that whether one takes one measure of GDP or another is very much a matter of taste? After all, nobody pays their bills in purchasing power parity; they pay it in real money, which is based on market exchange rates. Does she not also agree that there is no evidence that measuring income in purchasing power parity will have any different environmental impact from measuring it in market exchange currencies?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Desai is right; purchasing power parity is not necessarily a better method of assessing the environmental impact of growth rates. The other extremely important point about market exchange rate methodology is that data are available for much longer periods. When looking to development over the
286
next century it is important that both methodologies are used, which is what the IPCC in its wisdom has opted to do.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, are the Government concerned about forecasts that the melting of ice near the poles will lead to flooding from the sea in low-lying coastal areas in various countries? Are they taking precautions where the United Kingdom is affected?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Yes, my Lords. work is being done on the potential effects of environmental changes, including changes in water levels. The various government departments, particularly government agencies, are looking at the matter with care. The noble Lord will know that the response to an issue can be extremely sensitive, as a current issue in Devon is proving. It is extremely important that we look at such issues and do all that we can to mitigate any damaging effects, as well as seeking to tackle the causes, which is what lies behind the initial Question of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.

World War II 60th Anniversary Celebrations
2.54 p.m.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton Lord Mowbray and Stourton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will issue an invitation to King Michael of Romania to the 60th anniversary celebrations of the end of World War II in July 2005, in the light of the role which he played in bringing his country over to the allied side.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War will be commemorated on 10 July 2005, incorporating the anniversaries of the cessation of hostilities in Europe and the Far East. Planning is at an early stage, but it will be an occasion of reflection for all who were involved in the war. A broad spectrum of British and overseas guests will be invited to attend, including such eminent persons as His Majesty King Michael of Romania.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving the good news that at last there will be recognition of what King Michael has done. At the risk of pushing my luck, I wish to add that he did so well by us when he was 20, some 60 years ago; for instance, he managed to get all prisoners of war out of Romania. The Germans tried to hoist them back to Germany, but all that was stopped through King Michael. He was one of the few people who helped to destroy his own country—the oil wells—for the sake of the allies. I hope that the noble Baroness will confirm that I am right in saying that the United States, France and Russia, even at the special request of Stalin, all specially decorated him with

287
honours. I am grateful to the Minister, but I hope that some solid honour, other than just being asked to have a drink of tea, wine or whatever, will be conferred.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, has every right to push his luck. So far as I am aware, no new medals or honours are being issued for World War II service; however, that does not mean that we do not recognise King Michael's very positive wartime role.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, will the Normandy veterans be assisted with travel to France for the 60th anniversary celebration? I am sure that everyone would welcome such a move.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, around 8,000 veterans will travel to Normandy this June. There will be several means of assisting veterans taking part in the D-day celebrations. For instance, free one-year passports will be available to veterans who do not hold a valid passport; there will be a 50 per cent reduction in P&O ferry costs for veterans groups; and the New Opportunities Fund, a lottery distributor, will put aside £7.8 million to assist veterans and their families to take part in the commemorative celebrations.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minster aware that no Wren or civilian working at Bletchley Park was given any form of honour? Recently, at the request of some of the few survivors, I was asked to write to the Prime Minister about the matter. In a reply signed by the Prime Minister, stating, as the Minister said, that it was too late, he also said that "Mr Turning"—the name was spelt wrongly—who in many ways was more responsible for winning the war two years earlier, was awarded an OBE. Big deal, my Lords
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, there will be no further honours or medals for service in the Second World War. Of course, code breakers and other organisations and individuals, who will be invited to the commemorative events on 10 July 2005, will be recognised through those invitations.
Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, reverting to the original Question, does the Minister agree that despite the good intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, there is no evidence that Her Majesty's Government— either this one or the previous—do not other than recognise what King Michael did, both in 1944 and 1947? When he promoted Romania's entry into NATO in 1997, for example, he was received by the Queen. The Government will not forget that he defended democracy and it is worth recognising that.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we are well aware of the enormous contribution that King Michael made to the successful outcome of World War II.

Gaza: Israeli Withdrawal
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they regard the Prime Minister of Israel's proposal for withdrawal from Gaza as falling within the terms of the road map.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government believe that Prime Minister Sharon's proposals for withdrawal from Gaza are consistent with the road map, phase one of which calls on the Government of Israel to freeze settlement activity and dismantle outposts. The important point is that the proposals should form part of a peace process, not be an end in themselves, and not prejudice a final settlement. As phase three of the road map makes clear, the final status issues must remain a matter for the parties to negotiate.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I draw her attention to the fact that virtually every moderate Arab state has erupted in dismay at the decision by the President of the United States, with the support of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, to accept and endorse the proposal of Mr Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel, to withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank without going through the negotiating process laid down in the road map. Is the Minister, whom I recognise is a great expert in this region, aware that even newspapers in Israel, such as Haaretz, have specifically condemned what has happened, and—I quote from Haaretz— referred to whether we want to,
"realize the 'vision' of establishing the Hamas state",
in Palestine? Will further settlement development in the West Bank now cease? Can the Minister say how, given the so-called facts on the ground, the present situation is to be brought back within the structure of the road map reasonably soon?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are going over some of the ground that we went over on Monday, when I urged your Lordships to give these proposals a chance to take forward the road map. What is proposed by the Prime Minister of Israel at the moment could conceivably go further than phase one of the road map. Phase one calls only for the freezing of settlement activity, and what is proposed here is that some settlements—those in Gaza and some on the West Bank—will be dismantled. We need to see further movement from the Israelis on the humanitarian issues that are in phase one of the road map, and, I hope, activity on the Palestinian side in relation to security. It is enormously important that we concentrate on the outcomes rather than the process at this stage, provided that it is consistent with the road map and does not

289
prejudice the final status. What has been remarkable is the moderation of the reaction of a number of Arab countries to these proposals.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it would be more constructive to welcome the proposed withdrawal, to start making preparations for the well being of the Palestinians and to fill the vacuum by seeing that the public services on which they depend are provided by a proper authority instead of largely being provided by Hamas, as they are at present?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have welcomed these proposals, but we have done so in a specific and cautious way. We have done so provided that they are consistent with the road map. I urge your Lordships to bear in mind the caution that we have not seen the full detail of these proposals. There have been leaks in newspapers, but we have not seen an authentic version from the Israeli Government. While I agree with my noble friend that it is important, as the Prime Minister has said, that we see these as a step in relation to the road map and the opening up of its further phases, we are looking specifically at the proposals on Gaza and at consistency with the rest of the road map. My Answer to your Lordships was very careful. I very much look forward to seeing the detail of what is proposed on the ground.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the Minister agree that crucial details need to be negotiated in advance of withdrawal from Gaza? I refer, for example, to the physical handover to the Palestinian Authority of the settlements and the facilities that go with them, to arrangements for policing and security in Gaza, to access by land from Gaza to the West Bank and Egypt, and to international access to Gaza airport.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Lord has said. That is why it is so important that we look carefully at the detail of what is proposed while giving these proposals a fair wind and backing them up as far as we are able to. I draw your Lordships' attention to the crucial element of the Gaza/Egyptian border, which is known as the Philadelphia road. How is peace to be secured there? The Israelis have said that they want to leave part of the Israeli defence forces undertaking those duties, but the security questions raised by the noble Lord are absolutely crucial. There have been some fairly unhelpful things said by Hamas, who have offered their services for security purposes. That is not a proposal that recommends itself either to the Palestinian Authority or to the Israeli Government.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that we all hope that the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip will somehow lead us back to the road map if the details to which the noble Baroness has been referring can be worked out. Ought not Ministers in their various gatherings to have put even more emphasis and attention on what Mr Sharon plans in the West Bank? Is it not the position that many people with
290
Mr Sharon believe that withdrawing from Gaza somehow solidifies the settlements in the West Bank—not all of them, but many of them—and if that is the case, does that not threaten the whole prospect of a viable, separate, Palestinian state? That would take us right away from the road map for good.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord was not in the House on Monday when we discussed this, and I made precisely that point. I said that it is important to bear in mind that the eventual settlement must facilitate a contiguous, viable Palestinian state. It may be prejudiced if some of the settlements stay in ways that do not allow particularly that contiguity for a future Palestinian state.
The noble Lord asks why Ministers have not tried a bit harder. To be frank, the noble Lord has not been in the room when these discussions have been going on. The fact is that Ministers from the United Kingdom Government have pressed these points over and over again, and we shall continue to do so. The noble Lord pulls a bit of a face about that, but I have been there, and I assure him that that is precisely what has been happening. We shall continue to do so.

Abuse of Elderly People
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Barker: 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 an employee of Age Concern England.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to address the issue of abuse of older people.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, since 1997, the Government have done a great deal to address poor practice and to tackle the wilful abuse of elderly people. More initiatives are planned.
The Health Select Committee's recent inquiry into elder abuse is greatly welcomed. It draws public attention to an issue of great importance and confirms the Government's long-standing approach. Over the next few weeks, Ministers will carefully study the 40 recommendations made by the Select Committee, before issuing a formal reply.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The Health Select Committee has accepted evidence from the National Care Standards Commission and from my honourable friend Mr Burstow that over-prescription of anti-psychotic and neuroleptic drugs is happening to vulnerable older people in care homes. Will the department, as a matter of urgency, issue regulations covering the administration of medication to vulnerable people, so that that abuse will stop? Will elder abuse feature in any future review of the National Service Framework for Older People?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the Select Committee referred to the Government's good practice in trying to restrain over-medication, which is something that we cannot tolerate. We would like to see it reduced, especially as it tends to become part of the culture of management, rather than being used to meet medical needs.
The current situation is that people who are on medication and are taking four or more medicines have their situation reviewed every six months, as opposed to the annual review for other people. Those provisions are monitored by the strategic health authorities. The NSF will come under review over the next six months, and it is likely that the issue of medication will be examined. However, the National Care Standards Commission and CHAI inspect the issue of medication robustly and in connection with national standards. We anticipate that next May the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will produce guidelines on dementia care, including the use of anti-psychotic drugs. We are keeping the situation very much under review.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree that people working with or caring for frail, elderly people need the support of trained staff, whether they work in the health service in the community or work in the community in social services? The number of health visitors who specialise in the field is virtually nil, and the number of trained social workers in the community is regrettably low. That situation cannot continue. If the help does not come early, we get terrible tragedies and abuses. What do the Government intend to do to remedy the situation?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right: the training and quality of staff are critical. One of the virtues of the definition of elder abuse that we have in our national minimum standards and guidance is that it ranges from casual indifference and neglect to physical harm. We care very much about the quality of training in care.
There are two changes that will make a real difference. Fifty per cent of care staff must now be trained to NVQ level 2 by April 2005, with a minimum of three days' training on that particular issue. For the first time, we have set a target that 50 per cent of domiciliary staff delivering personal care in the home, where, as the noble Baroness will know, most abuse occurs—often perpetrated by family members—must be trained by April 2008. We have already said that we will review that target, so we are taking urgent action.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister recognise the importance of the Select Committee's recommendation that we need a robust body of research into the extent and prevalence of the abuse inflicted on older people? Will the department follow up that recommendation without delay? It is fundamental to a proper understanding of the problem.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we will consider that recommendation in the context of all the recommendations. It is an important recommendation, and there a few things that I want to say.
First, we have provided considerable funding to Action on Elder Abuse—£400,000—for, inter alia, a specific project on data collection. The importance of that is that it will give us, for the first time, a chance to launch a national statistical collection, which can lead to performance indicators. That is an important step. Secondly, the guidance issued in 2001 requires local authorities, for the first time, to bring together information identifying and dealing with abuse. The important thing about that is that research is linked to observation and practice and is not simply an academic exercise. We know that the guidance works well; we are told that by the Centre for Policy on Ageing. We have a two-pronged approach. Thirdly, the Commission for Social Care Inspection generates information in its routine inspections. It is multidisciplinary in intent and will help to fill in a complex picture.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, is not the root cause of the problem, in many cases, the inadequate fees paid by local authorities for the care of old people in residential homes? In turn, that knocks on into inadequate pay and training for the staff looking after our old people. Until we tackle that problem, nothing will happen.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the point about raising the standard of training for care staff, who do an incredibly important job in the domestic setting and in the care homes, is that it will attract people into the profession who will raise standards. Our approach to reducing and preventing abuse is to raise standards overall. That will make a significant difference to the quality of care.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that the proportion of older people in our society is increasing steadily and has done so for some years? Many of those who are of advanced age are nevertheless capable of leading a normal life and should not be penalised in doing so.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, your Lordships' House is a good example of the productivity that comes with great age. We are approaching the concept of an ageing society much more positively. We are looking at and qualifying the notions of dependence and independence. The thrust of our policy is to keep people active, independent and healthy for as long as possible. That is why, for example, we are developing community care strategies, rather than putting old people into care at far too early an age. That is a positive policy.

North Korea
3.17 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpoolrose to call attention to the security and human rights questions posed by the actions of the Government of North Korea; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, good fortune in the ballot enables me to place the Motion before your Lordships today. I will touch on security concerns, human rights, the treatment of refugees and the humanitarian crisis.
Our last debate, on 13 March 2003, was overshadowed by North Korea's decision to reopen its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. Having expelled United Nations inspectors, reneged on its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, sought to enrich uranium, produced enough plutonium for half a dozen nuclear weapons, test-fired cruise missiles and developed intermediate range missiles, North Korea was rightly described by many of your Lordships as posing a serious threat to regional and world stability.
Beyond the secrecy and speculation about North Korea's ability to design and fabricate nuclear weapons, it is in no doubt that North Korea has hundreds of Scud missiles available for export. Revealingly, Libyan sources have recently claimed that they had weapons links with Pyongyang. The No Dong missiles have a range of 1,300 kilometres, and the Taepo Dong 2 system could have a range of up to 10,000 kilometres. That arsenal and tangled spider's web has made the world deeply wary of North Korea and entrenched the isolation of what was always known as the hermit kingdom.
The continuing six-party talks have not resolved those issues, but at least some of the sabre rattling and dangerous brinkmanship has been replaced by a desire to find a non-military solution. In parenthesis it might be worth adding that it is not unrealistic or fanciful to seek a Libyan outcome in North Korea. Engagement—though not appeasement— will unlock the door and remove one of the potential quartermasters of worldwide terror and allow economic and political reform to proceed. But is that a realistic approach?
Following our previous debate, with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox—who is currently visiting refugee camps on the Burma border and greatly regrets being unable to participate in the debate today—I had a frank exchange with North Korean diplomats. I asked whether we might travel to North Korea to raise our concerns directly. In September, that led to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and I visiting Pyongyang. We met senior officials, including Kim Yong Nam, the president of the Presidium, and Choe Tae Boc, the Speaker of their Assembly.
Outside Pyongyang, we went to Anju, 80 kilometres north of the capital and to the inaptly-named demilitarised zone at Panmunjom where, following the deaths of an estimated 2 million people during the Korean War, the 1953 armistice was signed. The Asian Wall that we saw at Panmunjom, which divides the two Koreas, deserves the same fate as the Berlin Wall that divided Europe.
294
On our return to the United Kingdom we published a report. I am grateful to the Jubilee Campaign and Christian Solidarity Worldwide for facilitating our travel and the report. In Washington, we subsequently presented our findings to members of Congress and discussed our conclusion that engagement is possible with the Assistant Secretary of State, James Kelly.
Last November, the All-Party Parliamentary British-North Korea Group, of which I am chairman, was created. In March, with the assistance of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, we welcomed Choe Tae Boc, North Korea's Speaker, who led the first such delegation to a western democracy. Detailed exchanges took place with Members of both Houses, including the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford, Lord Jopling, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, and my noble friend Lord Chan. Detailed discussions were held also at the Foreign Office with the Minister, Mr Bill Rammell. The delegation discussed religious liberties, at Lambeth Palace, with His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury.
It is therefore clear that I believe that hard-headed, Helsinki-style engagement is worthwhile. The Helsinki Final Act 1975 linked foreign policy to basic human rights principles. That measure recognised that increasing the pressure for human rights, in combination with a firm policy of military containment, could act as the catalyst for change.
The history of the DPRK suggests that mere threats will be counterproductive, inducing paranoia, isolationism and the destabilisation of the region. Nor should we underestimate the deep patriotism of North Koreans, their memories of Japanese occupation or their fear of what they perceive as enemies at every gate. However, the regime knows that the status quo is not an option. The DPRK now needs a face-saving exit strategy.
The alternative—that is, military engagement, possibly leading to nuclear conflagration—would be catastrophic for North and South Korea and their regional neighbours. During our discussions in Pyongyang, senior figures consistently stated their willingness to give up their nuclear programme and to accept a process of verification. They said that their conditions are a commitment to no first strike by either side and a pledge of peaceful coexistence. Surely nothing would be lost by testing the sincerity of that position.
We concluded that a peaceful outcome is possible; that the DPRK is exhausted; and that for the world community the present crisis is an unwelcome distraction at a time of confrontation with radical Islamic terrorist groups. In our report we also detail numerous "small steps" that could be taken. For instance, the US should be encouraged to establish a diplomatic presence in Pyongyang.
It was a concern about human rights that prompted our debate a year ago. These issues are not part of the six-party talks, but they are inextricably linked with the way in which North Korea is perceived in the West. Issues such as security have not gone away either. Last autumn, David Hawk produced a chilling report entitled The Hidden Gulag. In February, a BBC programme made disturbing claims about chemical weapons being tested on camp inmates. There are now concerns for the safety of Kang Pyong Sok, whose son gave damning evidence to the BBC.

295
On 1 March, at a meeting in Warsaw with North Korean refugees, I heard harrowing accounts that make for sobering reading. Professor Leon Kieres told that conference that,
"hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives in the camps",
and estimated that,
"about 150–200,000 prisoners are still being held in them".
One defector and prison inmate who had earlier served as part of the presidential bodyguard, Lee Young-Kuk, graphically described the degrading situation in prison. This was his testimony:
"From the very first day, the guards with their rifles beat me. I was trampled on mercilessly until my legs became swollen, my eardrums were shattered, and my teeth were all broken. They wouldn't allow us to sleep from 4 am till 10 pm and once while I was sleeping, they poured water over my head. Since the conditions within the prison were poor, my head became frostbitten from the bitter cold. As I was trying to recuperate from the previous mistreatment, they ordered me to stick out my shackled feet through a hole on my cell door, and then tortured them in almost every possible way. Not a single day passed without receiving some form of torture and agonizing experience".
Forced repatriation to these prisons, in breach of China's obligations under the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, has led to cruel treatment and even execution of repatriated refugees. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees is denied unimpaired access, both in the DPRK and in China. Only last week, the Jubilee Campaign reported that the Chinese shot dead a North Korean attempting to enter Mongolia. Seventeen others were arrested. At the Warsaw Conference organised by the Citizens' Alliance for North Korean Human Rights, Byyn Nanee described to me her treatment in China and how her brother was executed after repatriation.
When the Minister replies, perhaps she could say whether welcome reports that China may be about to allow safe passage of refugees directly to South Korea have been confirmed and whether Her Majesty's Government have pursued China over its failure to co-operate with the UNHCR. The Government deserve our congratulations on the role they played last Thursday, at the 2004 meeting of the UNHCR in Geneva. They ensured the passage of a resolution which was supported by 29 countries and raised serious concerns about human rights violations. The resolution also calls for the appointment of a special rapporteur to monitor the situation in the DPRK— something for which many Members of your Lordships' House have been calling. Perhaps the Minister can say when she expects the special rapporteur will be appointed and what the terms of reference will be.
Of course, North Korea disputes many of the accusations that have been laid at its door. However, its failure to allow independent inspection makes it impossible to separate fact from fiction.
Many of your Lordships have rightly expressed concern about the treatment of religious minorities in the DPRK. On a positive note, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and I were able to visit the Protestant church of Bongsu and the Catholic cathedral of Jangchong. The opening of a Protestant seminary at Bongsu is extremely welcome, as is the construction of
296
an Orthodox church. However, no Catholic priest has been permitted in the country for more than 50 years and there are no diplomatic relations with the Holy See. At Anju, we were moved to learn from Mrs Kim. the mayor, of a Catholic church destroyed half a century ago in the ruins of which believers have continued until this day to meet weekly.
Throughout our visit we persisted in raising cases such as that of the Rev Dong-shik Kim and that of Reverend Ahn Seung Woon—a South Korean pastor who was working in China when he was abducted by North Korean agents. Reverend Woon was shown on North Korean TV but has not been seen since 1995. Reverend Kim disappeared in January 2000 after assisting some North Korean refugees. To date we have not received a response from the DPRK about the fate of either of those clergymen, but those abductions, and those of several Japanese civilians, have soured relations and impeded political progress. If the DPRK truly wants an end to international isolation and, ultimately, reunification with South Korea, it will have to realise that that can come about only by the creation of more openness, more tolerance and an end to such violations.
I turn finally to the humanitarian crisis in North Korea. United Nations officials told the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and myself that there is "an unlimited need" for healthcare. They said that following food shortages and famine—an estimated 2 million people have died in North Korea over the past decade—
"there arc not many elderly people left in the DPRK".
They said that in the north-east, on the border with China, orphaned children whose parents had died in the famine were living on the streets—"street swallows" as young as seven years old.
DPRK officials told us that their daily food target per person is just 600 grams of rice. They manage to provide a meagre 350–400 grams each day per person. Food should never be used as a weapon of war. The World Food Programme says that, by and large, food is reaching those for whom it is intended. To those especially in the United States who have been arguing that humanitarian aid in the form of food should be withdrawn, I say that that would be the wrong approach. Surely we can welcome the presence of about 50 independent monitors now assessing food delivery. If we do not tackle the humanitarian crisis and ensure the flow of food, the flow of migrants and refugees from the country certainly will not be abated.
Emergency aid should be complemented by development aid. A priority should be small, micro projects such as the water irrigation and purification programme established by the Irish aid agency, Concern, that we saw at Anju, and which has dramatically improved rice yields.
The DPRK has specifically asked that students should come to the United Kingdom, and I welcome the links that are being developed with Cambridge University. The British Council should open an office in Pyongyang and meet the huge demand for English as a foreign language, which could form an important

297
part of a small steps strategy. It also strikes me that we are brandishing a great many sticks when some carrots might be equally well deployed.
Economic initiatives such as the proposed railway to link the north and the south should be expedited, and passenger transport as well as cargo should be encouraged. This would inspire confidence as well as family reunification and social cohesion.
As their Speaker's delegation learnt during a visit to Cambridge Science Park, there are huge opportunities for economic development and co-operation between Britain and North Korea. But all this is impeded by the stalemate over security and human rights concerns. Investors and non-governmental organisations are wary of an uncertain future. Surely many more would come if those key questions were resolved.
This has been a brief summary of the security, human rights, refugee and humanitarian issues facing North Korea. As Speaker Choe Tae Boc was leaving the recent meeting in the IPU Room here at Westminster, a South Korean student approached him. She told him that he was the first North Korean that she had ever met. Rather movingly, he told her, "You are my daughter-. Sometimes human encounter underlines the consequence of painful divisions. At Panmunjom, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and I remarked that more of our political energies should be deployed in building bridges rather than walls.
North Korea is often described as "the land that never changes". Yet, the president of its Presidium, Kim Yong Nam, told us—I use his words—that,
"change can take place more quickly than we might have thought possible".
It is my strong belief that we should encourage that spirit and use the not inconsiderable expertise and influence of our own country to help North Korea to make a peaceful transition. I beg to move for Papers.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, once again this House has reason to be grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Alton of Liverpool, for providing noble Lords with the opportunity to debate the situation in North Korea. I should like also to thank both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for the final report of the delegation visit made last September to North Korea, which is well worth reading. In addition, I should like to place on the record my thanks to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for making possible the recent visit and meeting that took place here in Westminster with Mr Choe Thae Boc, chairman of what I understand is the Supreme People's Assembly. In my view, that meeting was both useful and cordial, showing a way to achieve proper discussion about some of the matters that concern us here. They were debated openly and face to face.
I want to concentrate on one particular aspect of' the human rights abuses in North Korea; namely, the fate of North Korean defectors who escape into China, but who are then repatriated. Obviously the fact that the Chinese Government seem happy to repatriate them to face an uncertain future in their own country is very worrying,
298
but that issue belongs to another debate for another day. This debate seeks to concentrate on North Korea and I want to focus on the fate of such people once they are repatriated to their home country.
The NGO, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, has interviewed many survivors from North Korea. From these testimonies and from other accounts, it is clear that people who escape from the brutal regime in North Korea, but who are then caught and sent back, suffer very severely. All are interrogated, most are beaten and tortured, and some are executed.
I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will share my concern about the case of Mr Kang Byong-sop. He is the source of the documents on chemical experimentation on political prisoners which were featured on the BBC film, "Access to Evil", shown in February this year. In September 2003, Mr Kang, his wife and his younger son managed to escape from North Korea into China. However, when on 3 January this year they attempted to flee into Laos, they were caught by Chinese border guards.
Since China has a very dishonourable record of sending captured North Korean refugees back to North Korea, it was immediately apparent to human rights groups that Mr Kang was in great danger. Sure enough, he appears to have been handed back to the North Korean Government at some point before the end of March. He has subsequently appeared at what seems to have been a stage-managed press conference in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang, along with his family. Human rights representatives now fear for their safety. I therefore urge Her Majesty's Government to make strong representations to the North Korean authorities with regard to this particular case. It is clear, imperative, urgent and understandable. In their own way, our Government could make some difference to this case.
I should like to bring before noble Lords another case, that of the family of Lee Young Kuk. Mr Lee was a bodyguard to the North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. However, he became disillusioned with life in the dictatorship and, in 1994, he escaped to China. He was captured by the North Koreans through a deliberate ruse and taken back to North Korea after having been bound and drugged. What happened to him once back in North Korea is a salutary reminder of the sort of fate that awaits repatriated North Koreans.
He was held in Pyongyang for six months in an underground detention cell by the bo-wi-bu police from the National Security Agency. He was subjected to kneeling torture by being made to kneel motionless for hours at a time, not even turning his head. He was also subjected to water torture, being held down by five or six agents who poured water into his mouth and nose until he gagged and almost suffocated. He was also severely beaten on the shins, eyes, ears, head and mouth. Six of his teeth and one of his eardrums were broken. Years later, he still suffers from double vision in his left eye and his shins remain damaged.
Mr Lee believes that his torture was intended solely as a punishment for having fled to China. There was certainly no further information for the North Korean

299
police to beat out of him as he had openly criticised the North Korean regime when he was in Beijing. At the time he thought that he was talking to a South Korean diplomat, although his confidante turned out to be a North Korean.
Mr Lee was then sent to a labour camp where he quarried stones for 14 hours a day for four years. Eventually he was released, and in 1999 he escaped once again into China and, finally, into South Korea.
One of the particularly insidious aspects of the regime in North Korea is that it implements a policy of guilt by association, under which relatives are punished, often harshly, for the supposed misdemeanours of individuals. Mr Lee is therefore very worried about his family members still in North Korea, in particular his mother, Park San-Ok, his 13 year-old son, Ri Sung-kwang and 12 year-old daughter, Ri Sun-kyung, and his four sisters, Ri Geum-soon, Ri Kyng-hee, Ri Bok-hee and Ri Sung-hee. Through the NGO, Mr Lee has asked specifically for the British Government to make representations on their behalf and I hope that, if I pass on the details to my noble friend on the Front Bench, she will take this forward.
Concerns about the policy of forced repatriation are referred to in the excellent report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, after their visits. It is well worth reading. It states:
"We also know of the harsh consequences for anyone repatriated to North Korea who has attempted to go to a third country. Those consequences include execution".
After setting out a list of people, they detail the way that refugees, especially those coming through from the humanitarian aid agencies, have been treated.
Even as we speak, there are other North Korean refugees in China who are also in danger of being repatriated. One of these is Mr Park Young-chol, whose alias is Jo Yong-su. Mr Park was arrested on 18 January 2003 after being involved in helping the attempted escape of North Korean refugees from China by boat. On 22 May 2003, a court in Yantai in Shantung Province sentenced Mr Park and four others to terms of imprisonment. Mr Park received a sentence of two years' imprisonment and a fine of 5,000 RMB.
Mr Park is currently in Wei Fang prison, but it appears that he may now be released on 1 May. He has expressed his absolute terror as the release date approaches. He believes that he will be repatriated to North Korea, which he describes as a "death sentence". Indeed, accounts of the treatment of those who have been repatriated would support his assessment. As I alluded to earlier, many who have returned with much lesser offences chalked up against them have been subjected to horrific torture and execution.
The Government have done wonderful things—as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, we should recognise that they have tried very hard—but I would implore them to continue to put human rights at the heart of their stated foreign policy. The North Koreans must be left in no doubt that if they want to be accepted into the world community they must stop this inhuman treatment of refugees who are forcibly repatriated.
300
I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, once again, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool on securing this important debate regarding a country that causes grave concern for global peace and security.
As secretary of the British-North Korean All-Party Parliamentary Group, I particularly welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate—all the more so, as my noble friend said, as it was only in mid-March that a delegation of North Koreans, led by the Chairman of the Supreme People's Assembly, Mr Chae Thae Bok, visited the United Kingdom. It was a tremendous opportunity to open the eyes of the parliamentarians of the DPRK Parliament—which meets for only two days a year—to the workings of our parliamentary system. It was also an opportunity for them to understand our concern about certain issues in their country.
Earlier this month I was in Geneva for a meeting of the United Nations Commission for Human Rights, at which I chaired a session. I welcome the commission's decision to appoint a special rapporteur on human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Having voted in favour of the resolution, I am sure that Her Majesty's Government also welcome this appointment.
In view of the reports from my noble friend Lord Alton and the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, I hope that the special rapporteur will be able to pay close attention to the conditions in North Korean prisons. I hope that in her response to the debate the Minister will tell the House that Her Majesty's Government will be offering support to the special rapporteur and his staff to gain access to North Korean prisons in order to assess humanitarian needs, to conduct interviews with inmates and to hold meetings with prison authorities.
The United Nations resolution also requests that the special rapporteur should seek credible reports on human rights from all relevant people inside and outside North Korea. These, of course, will include defectors who are now living outside the DPRK. Given that some of the most serious reports recently emerging from North Korea concern the lethal testing of chemical weapons on human beings, I look forward to Her Majesty's Government giving support to the special rapporteur and his staff to investigate these reports fully and to gain access to sites within North Korea where tests are alleged to have occurred or are occurring.
As regards the issue of North Korean refugees in China, because of what has been said so far I shall focus on only one incident. Only last week I was asked to bring to the attention of Her Majesty's Government the case of Mr Park Yong-choi, also known as Jo Yong-su, a North Korean who was arrested and sentenced in China but now faces repatriation and likely execution in his home country. Mr Park was arrested on 18 January 2003 in connection with the

301
attempted escape of North Korean refugees by boat. On 22 May last year, a court in Yantai, in Shantung Province, China, sentenced him and four others to terms of imprisonment. Mr Park received a sentence of two years' imprisonment and a fine of 5,000 Chinese yuan.
It appears that Mr Park may now be released on I May. He has expressed his absolute terror at the approach of his release date because he believes that he will be repatriated to North Korea to face torture and then execution. Mr Park is now in Wei Fang prison, some five hours' drive from Yantai airport in Shantung Province in north China.
His co-defendant, Mr Choi Yong-hun, was also transferred to Wei Fang prison in mid-January this year. Choi is a South Korean sentenced to five years' imprisonment. His case has received some attention in South Korea. As a result he has been able to send letters to his family. In a recent letter to his wife, Choi mentioned Mr Park's possible release on 1 May and asked for intervention on Park's behalf. Choi states that the thought of what may happen to Park in North Korea torments him so badly that he sometimes contemplates suicide.
According to the reply to a Written Question that I put to the Minister, some 20,000 Chinese students have entered the United Kingdom to enrol in further and higher education. Given the better and improving relations between Britain and the People's Republic of China, I call upon Her Majesty's Government to enter into discussions with the Chinese Government about the situation of North Korean refugees in China.
I am well aware that the Chinese Government turn a blind eye to the torture of religious minorities in China. The case of the abducted pastors was referred to by my noble friend Lord Alton. I ask only whether Her Majesty's Government will continue to inquire of the DP RK what has happened to the two ministers of religion—the Reverend Ahn Seung Woon and the Reverend Kim Dong Shik —both of whom have disappeared without a trace over the past few years.
I hope that the Government will take up this difficult issue with a country which has only recently been open enough to allow a delegation to visit here and one party of British parliamentarians to visit North Korea. From what I heard when I was around the table with Mr Chae, he believes that the United Kingdom is the best friend of the North Koreans in the West. I heard a similar statement made by Mr Hu Jintao when he was Vice-President of China and visited Britain three years ago. Given the great hope and statements made about the reputation of the United Kingdom Government, I have no doubt that they can intervene successfully.
3.49 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Edmundsbury and Ipswich: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on his dedication and particularly his persistence in bringing the situation in North Korea to your Lordships' House, including the
302
appalling details which we have heard. I also applaud his commitment to engagement and to his "small step strategy".
Despite the huge development in the mass media, it seems that human beings cannot take in a very wide canvas. Consequently, the current focus on Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the so-called war on terror diverts attention from other places of acute suffering. At the same time, such regimes as that in North Korea are acutely conscious—paranoid may not be too strong a word—about the perceived attitudes of other countries towards them and, in the case of North Korea, particularly the perceived attitude of the United States.
When I contacted Canon John Peterson, the Secretary-General of the Anglican Communion this week about his last visit to the Korean peninsula, he said that the National Council of Churches in Korea was very eager for him to go to North Korea and felt that an initiative from the Anglican Communion would have been helpful, particularly in relation to justice and peace issues. However, the visit was not to be. The barrier was possibly because of the timing, which was shortly after Mr Bush's famous "axis of evil" pronouncements in his State of the Union address. The National Council of Churches in Korea was hoping that a visit from the Anglican Communion might have dispelled some of the fear that resulted from that speech. But the same fear denied the opportunity for a visit.
As with so many severely repressive regimes, fear plays a major part, not just in terms of what the regime inflicts on its people but also in what motivates the regime in feeding its insularity and, at times, its paranoia. It is because of this that the visit of the parliamentary delegation to North Korea in September of last year was so important. It may have achieved even more than it realised.
Nothing can replace the meeting of human beings with each other, and I think the delegation should be congratulated on its determination not to shy away from critical questions, as well as its ability to identify ways in which practical help can be given. It has been able to come back and tell a real story at first hand. Much of that story is totally shocking, as we have heard this afternoon, but much of it is also hugely hopeful. It is especially encouraging to read about and hear about the brave and courageous people who have worked for justice and peace over many years, especially the martyrs—many thousands of them—who have died for their faith and beliefs and in the service of the Korean people.
In the debate of March of last year in your Lordships' House, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said that she hoped that our own Churches would give greater recognition than has been given so far to the martyrs of Korea. I hope that our Churches will take that plea to heart. The stories need to be told and retold, not just to honour those who have died but to give hope to those who currently suffer so that they know that their history as well as their suffering is acknowledged and celebrated.

303
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, a return delegation from North Korea came to this country last month and was able to meet with the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. He presented members of the delegation with, among other things, Bibles in their own language. Something of the response of the delegation can be gauged from its invitation to the most reverend Primate to visit North Korea. These are hopeful steps.
Another step would be the reopening of an American embassy in North Korea. Even during the Cold War, the United States retained their diplomatic presence in other countries. Such a presence in North Korea could be an important means of progress at this time and might promote more understanding and less fear.
In focusing on hopeful ways forward, we should not lose sight of the situation on the ground for very many in North Korea who suffer acutely. Repatriation from China, as has been mentioned—and, last week, even repatriation from South Korea—means an almost certain threat of death.
I am sure that our thoughts and prayers are with those who suffer and die in North Korea, but also with those who work so courageously for justice and change, including members of our own government.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, we last debated this subject just over a year ago, thanks to my noble friend Lord Alton, to whom we are again indebted. I am not clear, however, whether there has been real progress since then, among either the neo-Stalinists of North Korea or the neo-conservatives of Washington. I therefore invite the Minister to say whether, in her view, some real détente has occurred, whether there has been any progress on missiles and nuclear weapons or, indeed, on the equally important subject of the control of export of small arms. Has the persecution and discrimination against religious believers in North Korea eased at all?
A year ago, we spoke about the need for multilateral dialogue. The Minister said then that she was in touch with British and international NGOs. Have they, in fact, been drawn into the conversations with the North Korean Government? Surely this is wholly desirable, since perhaps they could make some headway where governments may not yet have access.
I quoted the Statement on Principles for US and North Korean Relations drawn up by a distinguished group of American citizens in January 2003. Has anything come of that, I wonder? It seems to have strong affinities with the Helsinki process of the 1970s and 1980s. Have the Government discussed this statement with the United States?
I should now like to look in rather more detail at the situation of refugees and others leaving North Korea. The combination of food shortages and famines with harsh political and religious persecution have forced many people to flee. Some seek temporary respite, others permanent refuge. Because it is very difficult to
304
cross the demilitarised zone into South Korea or to escape by sea, most fugitives go to China. There, if found, they are automatically treated as illegal economic migrants. Some are fined and/or imprisoned for one to two years. All, sooner or later, are sent back to North Korea where, as has been said, they face torture, forced labour and possibly death. The best estimate seems to be that up to 300 people per week are being sent back by China to North Korea without— and this is the important point—any determination of their status.
My noble friend Lord Alton and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, raised this matter by letter with the Department of Foreign Affairs in Beijing last September. So far, they have had no reply, although they submitted the names and details of more than 100 persons either sent back or still held in China.
I would like to raise the case of the Reverend Ahn Seung Woon, already mentioned by my noble friend. Nothing is known about the fate of this man in North Korea following his abduction. His wife, three children and four grandchildren are obviously deeply concerned. Will the Government discuss this case with the North Korean Government? Will they also raise with China the cases of two aid workers, one clergyman and one journalist, all from South Korea, arrested in January 2003 in connection with the Yantai boat people? Their names are known and have been or will be submitted to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.
The arrest and sentencing of the journalist is thought to breach China's obligations under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Her Majesty's Government might well point out in connection with this that Japanese citizens arrested in China for communicating with or helping North Korean refugees have generally been released after a mere three weeks' detention.
Wider issues of international obligations also arise. China has ratified the 1951 convention on the status of refugees and the 1967 protocol. In addition, it signed a bilateral treaty on 1 December 1995 with the UNHCR providing unimpeded access to refugees within China. The Chinese Government are in clear breach of their obligations, because they consistently fail to determine the status of North Koreans found on their territory. Will the Government therefore raise this matter on all possible occasions bilaterally in their human rights dialogue with China and in the United Nations at other international circles?
Your Lordships should note the extreme paradox whereby China co-operates fully with the UNHCR over some 300,000 refugees from Vietnam in southern China, but refuses any protection—whether by its own activities or through the High Commissioner—to a further estimated 300,000 North Koreans also in China. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination formally recorded that fact in August 2001. This is yet another reason why the European Union should not lift its embargo on the export to China of weapons and military equipment. There can be no doubt that China's refusal to accept

305
its obligations is systematic and stems from the highest levels of decision making. The evidence for that lies in the arrest, sentencing and refoulement of North Koreans, not only in the border areas, but also on the frontiers of Mongolia and Vietnam, in Shanghai and Beijing, notably at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and at other foreign embassies.
I wish her Majesty's Government every possible success in their efforts to bring the Chinese to a better and more co-operative frame of' mind. Of course, that may take time. In the interim, however, there is another possibility for providing a safety valve for North Korea's internal problems. Russia has acknowledged that its far eastern provinces in the Pacific regions of Siberia are seriously underpopulated. They lack sufficient young people and key workers in certain industries, particularly as oil and gas production expand. Therefore, will the Government explore, perhaps in conjunction with the UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration, whether Russia would agree to accept some of those who wish to leave North Korea? That could make a real contribution to détente and might reduce the prison and labour camp population quite considerably. In any such discussions it will be essential to uphold the principle of family unity.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for sponsoring this debate and welcome the immensely valuable work that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others have been doing to try to build some personal links with this immensely difficult closed society. Everything that can he done to begin to give the authorities and the people of North Korea easier relations with the rest of the world and break down the barriers of fear, ignorance and insecurity that dominate their society is to be welcomed, and we appreciate how difficult that is.
A great deal has been said about the human rights situation there, about particular cases of human rights and about the problem of the Chinese treatment of refugees and economic migrants. I will focus on the regime itself and the possibilities of transition because, after all, the best way to improve the human rights situation in the long run is for North Korea to go through a relatively peaceful transition.
The most interesting and valuable phrase in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was his reference to the possibility of a Libyan outcome. If we can move in that direction slowly, there is some hope. After all, by any criteria, North Korea comes closest to the classic definition of a rogue state. I have always been very unhappy with the use of the term "rogue state". However, a state that is so closed off from the outside world, that makes its money by exporting missile technology, does its best to threaten its neighbours and, in effect, therefore lives by attempted blackmail of its neighbours, is a rogue state by any means.
We are aware of the evidence that the North Koreans have been extensive exporters of missile technology. They have a nuclear programme, although the degree of
306
development of that nuclear programme is contested. The Americans are convinced that it is fully developed, but those who have done their best to explore quite how far they have got with the plutonium process are not necessarily as convinced as the Bush administration claims to be. There have been allegations of heroin smuggling, and there are explicit threats to South Korea. There are immense problems.
North Korea is one of the relics of the Cold War, the only one that has not yet begun to change. Change might include confrontation and a move towards a military crisis that could include a break into conflict. I was in Seoul recently and was very conscious of how close it is to the border. For anyone in South Korea, the possibility of military conflict is a catastrophic alternative.
The second possible outcome is regime collapse. Clearly, the regime has come quite close to collapse over the past 10 years, especially during the famine. The third possible outcome, which we must try to promote if we can, would be some sort of relatively peaceful transition. The briefing that I read before this debate suggests that there are some signs of reform. They are very small, but at least they are better than we have seen over the past 15 to 20 years. There are suggestions that the economy, with some assistance from South Korean companies and others, is beginning to benefit from a relaxation of the old state socialist script and, clearly, as with the visit by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others, there is some greater degree of outside contact, with at least a half-opening towards Japan and elsewhere.
The South Korean approach, reinforced by the recent elections in South Korea that were an overwhelming victory for its current Prime Minister, is one that we should wish to promote as far as we can. We must recognise that the South Koreans are not interested in rapid unification. The sheer cost of that, especially on the German example, puts them off. Dialogue, engagement and an attempt to rebuild links between the two halves of Korea is very much the way in which they want to move forward.
To most of us, I suspect, the attitude of the Bush administration at present seems unhelpful. The hostile rhetoric of the Bush administration only reinforces the hardliners in North Korea who wish to resist change. The declaration of enmity makes it easier for them to argue that the world is hostile and that one should therefore resist contacts. The sense that one has from Vice-President Cheney and others is that—with reference to the quote from a former US President who warned against American foreign policy going out to the world to find monsters to destroy—there are those in the Pentagon who want to find monsters and set about destroying them. That would clearly risk disaster for the whole of the Far East.
The way forward must, I suggest, be multilateral—most of all through the six-party talks. In that respect, we must recognise that China is a very important player; it is unsatisfactory in human rights terms and in all sorts of other ways, but it is the outside state with the most influence in North Korea. It is therefore one

307
alongside which we must operate as far as we can, even while recognising that the Chinese attitude towards North Korean refugees is unhelpful.
I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the role of Russia. That country may play a useful role; after all, a significant Korean diaspora exists in Russia—and, incidentally, in Ukraine, Belarus and other countries—which may be of some assistance in helping a transition within North Korea. Russia thus has a legitimate role to play. As it is going through a period of transition from socialism to at least some form of semi-market economy and semi-democracy, it may have some useful role to play. So, too, does Japan. It is deeply unsatisfactory that the half-opening of the question of those who have been kidnapped has left a great deal of bitterness in Japan, but it has influence and leverage. The six-party talks must be the way forward.
The British response must be partly to recognise that we are only a secondary or tertiary player in this game and that our influence is best exerted through multilateral channels—the European Union, the UN and the Asia-Europe dialogue. After all, there will be an ASEM meeting later this year. Our influence may come through such areas as the UN Committee on Human Rights. There was an EU delegation visit to North Korea some months ago. There is a useful means of influence through the Europe-China dialogue and the UN is doing a certain amount that is very helpful in this regard.
As it happens, I know Masood Hyder, as he used to work for the British Government and my wife was his boss at the time, some 25 years ago. He has an extremely difficult job in North Korea, trying to maintain food aid and a positive role for the UN from the outside. We welcome what the United Kingdom Government have been doing in terms of support for food aid and humanitarian assistance. We hope that the Minister will tell us what more the British Government believe that we can do in that regard, recognising that there is a limit to what we can do on our own. We hope that we are promoting as much multilateral co-operation in this regard as possible.
When one thinks back to the speech that President Bush made about the axis of evil and the labels of rogue states, one can see some movement. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, Libya appears to be moving back towards the international community. Iran, in spite of continued hostility from the United States, appears to be playing a relatively positive role in Iraq. Iraq itself, sadly, is now in deep crisis. We have failed so far to rebuild the state after the invasion and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. Syria is still a problem for all of us. Again, European and American attitudes to how we bring Syria back into the international community have diverged painfully in many ways.
Then we have North Korea, on which European governments can only work with those in the region and, as far as we can, in influencing American policy, to assist towards a greater opening and a peaceful
308
transition. The aim must be gradually but eventually fully to bring North Korea, as with these other states, back into the international community.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we are indeed indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for promoting this debate. He has not only issued some fascinating reports and conducted visits with my noble friend Lady Cox to Pyong Yang, but maintained a vigorous after-sale service in arranging meetings here between visiting delegations of the DPRK and members of this House, and meetings with the DPRK ambassador. That forms an important part of the weave of dialogue, connections and contact, which must in turn be part of the longer term solution for this unhappy country in its unhappy position.
Last year, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who cannot be with us today, remarked that the UK had a relatively limited role in unravelling the North Korean problem. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who has enormous expertise in foreign affairs, said much the same thing. It is true that we are not in the front line of the six-party talks, as we are not one of the six parties. However, the reality is different.
In this age of the globalised network system, we are now living right next door to each other, and any threat anywhere in the network is a threat and danger to us immediately and directly here at home. That is the change from the past eras of international disorder. There is now no country on earth that is so far away that we can afford anything but the utmost vigilance. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, rightly said, however distant the origin of the problem seems to be, we must be ready to make a full contribution of ideas, skills and expertise to the resolution of problems that threaten aggressively to destabilise the global network, leading to a whole chain of consequences and to intimate and immediate horrors.
We have learnt, for instance, from the revelations of Dr Kahn's activities in Pakistan and from the Libyans in their new revelatory mood, just how intimate and interwoven the networks are that carry the sinister trade in nuclear weapons information and components, and other contributory components to weapons of mass destruction. I refer, too, to weapons of singular destruction—in other words, weapons which, when placed in the hands of even quite small terrorist organisations, can still inflict the most fearful damage on all our societies.
When the Prime Minister had his recent discussion with Mr Gaddafi and set up the consequent talks, with which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, has been involved—as she has been with other important Middle East and Maghreb developments—I hope that further discussion was encouraged on the network trade of the nuclear components and other dangerous products. I hope that we will learn a lot more about those matters as a result of the more open relationship which, it is to be hoped, we will have with Colonel Gaddafi and the Libyans.
The problem with North Korea is, in a way, even more serious than that. It is a nation that first signed and then flouted the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

309
That threatens us all directly. It threatens us just as much as does the irresponsible export of weapons for terrorist use or abuse or any kind of terrorist attack on Asian cities or other metropolises, however remote—it all comes straight hack to our own front doorstep. I accept that the NPT is not the best regime; in fact, it needs obvious revision, but it is all that we have. If the underlying discipline of that goes, or is allowed to slip away by turning blind eyes to what the North Koreans have done deliberately, we really are all slipping into a new dark age.
As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, asked in the debate last year, to which there have been several references—that debate was also promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Alton—what do we do now? Do we just make speeches at each other or is there a set of priorities that we can keep in front of us as we proceed in this very dangerous area? The first thing we do is what we are doing now, and what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, does all the time, which is keep up the human rights pressure. Steady and unremitting pressure and criticism, well informed and focused, about human rights abuses in a country such as North Korea are not, as some cynics say, just words and useless, well meaning utterances; pressure does pay off. We must never forget—I am sure that no one among your Lordships will ever forget—what the Helsinki process did to undermine eventually the confidence of the old Soviet regime and open the reform floodgates; indeed, with the result that the flood itself then swept away everything, reforms and all, and finally removed the whole odious apparatus of communist rule. It took a long time. At the time people said that it was hopeless but it worked, if only by the drip-drip process, to undermine the entire structure. That continues and all energies must be mobilised in this area as much as in other areas of international crisis which we now face.
Secondly—here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace—we should avoid some of the Messianic language coming out of Washington about axes of evil. In the past few days I have read some extraordinary things in the Herald Tribune, that have emerged at a high level in Washington, about America's God-given mission to sell freedom or whatever to every country on earth. I can understand the motivations but the whole tone, and the almost unthinking impulses which one fears lie behind that kind of tone, will not help to unravel and unpick the situation. It is precisely that kind of language that frightens the South Koreans who, after all, are only a missile's throw away from North Korea, and I am afraid has led to a remarkable degree of anti-American sentiment being uttered in Seoul, which is extraordinary when you think how over the years America has helped to safeguard the freedoms of the South Koreans. That is not the right way to proceed. If only we could in the delicate world of diplomacy somehow calm down some of our American friends' enthusiasms and concerns, we would all make a lot more progress.
I disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, when he made an analogy with the Berlin Wall situation. I do not make that analogy. I do not think that the situation we are discussing is at all comparable with the East German situation where, if your Lordships
310
remember, it was the East Germans themselves who broke through the wall surrounding them in order to escape from and, indeed, bring down their regime, which they did with amazing rapidity. I do not know whether that will happen in North Korea. Frankly, I do not think that it will, and I do not think that is the way that matters will proceed. If I may take issue slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, nor do I see the prospect of what he calls a "Libyan outcome". If a Libyan outcome means leaving in place the same old dictatorship and the same old regime but just putting on new clothes for the afternoon, as it were, we should be very suspicious, careful and cautious about that. However, I leave those matters there.
Thirdly, we must accept that China is really the key to the whole jigsaw. We may not want to accept it but it is. As your Lordships know, Kim Jong II visited China over the weekend. According to the Xinhua News Agency, he now says that he wants to resume the six-party talks, which I suppose is welcome. I think that it is welcome even though it is difficult to see progress until North Korea takes definite, positive steps to start closing down its plutonium reactor programme and its highly enriched uranium facilities. In trying to round up where we go on all this, we have to ask what China really needs and what will motivate it to use its undoubted strength and leverage to ensure that North Korea ends its era of threats, missiles over Japan, flouting of treaties and so on and begins to behave in a more responsible way.
Obviously, the first thing that China wants is not to have a hornet's nest on its doorstep. Things are very different from half a century ago at the time of the Korean War. The Chinese economy today is roaring ahead, some say much too fast, it may have to cool down a little, but in doing so it is transforming at least a large section of Chinese life and making the People's Republic of China a more and more significant player—in fact, a decisive player—in the global pattern of things. So, the Chinese interest today is in world stability, which means trading and financial stability and political stability, and it is growing all the time.
There are exceptions. The concern about Taiwan taking an independent course overrides even those concerns of the Chinese Government that I have mentioned, and the same goes for Tibet. There they seem to depart from the logical interests and prosperity of their own country and put these territorial issues above everything. I hope that that will not prove to be their attitude in relation to Hong Kong as well, where steps have been taken which make many people there extremely uneasy about whether the two-nations solution is going to be allowed to exist. I believe that a Question on that very matter will be debated in this House next week. Nevertheless, it is China that will decide just how fast progress is made in the six-party talks.
China controls 80 per cent of North Korea's fuel needs and could very easily bring the country to a standstill and, indeed, has threatened in the past to do so. That threat appears to work with the North Koreans, and, better than bringing them to a standstill, brings them to

311
reason and sense at the negotiating table. I hope that with our help, encouragement and discrete diplomatic efforts, that is what it will now do because not just Asian security and physical safety but our own security and physical safety will be directly threatened by failure on this whole front.
As the noble Baroness herself said in our debate last year, to make progress on human rights issues, about which we have heard so much in such graphic and proper detail in this debate, as we should always seek to do, we have to make progress on the nuclear issue as well; they go together. If we unravel the nuclear issue, the room for further progress on human rights will surely be enlarged. I agree very much with that line of thought and I hope that we can make progress on all those fronts because it is imperative that we do.
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for raising the question of North Korea in the House today. He did so in a characteristically measured and powerful address and, as we all know, he is, indeed, very thorough in his follow-up. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said about the after-sales service of the noble Lord, Lord Alton—it is, indeed, excellent.
Your Lordships have expressed a variety of concerns about North Korea's continued defiance of the international community in respect of both security and human rights. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said about the two being inextricably linked. However, as we discussed during our previous debate on this issue, one of the major difficulties that we face in our dealings with North Korea is the question of access to accurate and reliable information from a country that remains largely closed to contact from the outside world.
There are developments to report since our previous debate in March 2003, however. We have heard of some of them in this debate, and I hope to cover others. We saw the launch, in April last year, of the trilateral talks between China, the United States and North Korea to address the nuclear issue. That was expanded in August into a multilateral format—now commonly referred to, as noble Lords have, as the six-party talks—with the inclusion of Japan, South Korea and Russia. Progress is slow, but there is agreement for those multilateral talks to continue.
Sadly, since March 2003, allegations of human rights abuses have continued to emerge more frequently and alarmingly. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights is strongly focused on how to address those issues. As we heard, only last week a second resolution on the DPRK, sponsored by the European Union, was agreed by a substantial majority at the Commission. Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation for millions of ordinary North Korean citizens is extraordinarily bleak. I would like to cover those areas, and in doing so I shall try to cover some of the focused questions raised by noble Lords.
312
The noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Howell of Guildford, referred in quite a lot of detail to the six-party talks. Of course, we welcome the establishment of a multilateral process to resolve the nuclear issue. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked exactly what progress was being made. So far, there have been two plenary meetings of the six parties, hosted by the Chinese in Beijing in August 2003 and February 2004. The first meeting agreed the two objectives of the process—the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, and the resolution of the issue peacefully through dialogue. The second meeting established a working group to discuss the next steps in greater detail. The working group has yet to convene but will do so before the next plenary meeting, which should take place by the end of June this year.
It should not surprise any of us that progress has been slow. It is likely to continue to be very much uphill work. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred to a number of the complex issues which the six-party talks process will need to address before any comprehensive and durable settlement can be reached, but I shall highlight some of those. They include: whether North Korea is genuinely committed to achieving the objective of a denuclearlised peninsula; how to address the difficulties of verification; and whether North Korea tells the truth about the existence of its highly enriched uranium programme, as well as its plutonium-based programme.
As we consider the prospects for the talks process, we hope that it will provide an opportunity to bring greater clarity and some really practical steps which need to be taken to achieve a more stable and secure environment for the Korean peninsula. Specifically, Her Majesty's Government hope that it will aim to clarify understanding of the security assurances which the other parties may offer to North Korea in the context of the complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantling of its nuclear weapons programmes. That sort of assurance process will have an enormous effect. The talks should aim to pin down exactly what the scope of the dismantling should be.
The talks should also address the very important subject of verification. The particular issues on that will be North Korean readiness to submit all their nuclear programmes to international verification, and how the international community can have confidence in any verification system that can be agreed with North Korea. The DPRK must come clean on its highly enriched uranium-based programme—on which I am afraid that North Korea continues very much to equivocate—as well as on the plutonium based programme, which it readily avows.
As the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Howell, reminded us, the UK is not a party to the six-party talks. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, also said, there are a number of ways in which we can contribute to the success of the process. I agreed very strongly with what the noble Lord. Lord Howell, said about our having a real responsibility to add our voice to the argument. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a depository state for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, with all its drawbacks,

313
and a major EU country—one which has diplomatic relations with all six countries involved in the talks—our support for the process is valued by all participants. We speak to all the participants, including the North Koreans, regularly and at a high level.
Our position on the nuclear issue remains clear. We fully support the efforts of the six-party talks process to achieve complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantli ng—CVID—in North Korea. We believe that the six-party process provides the best opportunity to find a comprehensive and durable solution to the issue. It is important that the talks process produces an agreement acceptable to all six participants. After all, they have most at stake in what is going on.
Over the past year, we have again stressed to the North Koreans that real security and, very importantly, prosperity can come only from co-operation and integration with the international community. We have reminded the North Koreans that the United States has stated repeatedly that it has no intention of attacking the DPRK, and that it is prepared to participate in offering North Korea assurances about its security. It is important that we reinforce that message bilaterally with the North Koreans. We continue to inform them that their pursuit of a nuclear weapons programmes, and their continued defiance of the international community, will lead to greater isolation. It is therefore in their own security interests, as well as the interests of regional stability, to dismantle their nuclear weapons programmes promptly and in a way that can be verified.
Those messages have been given clearly at ministerial level on two occasions over the past year by my honourable friend Mr Rammell, the Minister who has responsibility for Asia. He also remains in close contact on the issue with his counterparts in the USA.
The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Wallace of Saltaire. referred to the Libyan example. We have encouraged North Korea to look very carefully at Libya's recent decision to dismantle its WMD programmes. The two countries are obviously enormously different, and we do not claim that there is a "one size fits all" solution to nuclear proliferation. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that North Korea can and should draw a lesson and encouragement from the Libyan example.
Dialogue that has taken place both before and since Libya's announcement on 19 December has shown what can be achieved once a strategic decision to come clean about what is really going on has been made. Libya's actions since 19 December serve as an example to others. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the Libyans demonstrate what can be achieved in a short time, given co-operation from all sides. They show that problems of proliferation can be tackled. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was right: we have to go on trying to unravel the web of proliferation around the world.
The noble Lord was also quite right to refer to the issues around Dr A Q Khan. The recent revelations in the media concerning the relationship between Pakistan and North Korea have been very illuminating. It was reported that
314
A Q Khan visited North Korea and was allegedly shown three nuclear warheads. However, in the absence of a comprehensive inspection, which the North Koreans refuse, it is very difficult to know the real accuracy of such reports. If true, they would not significantly affect our own assessment of what has been known for some time—that North Korea has sufficient material for one or two nuclear weapons, and the technical capability to construct the weapons itself.
It is interesting that Dr Khan admitted, on Pakistani national television, that he had passed nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. The activities of Dr Khan's network of suppliers were directed towards provision of uranium enrichment centrifuges—the very equipment that North Korea denies having.
Let me turn to human rights, as all noble Lords' speeches concentrated on that important issue. Of course Her Majesty's Government share the concerns expressed, and it is particularly frustrating that North Korea refuses to provide direct evidence about the human rights situation there. Yet we continue to hear more and more reports about the systematic abuse of human rights. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead, many of the reports come from the many North Korean refugees who flee across the Chinese border. The reports are so similar, regular and numerous that their credibility is difficult to dispute, yet North Korea simply responds to such reports with flat denials.
Earlier this year, we heard new and deeply disturbing reports that political prisoners in North Korea, including children, were being subjected to chemical experiments. Those reports were outlined in the horrific BBC documentary "Access to Evil", shown in February, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to earlier in today's debate and which we discussed at Question Time shortly after the broadcast.
Her Majesty's Government were quick to raise these reports with the North Korean Government, both in London and in Pyongyang. I know that a number of noble Lords have also put their concerns directly to North Korean representatives, most recently, as we heard, during the visit to London by the chairman of the DPRK Supreme People's Assembly, Chae Thae Bok. My honourable friend Mr Rammell also raised these issues directly with Mr Chae, expressing our deep concerns. But on every occasion, in response to these queries, the North Koreans flatly denied the allegations. These denials are simply not credible while North Korea declines to co-operate with the mechanisms that exist in the international community for monitoring the observance of human rights. We have not just called on the North Koreans to cooperate. We have set out very clearly and simply the steps that the North Koreans must now take.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded us, last week the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva passed its second resolution on the human rights situation in North Korea. As last year, the resolution was passed with a substantial majority. Indeed, 29 out of the

315
53 members of the commission voted in favour of the resolution. I am happy to say that that was one more than last year. It is disappointing that China did not feel able to vote for the resolution. It is perhaps not surprising that Zimbabwe also voted against. The resolution detailed the deep concerns of the international community regarding the systematic and widespread violations, requested the appointment of a UN special rapporteur and called upon the North Korean authorities to co-operate fully with him. In answer to the specific question asked about this, the appointment date and exact terms of reference of the special rapporteur have yet to be decided. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Chan, that the special rapporteur will receive the full co-operation of Her Majesty's Government.
As we have heard, this issue is being pursued by the UK-DPRK All-Party Parliamentary Group. We welcomed the launch of that group last autumn and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on it and thank the noble Lord, Lord Chan, for all his work on behalf of that group. I am glad that together we can ensure that North Korea receives very clear messages about human rights: to admit independent monitors; to comply with international human rights instruments; and to co-operate with the international community. For a country that has for so many years kept itself deliberately isolated from the international community, these may be very difficult messages to digest but I strongly agree with the right reverend Prelate that they must continue to be delivered vigorously to the North Koreans. However, I am bound to say that at this stage I can see no great encouragement to believe that the North Koreans will be any more responsive than they have been in the recent past.
We need to pursue the issue of religious freedom, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Clarke, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the right reverend Prelate. Despite some positive signs that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, identified during his visit, he is right to conclude that there continues to be no real freedom for North Korean citizens to follow the religion of their choice. Indeed, there is not even the freedom to access information on the range of international religious beliefs.
We will continue to urge the North Korean Government to look at the mechanisms available, through the UNCHR, for special rapporteurs. We shall also take up the cases. We are aware of the two South Korean pastors, Kim Dong Shik and Ahn Seung Woon, which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chan. The resolution that was adopted touched upon the important question of religious freedom. We strongly support that resolution and, in answer to the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, we will ask our ambassador in Pyongyang to raise the matter with the North Korean authorities.
Let me turn to the question of DPRK refugees, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead and about which the noble Lord, Lord Chan, spoke so persuasively. North Koreans are now fleeing their homeland in greater numbers than ever. Since 1953, less than 5,000 North Koreans have
316
escaped to the Republic of Korea in the south via China, yet more than 1,200 of those left during the past year or so. The number has risen dramatically over the past few years. The Chinese authorities have in the past viewed most DPRK escapees as economic migrants and have forcibly repatriated them to North Korea. We, together with other members of the international community, have expressed our deep concern to the Chinese authorities about the detention, treatment and forced repatriation of DPRK refugees. We will continue to encourage China, through dialogue, to allow safe onward passage to those North Koreans fleeing their own country to escape an existence that is, in every sense, miserable.
We are aware of the case of Mr Park raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chan. The European Commission has recently suggested that the EU should raise the matter urgently with the Chinese authorities and this is now under consideration by the EU presidency.
On the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about asking the Chinese to allow safe passage to South Korea, we too have seen press reports from South Korea saying that the Chinese are prepared to allow refugees safe passage direct to South Korea, but there is as yet no confirmation of these reports. I assure the noble Lord that we will continue to seek clarification of that position and I hope that that assurance covers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
The humanitarian situation in North Korea also remains extraordinarily bleak and depressing. The North Koreans have just endured another very harsh winter and there are severe food shortages. Again, the North Korean Government deny any responsibility for the situation. They say that the shortfall in the provision of food aid is again linked directly to political factors. They say that the country has been unable to recover fully from a series of natural disasters in the 1990s. They do not say that economic mismanagement is to blame, which it is. They do not say that donor agencies have been denied access to parts of the country to assess the needs of the population, and they have been denied that access.
North Koreans are brought up to believe that they live in a socialist paradise where everything they need will be provided by the Government. Yet the Government cannot feed the people. The World Food Programme estimates that almost 6 million North Koreans require food aid to meet the recommended daily calorie intake and only 52 per cent of the population of some 23 million people are thought to have access to safe drinking water.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked what the United Kingdom is doing. The UK currently has no bilateral development programme for North Korea but the Department for International Development has been active in addressing some of these issues through other agencies. For example, DfID contributes some 19 per cent of the budget of the European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office and in 2003 DflD's contribution was in the region of 2 million euros. On top of that, DfID recently agreed to contribute £1 million to UNICEF's work on

317
water, sanitation and primary healthcare. In January, DfID contributed £680,000 to a project run by the European Commission to provide emergency nutritional support for malnourished children and pregnant and nursing mothers. I understand that DID will provide further support in relation to flood prevention work later this year.
I shall cover one more point before I wind up. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about cultural links. I thought his point about taking small steps to try to improve the bilateral relationship was very persuasive. I am pleased to say that the British Council already has a presence in Pyongyang. There is an important English language project already running with British Council teachers based in three universities in North Korea. I can give the noble Lord details of it at a later date if he is interested.
Addressing the problems caused by, and suffered by, North Korea is uniquely difficult because of the lack of information. It is a country that refuses to co-operate at any level and refuses to integrate with the rest of the international community. The North Korean Government unashamedly proliferate missiles, yet they ask for economic and technical assistance. They blame anybody but themselves for the country's misfortune, isolation and economic decline, yet they ask for help in food, healthcare and education. It denies all the allegations which are so clearly chronicled of human rights abuse, yet refuses to admit any inspectors to verify the situation. The effect of so many years of economic mismanagement and ideological falsehoods cannot be undone rapidly.
But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that we have to pursue a patient, peaceful and diplomatic path in encouraging North Korea to rejoin the rest of the international community. Once the nuclear issue has been satisfactorily resolved, we will be able to pursue our bilateral efforts more vigorously to the benefit of the North Korean people who are currently suffering so very badly.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, in keeping with the after-sales service attributed to me during the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and the Minister, it falls to me to conclude our debate. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in our proceedings for sharing with us their insights about how to resolve the security issues posed by North Korea and for their account of the plight of refugees and detainees.
The 2005 resolution at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, referred to by the Minister, has been the backdrop for our debate. Like your Lordships' speeches, it underlines that the world community is far from indifferent to the events in North Korea. But we have also made it abundantly clear that we are willing to engage as well as to criticise. I am especially grateful to the Minister and to her officials for the approach they have adopted. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BBC Charter
4.51 p.m.
Lord Barnettrose to call attention to the BBC charter renewal; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome all colleagues who have decided to participate in the debate, particularly the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich who is to make his maiden speech. We look forward to hearing it.
I should declare a past interest as vice-chairman of the BBC and for three months acting chairman in rather better circumstances than the current ones. I want to make clear at the start that I sought the debate because I care passionately about the need for a truly independent BBC—independent from government; independent from advertisers; independent from sponsors; and, above all, independent from the many siren voices we heard particularly after the publication of the Hutton report.
The Hutton report brought many of these issues to a head, especially when charter renewal is being considered. Let me say at once that I agreed with much of the criticism of the BBC. Indeed, immediately after Gilligan had made his very serious charge that Alastair Campbell had fraudulently changed a major document to justify sending British troops to be killed in a war in Iraq. I telephoned a senior executive at the BBC. I told him that while I was personally opposed to going to war, I did not believe they could possibly have evidence to justify the claim made by Mr Gilligan. It was so serious a charge, they should immediately issue an apology.
As we know, that advice was rejected. But while my advice was rejected, I believe that the Hutton report would have been better balanced if there had been some perfectly justifiable criticism of the Government, especially the MoD and Alastair Campbell in particular. I fear that Alastair Campbell's over-the-top and non-stop attacks on the BBC led to the seriously misjudged and ill-informed response by the BBC. Let me say that if I had been wrongly accused of such a serious charge, I, too—while, I hope, not being an Alastair Campbell—would have been very angry, to put it mildly. Sadly, this all led to the resignation of an excellent chairman and director general. The resignations were inevitable, in my view, following a bad piece of journalism and, more importantly, had and inadequate management of that seriously flawed journalistic charge.
These flaws must of course be eradicated; indeed, I hope that the necessary changes have already been made or will be soon. But Hutton should not, and must not, be allowed to determine the future of an independent BBC and the renewal of its charter. We now have a new chairman-elect, Michael Grade, and I offer him my congratulations and best wishes in a difficult job. He does not need to look back as far as Reith for an example of good management of the BBC. He need look no further than the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, with whom I worked closely for seven years. I am confident that Michael Grade will be strongly resistant to pressure from government—not

319
that the present Government would bring any pressure to bear on the board of governors of the BBC—and any other source seeking to undermine the vital independence of the BBC.
Most will agree with me that it has not stopped views being expressed on governance during the current debate on renewal of the charter. Some of those views, if implemented on renewal of the charter, could have serious consequences for the very independence of the BBC that everyone professes to support. Let me take a few of the more serious proposals that have been suggested from time to time.
One of the favourite proposals relates to the "regulatory" role, at present mainly conducted by the governors. The "knee-jerk" reaction post Hutton is that this should be removed—or at least partially removed. Ofcom, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Currie, who I am delighted to see will participate in the debate, already regulates the BBC's commercial and economic activities. It is responsible for basic standards of taste, decency and fairness. It oversees quotas for regional production and relations with the independent production sector. This morning I received an excellent document from Ofcom and I look forward to commenting on it to the noble Lord, Lord Currie, at a later stage.
The former chairman, Gavyn Davies, felt that the BBC was forging a fertile relationship with the noble Lord, Lord Currie. Knowing them both, and Michael Grade, I am sure that that relationship will continue. However, I am concerned that pressure will continue for that regulation to widen further. I hope that the Government will resist such pressure. The compromise agreed and supported by the scrutiny committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Puttnam should continue. Again, I am delighted to see that my noble friend is to participate in the debate. It leaves the governors in sole charge of the vital public service remit. If the governors fail, it would of course be a very serious matter.
Despite the Hutton report, there is no evidence of such a general failure. I see that at a recent BAFTA award ceremony, it was said,
"Governors are the least qualified people in the industry".
That kind of statement totally misunderstands the role of the governors. Indeed, if we had 12 governors who were all former broadcasters, I doubt whether they would be able to do as good a job as the governors now do.
Another important question is the one that would have the audit of the BBC carried out by the National Audit Office. As a former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, to which the National Audit Office reports, I need hardly say that I believe the National Audit Office does a tremendous job in the crucial area of value for money. It always has. When I was chairman of the PAC, I was delighted to be able to work with such an important body. A simple statement that the National Audit Office should be given responsibility for auditing the BBC sounds sensible. But one is bound to ask: is it sensible? There are two areas of NAO audit; one is financial and the other is value for money.
320
The BBC has its own independent financial audit and it has a governors' audit committee, which is chaired by a very responsible governor. National Audit Office involvement would run the risk of both duplicating and undermining the successful arrangements already in place. I imagine most people would accept that, but still argue that the National Audit Office should be given power to conduct value-for-money audits. But it should be clear that the BBC is not the same as a government department. It is a creative, risk-taking body with many commercial activities. Fear of risk-taking would be fatal to the role that I hope we all want the BBC to pursue; namely, to take creative risks. I therefore hope that the Government will accept that National Audit Office involvement would be wrong for the BBC.
The other major area of criticism of the BBC has always been described as "dumbing down" or winning ratings but losing its purpose. That is a sort of no-win issue for the BBC. Thus, let us say that it mainly put out the kind of programmes said to fulfil the Reithian mission to inform and advocate, or to serve the prejudices of white middle-class and middle-aged viewers—even, possibly, Members of your Lordships' House. If the audience figures were then low, critics would want a major cut in the licence fee. If the figures are high, as now, the critics level the charge of dumbing down. So the BBC cannot win.
One argument often put to support a cut in the licence fee is that it would release the BBC from what are called its present shackles and that it would be free to carry out its public service responsibilities. Again, one is bound to ask, "With what size of audience?". I am not sure about Members of your Lordships' House, but in the other place we did not watch an awful lot of television. Of course, that did not stop us criticising it.
I fear that such a policy could lead us down the sad path of the US public service broadcasts. It is said that such commercial freedom would enable the BBC to exploit its own powerful brand name and assets. It does that now, and it does an incredible job through that powerful name in its broadcasting around the world, especially on radio through the wonderful World Service. I hope that we will never allow such so-called commercial freedom to destroy the essence of a truly independent BBC.
I recently asked my noble friend Lord McIntosh to consider completing the consideration of charter renewal before the general election—although neither he nor I know when that will be. However, it has been thought that it will be some time next year, or perhaps the following year. I am of course aware that renewal is not due until 2006, but Parliament could be asked to decide on the kind of renewal that it wants in 2005 and it could be signed, sealed and delivered in 2005 to come into effect on the due date in 2006.
If, during a general election, the great British public, who will, of course, have read all the documents, made it clear that they disliked what had been done, it would still be open to a new Parliament to rethink. However, I am happy to find that most political parties seem to be broadly in agreement with the proposal for the

321
renewal of the charter. Tessa Jowell, the Minister concerned, told us in a recent House Magazine article that she and my noble friend Lord McIntosh,
"have held public meetings all over the country and the website — has had over 25,000 unique hits. The one certain outcome is a strong BBC, independent of government".
I welcome that. She went on to say that,
"the BBC holds a special place in the heart of the nation".
I hope that that is still true, as it should be.
I note that Tim Boswell, the MP for Daventry and Conservative spokesman on the subject, despite feeling that there was a need for some change in the BBC's governance, said that,
"we would do well to remember its international reputation and its central contribution to our national cultural life".
I hope that everyone can agree with that, too. I note that the Liberal Democrat spokesman said something similar. So I would hope that renewal of the charter in the near future could deal with the central problem of preserving the independence of the BBC as I described.
I hope that I have made clear that I do not support the idea that the BBC never gets it wrong. Of course it does, from time to time, as the Hutton report found. Its so-called "popular" programmes are often, and inevitably, not "popular" with everyone. The BBC's essential problem with a vital policy of making risk-taking programmes is that it is impossible to please everyone all the time. Making popular TV good and good TV popular has to be decided by someone. I hope that Parliament will decide in charter renewal that the decisions are best made by an independent BBC. As I said, from time to time, the BBC will get those decisions wrong. Occasionally—but, I hope, not all the time—it will allow some broadcasters to let their prejudices show, if perhaps not as firmly as happens in the tabloids or even the broadsheets.
I cannot believe that what is called commercial freedom will be better able to focus on public value. We are speaking here of an institution that provides a vital public service both at home and abroad, an institution that is truly independent and will continue to improve the quality of life in Britain and overseas. The chairman and governors have grave responsibilities in carrying out their mission. I do not believe that commercial freedom would help. I hope that renewal will be carried out speedily., as I have indicated, and preferably by political consensus. I hope that the House will agree that a strong, independent BBC setting standards for the rest of the media is vital to broadcasting generally. I beg to move for Papers.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I begin with my usual declaration of interest as a modest pensioner of the former IBA and also as the father of a BBC executive, one of whose programmes I once banned when I was chairman of the IBA. I hope that that is taken as a sufficient sign that, to use the old broadcasting jargon of due impartiality, I can claim a reasonable degree of that in approaching the subject of the review of the BBC Charter. The House's thanks are due to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, for the way in
322
which he introduced this debate. He himself is a doughty former deputy chairman of the BBC. Like him, I am glad to see his colleague as former chairman of the BBC, the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, in his place. I only regret that although I see him in his place, I do not see his name on the list of speakers. We must encourage him to participate in these debates.
The charter review could hardly have begun at a time of greater turbulence for the BBC, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said. There is the new giant regulator combining both broadcasting and telecommunications. We welcome the chairman of that body to this debate. Ofcom will subsume half a dozen previous regulatory bodies. It has duties covering both the BBC and commercial broadcasters. Indeed, it has just published its own approach to a review of public service broadcasting, which I look forward to reading.
Naturally, it will take time for Ofcom to settle down to its great new responsibilities over such a broad area. Some of us noticed with regret the other day that it appeared unable to distinguish adequately between the interests of consumers of broadcasting and those of viewers and listeners. There is a significant difference between those two important groups and Ofcom must be able to deal with that properly.
At the same time as the new body, Ofcom, has been establishing itself, Downing Street and Broadcasting House have been having one of their confrontations, which are, fortunately, not too frequent but which are unfortunately a recurrent phenomenon of broadcasting history in this country. In this case, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, it was over the Iraq war. Both sides made mistakes in that confrontation, which resulted in honourable resignations at the top of the BBC. One consequence, if not a direct result, was that the Government's principal spin doctor made way for some old-fashioned civil servants. We hope that that may help to avoid mistakes on both sides in the future.
It was greatly to the credit of the Secretary of State, Tessa Jowell, that she sought to put the whole of the Hutton inquiry episode firmly behind her. She declared that it would have no effect on the Government's approach to the issues raised by the charter review. I am bound to say that she has lived up to that in the arrangements that she has made for the independent selection of a new chairman of the BBC, Michael Grade. Perhaps I should confess a degree of interest, which may undermine my claim to total impartiality: I once appointed him as the chief executive of the Channel 4 corporation. He was an extremely successful chief executive.
Michael Grade is an experienced broadcaster. He has no political past that could create problems and he has an impeccable family pedigree on the popular side of the media. I am sure that other noble Lords will join with me in wishing him every success in his new task. His first job will be the appointment of a new director-general. I hope that the governors will find a new director-general who will complement, rather than replicate, the particular qualities that Michael Grade brings to the chair of the BBC.

323
My main point is that I believe that a central issue for the charter review is that the BBC, encouraged by those who wish it well and encouraged by the Government with their responsibilities in this area, takes a fundamental look at the framework of relations between the management of the BBC and the governors of the BBC. They are the product of a great history. The other day I was reading the memoirs of Lord Hill—Charles Hill—who moved from chairmanship of what was then the ITA to the BBC and on arrival he discovered that he had to share secretarial facilities with the director-general. That was perhaps an unduly cosy relationship at the time, and he took steps to deal with it.
A central issue for the experience of the BBC in the new broadcasting landscape is that the interrelationship between the board of governors and the board of management of the BBC needs a radical, fresh look. It is important that they move closely in partnership with each other but they have separate responsibilities. I hesitate simply to draw the analogy with the Independent Broadcasting Authority, of which I was once chairman. When I occupied that position and when I was a colleague in broadcasting of the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, I thought that I had an advantage as chairman of the IBA over the chairman of the BBC: those in the IBA were not as intimately close to the broadcasters whom we regulated as the governors of the BBC found they were compelled to be. I offer no dogmatic formula for that, but it is important that a new framework should come out of the review of the BBC Charter, in which the governors of the BBC are more at arm's length than they have been in the past to the professional managers of the BBC and that they have their own separate infrastructure to support them in their duties as public trustees.
One cannot copy the special arrangements that were appropriate for the regulation of commercial television under the IBA, but there are great merits in some of the aspects of that relationship. At the IBA we were able to take a pride in the support and encouragement that we gave to the creative broadcasters of the various companies that held the franchises and at the same time, at arm's length, we were able to act as a critical regulator of their standards. If I were to pick on one particular issue that needs to be looked at seriously in terms of the role of the BBC in the future, I would say it is that.
In the BBC one has, warts and all, one of the great British institutions of which this country can be proud. It is important to sustain that in the changing circumstances. Paradoxically, those who 10 years ago thought that the growth of the new communications technologies—digital technology and the proliferation of channels that bring us a richness of choice that we never had in the past—would wipe away the need for a properly financed BBC at the heartland of public service broadcasting values have been proved wrong. It is important that the new charter review produces that kind of consequence.
I notice that one suggestion that has been canvassed is that, this time, because of the changing landscape, the length of the BBC Charter should be curtailed to
324
perhaps five years. I profoundly hope that that will not be so and that the 10-year period of the charter will be sustained. The Liberal Democrats believe that public service broadcasting, particularly by the BBC, lies at the heart of a free, diverse and responsible media.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, in the Guardian of last Monday, Stephen Carter, the chief executive of Ofcom, ended a very good and informative article which trailed today's report by Ofcom by saying:
"television is an important medium, interacting directly with the society we are and want to be. Television matters to all of us".
That is why I welcome this debate and thank my noble friend Lord Barnett for making it possible. In the same edition of that newspaper there was another piece by the media commentator, Roy Greenslade. He observed:
"Then there is that worrying matter of media concentration, as evidenced by the way in which Rupert Murdoch's News International exercised firm control over the Beckham story, with the News of the World, the Sun and Sky TV obtaining virtually all the exclusive material".
To that end, Murdoch press and television channels revelled in cross-promotion. The Times, not content with trailing the Sky One interview with Rebecca Loos as,
"the TV scoop of the year",
on its television page, felt it necessary to do so at the end of its news story. The Sun did the same, only bigger of course.
Why do I choose to open the few minutes available to me with those two quotes? During the passage of the Communications Bill, we discussed a number of times the issue of so-called cross-media ownership. I and others found it quite frustrating to get the House and the Government fully to appreciate how very different the new era of digital television would be, and the form of competition that the BBC would face. That piece from the Guardian illustrates that rather well. It is a different world and everything that I say should be understood in that context.
I very much welcome the appointment of Michael Grade. He is a friend and a colleague. I have known him many years. It is a bold appointment and one that brings enormous credit to the Secretary of State, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, and to the officials who had to shepherd through a very difficult appointment in record time with no leaks and to general approval. That is quite remarkable. The media found it almost impossible to find anyone wholly critical of the appointment, which is enormously to Mr Grade's credit.
This is possibly the right moment to pay a rather overdue tribute to Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke. They both performed heroic service for the BBC. The nature of their departure was honourable and possibly necessary. That does not in any way deflect from the fact that they were admirable public servants and that the BBC today owes and will continue to owe them a very great debt. In particular, Greg Dyke's influence will undoubtedly be missed at the corporation.
We all want to see a bold outward-looking corporation, not a cowed inward-looking institution. I believe that Michael Grade will grasp that nettle. He understands the very complicated changing media

325
landscape that I have just described, has enormous savvy and a great deal of—what my granddaughters would call—"bling". He will bring all of that to the corporation.
Turning to the charter review, the BBC must become more responsive to the citizens who pay for it. That has been identified rightly by the Secretary of State. I suspect that it will be an ongoing feature of the way that the charter review is both carried out and scrutinised.
The citizens who value public service value it a great deal. They do not just see it as a market-place, whatever the enemies of the licence fee may tell us. The licence fee remains the most effective and equitable form of funding that has ever been created for a public body. We all benefit from it. Even the figures, which were rather disparaged this morning by one or two of the papers. show that "only 84 per cent" of 25 to 35 year-olds watched the BBC once a week. That is not a bad statistic. There are not many businesses in the country that would be unhappy with that type of reach on a weekly basis.
Today's report by Ofcom, which I have only had a chance to scan, is an extremely interesting document. First, it certainly gives the lie to any notion that Ofcom is setting itself up in opposition to public service or as anything other than a complementary organisation there to keep intact what I still like to refer to as "our broadcasting ecology". It contains some interesting points that I have already picked up. One finding in the Executive Summary states that while,
"the provision of entertainment programmes was seen as television's primary function, there was substantial public agreement with the notion that the main terrestrial channels should support wider social purposes".
The Executive Summary reports that,
"viewers thought that television lacks innovation and original ideas [and] relied too much on copycat and celebrity programming".
Here lies a real opportunity for the BBC; indeed, it is a challenge. The corporation should be, and often is, the crucible for the development of "innovation and original ideas", but too often in recent times BBCI in particular has tended to fall hack on a more derivative or celebrity-driven type of material.
The BBC must step up to the plate in fulfilling both the letter and the spirit of its legal commitments to a broad public and indeed to the world I came from—the world of independent production. It must stop resorting to evasions and obfuscations or the inappropriate exercise of its power in the market-place in pressuring independent production down to a minima rather than acknowledging what is actually required of it.
The Secretary of State was absolutely right to insist that the licence fee should represent "venture capital" for the entire independent sector. Independents are the lifeblood of creativity and innovation across the sector. I know that this matter is exercising BBC governors, and I am sure that Michael Grade will be able to put many of the mistakes of the past behind them.
326
A commitment to a strategic and sustained investment in training is just as crucial in developing creativity and new ideas. The BBC is the single biggest employer of staff and freelancers in the industry. The critical creative mass it represents, combined with its public service remit and its unique funding formula, means that it is very well placed to absorb its responsibility to invest in the development of its own and, indeed, much of the rest of the industry's workforce. Both in relation to the industry and in playing its part in raising the skills game, the BBC should remain the flagship employer. It should act as a beacon, demonstrating through its practice its commitment to public service within the industry, and in providing an example of excellence in supporting the delivery of the Government's skill strategies across the UK.
I believe that the assets of the BBC are national assets. Perhaps the content assets which its holds are not necessarily being exploited as effectively as they might be in the new digital world, where there is an ever increasing premium on the value of intellectual property. I should like to return to that subject in a future debate. Suffice it to say that I am interested in exploring all kinds of alternative ways in which the intellectual property that belongs to the corporation might be exploited overseas in ways which bring a variety of direct benefits to the licence fee payers.
In conclusion, I should like to quote my noble friend Lord Currie, who in his introduction to the Ofcom PSB report that I mentioned earlier observed that,
"a publicly funded BBC needs to retain scale and viewer impact. It should be the standards-setter for the highest quality of public service broadcasting".
While I suspect that I may differ in some regards from my noble friend as to how that objective might be achieved, I very happily sign up to the principle he sets out.
I have a last word to say on governance. Looking back on the joint scrutiny committee, I think that we were somewhat timorous in our consideration of the governance of the BBC. We rather took the position that "If it's not broke, why fix it'?" We should probably have been more alert to the fact that the world was changing, and probably had changed more than the governance system was able to accommodate. The BBC needs different areas of expertise on its board of governors and a better understanding of what is going on in the broad global world of broadcasting.
I am in entire agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that what has always been lacking is the detailed ability of' the board to challenge the executive. I think that we had an extremely well managed board. As we have discovered recently in all sorts of corporate situations, boards are not there to be managed. For example, that is clear from recent experience at Shell. Its chairman just did not have access to the information that was absolutely vital to retaining shareholder confidence. Something of that was true of the BBC.
The BBC governors are entitled to have some form of secretariat which gives them the kind of information and the kind of alternative sources of information which

327
allow them to take on the executive. That may not be the most comfortable thing that the BBC executive would wish to hear, but in hindsight had that existed I suspect that much of the trauma and drama of the past months could and would have been avoided.
5.27 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I am very grateful for the many courtesies that have been shown to me since I became a Member of your Lordships' House last month. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, for promoting this timely debate. I should immediately declare an interest. I have recently become the chairman of the Central Religious Advisory Committee of the BBC. That committee, long known by the now rather unfortunate acronym CRAC, advises the BBC on all matters related to religious broadcasting. It has also been recently adopted by Ofcom, which perhaps places it in a unique position as advising the new regulator as well as the BBC.
The Central Religious Advisory Committee was originally established in the 1920s in the days of Lord Reith. It was interdenominational from the start, not as a result of the wish of the Churches but because Lord Reith insisted that it should be so. So the Churches were brought together to assist the BBC in its religious broadcasting long before they worked together on almost anything else. These days the same committee includes representatives of all the world faiths. Broadcasting and in particular the BBC prompted the Churches and now the faith communities to work together in wholly constructive ways.
The very existence of the committee is at least of symbolic significance in the quest for religious understanding and harmony in a world that is beset by division and incomprehension. It is a public and social good that deserves investment. I believe it accurately reflects the wider public value of the BBC, which should continue to be supported by means other than commercial interests and advertising.
The way in which the world faiths work together in this and other areas of our national life is much less evident in some other parts of Europe, let alone the wider world. We are sometimes led to believe that the relative lack of tensions between our faith communities in this country derives from a tolerant secularism or benign unbelief. I believe that it derives much more from collaboration and cultivated friendships within the leadership of our faith communities, a tradition of which we should be proud, and which the BBC, perhaps to some people's surprise, has done a great deal to encourage.
Noble Lords may have noticed over the Easter weekend that among the television channels BBCI recorded its lowest ever share of the total television audience, at around 22 per cent. That low figure cannot have been caused by a surfeit of religious broadcasting. Such programmes were conspicuously absent or found only in graveyard slots. The received wisdom is that religious broadcasting does not pull in
328
audiences. It is strange how that conviction endures in television when our cinemas are packed to the doors with people watching "The Passion of the Christ".
However, the overall output of religious broadcasting during Holy Week and Easter across all BBC channels, including radio, was impressive—much better than in the late 1990s—and much of it was of very high quality. That has often been obscured, not least in the print media, by the concentration on television. There is a great deal of creativity in the religion and ethics department, as well as elsewhere in the BBC—more, I fear, than the schedulers seem to encourage.
BBC1's poor ratings reflect a different broadcasting environment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has already referred; it is one of huge competition in the multi-channel and digital age. So the renewal of the BBC charter comes at a time when the very identity of the BBC seems uncertain. Perhaps a bishop understands better than most what it is to be regarded as a venerable institution rather than a real person, and so to live with several identities. Recently, I discovered that for myself when looking up the telephone number of a fellow bishop's office in the London directory. All my colleagues were listed—the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Southwark, the Bishop of Kensington and others—but I was surprised to discover the Bishop of Norwich listed among them. It seemed to me unexpected metropolitan recognition. I wondered whether it was the result of becoming a Member of your Lordships' House. Then I noticed the word "reservations" against my name, which is how I discovered that, in fact, I am a wine bar in Moorgate. One must learn to live with such things.
Over the years the BBC has learnt to live with a mixed identity. It needs to connect with a wide audience; otherwise the licence fee will be resented. It therefore seeks to be a popular broadcaster. Yet the public service remit means that ratings alone surely cannot be the sole determinant for its success. There is a proper liberation from those pressures and concentration on ratings that is all for the public good. Yet to interpret the BBC's public service remit simply in terms of programmes that the market would not otherwise provide would be to marginalise the corporation. Public service broadcasting does not have to be mind-numbingly dull. The BBC's output and organisation, not only in religious broadcasting through CRAC but in wider areas, should assist its public purposes in informing and entertaining our citizens, helping to build community and providing some of the social glue that all societies need to cohere and to have a common identity.
It is sometimes in areas of its most modest investment that the BBC provides substantial public good. Consider the value of local radio, for example. It was looked upon with some suspicion a few decades ago in the BBC when it went down that path. A quarter of the total radio audience listens to BBC local radio. The return in community building for little investment that comes through BBC local radio is too little celebrated, perhaps because of a certain metropolitan myopia. BBC Radio Norfolk, for example, contributes massively to the

329
cohesion and identity of Norfolk in ways in which, I suspect, the market left on its own could not, or would not, provide.
There are controversial issues of governance that I have been told to avoid, but I hope that it is not too controversial to recognise the BBC's huge contribution to the public good, and to express hope that the renewed charter will give it the capacity to build on its very best traditions.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
5.35 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is my happy lot to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich on his maiden speech. It is a particular and personal pleasure for me to do so because I happen to be one of the lambs in his diocese. I should also declare an interest, although it is a funny thing to do when congratulating somebody: I am high steward of the cathedral that overlooks the right reverend Prelate's house—Norwich Cathedral. The right reverend Prelate follows a line of distinguished bishops of Norwich. I like to think that that was because of the influence that the high steward breathed over them, but I fancy that any such idea would be running down the path of disproportionate and inaccurate fantasy.
The right reverend Prelate delivered an excellent speech. It followed all the conventions of your Lordships' House: it was short, uncontroversial, engaging, jolly and we all enjoyed it. He has a glorious disposition and a great sense of humour. All those qualities will be greatly to the benefit of your Lordships' House. I congratulate him on his maiden speech and hope that we will have the pleasure of hearing him on many other occasions in the House.
The list of speakers in today's debate consists mostly of television tycoons, of which I am not one. But the BBC affects everyone, which is why I venture to participate in the debate. If an organisation benefits from—and depends on—public funds, it will always be open not only to criticism but to castigation. That is so with the BBC. There is a cry from various quarters to dispense with the licence fee, with the inference that that 'will bring the BBC to heel and make it less dependent on ready cash and more dependent on the demands of the marketplace. I am not of that view. The licence fee is astonishingly inexpensive. For some 30p a day, viewers can have access to virtually continuous entertainment, news, culture and sport. That does not make the fee any easier to pay, but, once paid, it provides astonishingly good value.
To make the BBC compete on almost similar terms to commercial television would be a disaster. The BBC has a national and international reputation. The World Service, to which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, referred, is one such pinnacle of the BBC's reputation. That reputation must be preserved, jealously guarded and built on. By the licence fee, the BBC has become the bedrock of television. It should be the epitome of high standards and should provide good-quality programmes. It often does all those things, hut, inevitably, not always.
330
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich that ratings are not everything. They may be one measurement of the value of a programme. However, they are not the only, or necessarily the best, measurement. I suppose that it was the ratings that shoved the nine o'clock news back to ten o'clock. I thought that was a major error, because if one wishes to listen to the news, one must go to bed an hour later. Some of us feel that that is a bore.
I fancy that when the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was vice-chairman of the BBC, and my noble kinsman Lord Hussey of North Bradley was chairman, it must have been a fun combination and those were possibly some of the halcyon days of the BBC. Things might then have seemed better than they now are, and they probably were. There is no doubt that standards have dropped. It is always easy to criticise an organisation like the BBC, which bubbles with intellect, creativity. and excitement, but it must be difficult to produce programmes 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, without producing some rubbish. Those people who participate in the BBC, despite or because of their talents, make the BBC what it is. Those talents must be channelled aright.
I have an example of undesirable standards. Between January and June last year, in 60 films shown across five terrestrial channels, not just the BBC, the "F" word appeared 1,429 times. The words "Jesus" or "Christ" were used as expletives on 221 occasions. That was just in 60 films in six months, though not only screened by the BBC. I am sure that while many of us must have used, and indeed do use, these disagreeable expletives on more occasions than we would wish to admit—I dare say that the right reverend Prelates might even have been heard venturing out some expletive if they hit their fingernail with the head of a hammer—they are offensive expletives. However, to project that language into sitting rooms throughout the length and breadth of the country is a had thing.
The same goes for those scenes of appalling violence that are shown and that are supposed to be entertainment. The argument goes that if you are shocked by that, you are shocked by life, because the producers are merely depicting what happens in everyday life. That misses the point entirely. People imbibe what they see on television programmes. They think that is the way to behave. When young people see a person's head being kicked in, it is too easy for some of them to think that that is what is done and is the way to do it; indeed, that can become a motivator on some occasions for their actions.
Do these programmes have no influence on people? Of course they do. Ask any company that spends millions of pounds advertising on commercial television why it does so. The answer is because people are attracted to what they see and hear, and thereafter they go out and buy the products. If they did not do that, companies would stop advertising and would save their money. The fact is that people absorb and act on what they see. What they see while watching television in their sitting rooms is decided by the BBC, the television companies, or the producers.

331
Good books edify the mind; and bad books sully the mind. In the same way, good television edifies the mind; and bad television sullies the mind. Television has a huge responsibility for the way in which society develops, far greater than people often realise. The BBC does not just react to what happens. It creates thoughts; it produces ideas. Surreptitiously, possibly even without realising it, it influences. That is a huge responsibility. I just hope that when the BBC has its charter renewed, some way will be found of giving the governors of the BBC, or some other part of it, adequate control of producers to stop them putting out bad programmes, programmes promoting violence and programmes littered with what is called "strong language", which really means the copious use of the "F" word and the other obscenities that contribute precisely nothing to the programme, or to the story.
The governors must not be deterred from preventing the showing of a programme for fear of being accused of interfering with the artistic licence of the producers. After all, someone must be responsible for what is shown, and ultimately, via its various channels, it must be the responsibility of the chairman and the governors. The BBC produces such a variety of choice and such excellent programmes that surely it would not be too much to cut out the bad programmes and the really offensive language.
Lord Reith, that pioneer of BBC standards, whom I remember listening to in your Lordships' House when he was just nearby on the Cross Benches, would have been horrified at some of the material that is being put out today—only some of it; the majority is so good. I just hope that when the charter gets renewed, some way will be found of making it good and cutting out the bad.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on introducing this debate, and congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich on his eloquent and witty maiden speech. I declare an interest of a sort as the chairman of Ofcom, although I speak in an individual capacity.
As noble Lords will recall, Parliament has tasked Ofcom with conducting a major review of public service broadcasting. It is the first time that public service broadcasters have been looked at in the round, both the BBC and the commercially funded public service broadcasters, ITV, Channel 4 and five. I hope that our review will be a significant and useful input into the debate on the BBC Charter.
As a number of noble Lords have already remarked, by happy coincidence our report on phase 1 of the review was published this morning. I hope that all noble Lords participating in the debate have received copies. If not, there are some available in the Printed Paper Office. You have the concise version; the full report is a good deal fatter and heavier, unless you get it on CD.
When my noble friend Lady O'Neill recently raised a question about Ofcom's primary duties, several noble Lords expressed concern that Ofcom's use of the phrase
332
"citizen-consumer" might reflect a downgrading of citizenship interests at the expense of consumer interests. They went on to express the firm wish that Ofcom should give due prominence to the citizen's interests. I trust that our first report on public service broadcasting will reassure noble Lords that we do indeed give due weight to citizenship issues, as the carefully considered Communications Act requires us to do. In particular, I hope that it will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that we do take the interests of viewers very seriously indeed. Our report argues that public service broadcasting remains vitally important in 21st century Britain because of its central role in serving the interests of citizens. To inform the review, we have gathered a mass of hard data from broadcasters, we have supplemented that with consultations with groups of citizens, expert groups, and one of the largest detailed audience surveys ever undertaken, covering some 6,000 homes.
TV audiences may not instinctively understand the term "public service broadcasting", but our evidence is that they strongly support the set of values that Parliament set out in the Communications Act. Whether in traditional or multi-channel homes, there is a firm belief that television should serve wider social and cultural purposes. Generally in Britain we do television well. UK-made programming remains strong. Television news is valued, and audiences think that the broadcasters do news and current affairs reporting well. We lead the world in digital television, and audiences value the choice that it provides.
There is therefore much in our results that is heartening, but there are some issues that give cause for concern. Audiences feel that all the main terrestrial channels, including the BBC, lack sufficient innovation and original ideas, rely too much on copycat and celebrity programming, and on occasion talk down to viewers. There is also concern about the lack of a safe environment for child viewers away from unsuitable content. That is a major concern for many people.
Audiences, however, do not always live up to their image of themselves in what they watch. The main terrestrial channels' share is down to 57 per cent in multi-channel homes, which represent more than half of all households. It is for the more challenging and uplifting fare, such as "Horizon", "Newsnight" and "The South Bank Show", that audience share diminishes most in multi-channel homes. Identifying that fact allows us to be honest about the role of public service broadcasting and make practical proposals that reflect audiences as they are, not as we—or even they—might wish them to be. Public service broadcasting needs to have impact, as well as value and quality, if it is to deliver on its mission. That requires more innovation in formats and programming, to ensure that public service broadcasting is interesting and exciting. That point was eloquently made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich.
So the public service ecology is coming under some strain. The shareholder-owned channels—ITV and five—have an important role as investors in UK programming. In a full multi-channel environment, they must be able to respond competitively, if they are

333
not to diminish as investment engines for British content. We must focus regulatory intervention on the public service characteristics that give highest social value and maximum viewer impact and not give privilege to that which the market will anyway fund. That puts an even greater premium on the BBC and those who govern it to live up to the spirit as well as the letter of its remit. A publicly funded BBC needs to retain scale and viewer impact. It should be the standard setter for the highest quality of public service broadcasting.
The licence fee remains an important funding mechanism in the PSB ecology and the right one to enable the BBC to remain independent and true to its purposes. I hope that in the charter debates the issue is not "Whether the licence fee" but rather "How much, what is it spent on, and does the output have the distinctiveness, quality and range to justify the investment?".
As both a competition regulator and a public policy regulator over the BBC as well as commercial public service broadcasters, Ofcom believes that the viewer is best served by competition for quality. The BBC needs public service competition that is sufficiently effective to keep it up to the mark. That competition for quality is most likely to come from not-for-profit broadcasting, free from shareholder pressures and with an ethos which, like the BBC's, can be focused more purely on public sector output. That is one of Channel 4's core strengths. To be an effective competitor for quality, it needs to grow to a scale where it can condition the BBC's output. Its first recourse is to self-help, lean efficient running and effective and profitable commercial additions, but it may also form an important part of a greater, not-for-profit sector whole that may need strengthening in other ways. Those could include a share of contestable funding or a new source of direct funding. The available options need to be considered.
That leads me to my final point: the distinction between governance and regulation. It is important not to confuse the two, as sometimes happens with those who argue for the BBC to be brought fully under Ofcom. Regulation should apply across the sector to uphold standards, enforce quotas and secure fair competition in the interests of citizens and consumers. I believe that Ofcom will quickly demonstrate its capacity and capability to deliver effective, high-quality regulation of that kind. I firmly believe that effective regulation by Ofcom provides no threat to the independence and strength of the BBC.
Governance is different. Each broadcaster needs its own effective and independent governance mechanisms. The model is clear for the commercial broadcasters, with a conventional corporate board safeguarding shareholders' interests within the rules laid down by regulation. For the not-for-profit broadcasters, especially the publicly funded BBC, the objective of good governance must be to pursue positively and with passion the public interest at the heart of public service broadcasting independently but within the overall framework provided by regulation.
The issue of the effectiveness of the governance of the publicly owned and publicly funded broadcasters is therefore separate from the nature and scope of
334
regulation. There are several possible models of governance that could be made to work, and I hope that, in the debates relating to the PSB review and the BBC Charter review, those will get a good airing. However, we must keep governance issues separate from Ofcom's role in providing the appropriate framework of effective regulation.
It is crucial to our democracy and to our society that we get the analysis of public service broadcasting and the consequent prescriptions right and that we succeed in maintaining and strengthening public service broadcasting for the 21st century. We must foster an effective and inclusive debate that redefines and regenerates public service broadcasting for the coming world of pervasive digital connectivity, maintaining the spirit and strengths of the past but shaping it for a new digital, multi-channel world. I hope that this debate and our PSB report published today will help to stimulate this wider national debate.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Barnett for making the debate possible. It is a convention of the House that we pay such a tribute, but in this case I think that we all mean it strongly.
After the Hutton report, the BBC will never be the same again. It will present an enormous challenge to the new chairman, Michael Grade, whom I congratulate warmly on his appointment, to steer the BBC through these difficult times. I pay tribute to Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke. I thought that they both made an excellent contribution to the BBC. I am sorry that circumstances have prevented them being there at the moment. I suppose that, given the Hutton report, it was inevitable that there would be one senior resignation. I think that two resignations at the top were not necessary. I would have preferred Greg to have stayed. I know the difficulties, but Gavyn's resignation would have been sufficient. They both played an important part in strengthening the BBC, and Michael Grade will have a hard act to follow.
I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission. As such, I will refer to some of the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. We had a responsibility for dealing with complaints about taste and decency, bad language and violence. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, was my predecessor as chairman of that organisation. If the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, looked at the detail, he would see that we were fairly robust about that sort of bad language or excessive violence before the watershed. I suspect that most of his comments would apply to programming later in the evening. He may not agree that we should have been, as it were, more liberal later in the evening, but we were pretty firm before the watershed because of the young people watching.
Despite Hutton, the BBC is and will continue to be seen as a great institution. It is one of the contributions that this country has made to television and broadcasting throughout the world. The World Service is well known universally for providing the best international broadcasting that there is. I welcome the

335
DCMS review of the BBC's Royal Charter, which was published last December. It is a helpful guide in enabling us to see the different issues. I pay particular tribute to the document that Ofcom published today. It is an excellent document on public service broadcasting. I have only had the chance to read part of it, but it is professional and comprehensive and is a good indicator of the standards that Ofcom will apply to its wider remit. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, on being chairman of the organisation that has produced such a first-class document, although I confess that I have read only part of it today, in haste.
It is important for us to help the BBC to maintain its independence from government. Post-Hutton, that is of even greater importance. If the BBC is seen as subservient to government, it will have lost the ability to make one of its most important contributions to life in this country.
Perhaps I may say a little about the licence fee in that context. Of course the licence fee should be maintained. The suggestion that it should be phased out, even if not immediately but over the next few years, would be a move away from the best available system to fund a body such as the BBC and help it maintain its independence.
The newspapers have indicated concern that BBC1 has recently had lower ratings. I hope that the pressure for high ratings will not be the only way in which the effectiveness of the BBC is judged. Surely we must look more broadly at the way in which the BBC deals with its many obligations and look at the quality of some of the less highly viewed programmes, as well as look at whether the BBC can achieve good ratings in popular times. The balance between quality of programmes and ratings is important.
I shall make one suggestion. I am concerned that the struggle, at intervals, between the BBC and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about the level of the licence fee is not healthy. I suggest that we take a leaf from the book of the Bank of England, where the setting of the interest rate has been taken from the Government and given to the independent monetary committee. It would be healthier if the BBC licence fee were determined at intervals by an independent committee—perhaps Ofcom should not have that additional burden yet—which would take on board the BBC's bid for the licence fee level for the forthcoming period. That bid should be subdivided into the various elements of BBC work. The independent committee would make a judgment on how well the BBC met its various aims and objectives and would award the licence fee accordingly. That judgment would be made independently and apart from political decision making.
Noble Lords have referred to digital switchover. There is one main constraint which may lie partly with the BBC, but which probably lies also with the Government. Large parts of the country cannot receive digital broadcasts. Until they can, digital switchover will not be possible in those regions. I have a home in the Lake District. I cannot receive Channel
336
5, never mind some of the other digital channels. Satellite is the only option open to me. Freeserve would not work in my area.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Currie, about separating governance from regulation. The two functions are currently merged. I welcome the comments about looking again at governance attributed to Michael Grade on his appointment as chairman-designate of the BBC. I do not believe that the governors can do both jobs. It would be better if the BBC had a model such as a management committee on which there would be a number of non-executive directors. The board of governors should have a separate responsibility to regulate the BBC until such time as Ofcom, perhaps, wanted to take over that function. I am concerned also about parliamentary accountability, a subject which we will need to debate more fully on another day.
I am concerned also that we do not yet give independent producers enough opportunities. Perhaps 1,000 independent producers are members of Pact. They should be given full scope to contribute creatively to the diversity of British television. The BBC should be under an obligation to increase the proportion of its total programming that goes to independent producers. Currently, 12 per cent of the BBC's programming budget is paid to independent producers. That is a rather low figure; it should be about doubled. I agree with Pact on that. I also agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Currie, said in his foreword to the Ofcom report. It states:
"The independent producers will play a key role in 'competition for quality', and a strong independent production sector is an important part of the mix to deliver effective PSB".
No one can say it better than that. I welcome the clear stance taken by Ofcom in supporting independent production.
We must be careful about how the BBC's commercial activities develop. One cannot really object to activities that follow on from original work done by the BBC. The problem arises when the BBC launches a new service that is in direct competition with an existing commercially funded service. That difficulty needs to be explored in a little more detail. Commercial initiatives funded by money raised by commercial producers themselves could be jeopardised by a body that is funded by the licensee.
I pay tribute to the BBC's radio work. Although the commercial radio sector offers very good programming, I very much enjoy and welcome the range of radio production that the BBC offers on national channels and also its local coverage of news and local events. It offers some of the highest quality radio broadcasting that I have heard in any country.
I appreciate that the BBC will go through further difficult times until the Hutton report is out of its system, the governance issues have been resolved and a new director-general is in place. However, I think that the House can rest assured that we will support the BBC in these endeavours. We wish it a successful future.
6.6 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Barnett for the opportunity to talk about a very important issue, which I suspect will become hotly contested during the next 18 months. I am proud to speak as one of the band of past vice-chairmen of the BBC. The BBC is a precious asset to this country. As many previous speakers have said, it not only sets the benchmark for public service broadcasting, but also shapes the wider broadcasting ecology. Globally, it is vital for the reputation and standing of the UK. It is not an overstatement to say that the BBC is the envy of the world, which we must not forget during the charter review.
The periodic review that the charter review represents is important for taking stock and resetting the mandate for the BBC during the next 10 years. It should give the BBC the confidence to move ahead in an innovative and confident way in playing those roles. We should not be naive about the context in which the charter review is taking place. It is not an overstatement to say that the sharks are out. There are competitors with rather longer knives than during the previous charter review. Not only global broadcasting companies, but also the UK-based commercial sector, have a very different view of the BBC than was the case at the previous charter review. There are some people, including Members of both Houses, who feel that there are some old scores to settle.
In the review, we must not be stampeded by the Hutton report. With digital and multi-channel households, we must not be fazed that the review is taking place in a very different broadcasting environment. During what could be a very turbulent process, I urge the Minister and the Government to reflect on how much the BBC is valued and the contribution that it makes not only to the nation's cultural, social and political life, but also how much it enhances our global reputation. The Government need to have courage and maturity in the face of clamour to support the BBC into the future and they must not inadvertently damage it in an effort to appease its critics and competitors.
What kind of BBC do we want to see emerge from the charter review? Above all, it must be culturally and creatively vibrant, and needs a degree of security to allow it to exercise those qualities. The BBC needs to be independent and robust, particularly in the face of political pressure. I am sure that the new chairman will be so. The BBC needs to be a strong player in the competitive environment. Because of the current competitive nature of broadcasting commercially, the public service broadcaster—if it is to fulfil the role of promoting high standards of quality and impartiality—needs to be big and strong enough to play a real role in an increasingly competitive market place. The BBC needs to be a counterweight to the big global media companies that otherwise would dominate. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, about media concentration. Indeed, the Government will experience the impact of media concentration in the run-up to the election in a distinctly unfortunate fashion.
338
The BBC, post-charter, needs to be an institution that is responsive and transparently accountable. It needs to be able to fulfil the remit of serving the public with a wide and distinctive range of media and channels. The charter review must ensure that all these qualities are protected, developed and promoted.
While the review will have to deal with a whole range of issues, I shall focus on only a few. First, I turn to the issue of scale and the BBC. I think that "BBC" ought to stand for "big but close" because although the BBC is an immense organisation, its scale and range is important to the public as individuals and communities at the local level as well as at the national and international levels. The BBC must be able to speak to the public and fulfil its public sector remit through a wide variety of media and channels, reaching a range of people with programmes that meet their needs, including popular entertainment. We need to see outreach to communities and the wider public through the new digital channels on TV and radio, and online. Even though some of the developments of these new channels has been controversial—some are still finding their way—I believe that they form an important part of the public service remit. They must be distinctive in order to meet the needs of particular sectors of the community for whom this channel or that delivery medium is the way that they want to receive public service television, radio or information.
I look forward to considering in detail the Ofcom public service broadcasting review, although I hope that the definition of "public service broadcasting" remains sufficiently wide and diverse. The BBC's competitors would love to see public service broadcasting, and therefore the BBC, put into a small box labelled, "Please produce only uncontroversial and unpopular programmes that no one wants to watch".
I turn to the funding of the BBC. It has been a delight to hear support expressed in the debate for the licence fee. The arguments from the last round of debates on the licence fee are still incredibly valid. Quite frankly, it is a miracle that BBC television still reaches 89 per cent of the population. Most households in the land benefit from their pifflingly small annual investment when compared with their Sky subscription. Moreover, the licence fee remains the best way to fund an independent, robust and innovative public service broadcaster. The advertising market is insufficient, while subscription is regressive and would bear down unfairly on poorer households. A top slice which could be allocated to all public service broadcasters would, I believe, lead to wastefully competitive bidding processes and risk micro-management by government. The licence fee provides sufficient security and scope to enable the public service broadcaster to exercise the flexibility, innovation and distinctiveness called for by many noble Lords who have spoken in the debate.
I shall touch on the commercial activities of the BBC. I am a mean Scot. Having paid my licence fee for many years, I want to benefit from it. There is an immense amount of material, both archival and current, which the BBC must exploit commercially if

339
we are to achieve value for money for our past investment. The commercial activities of the BBC are fully subject to the economic regulator and to competition law. The BBC is simply exploiting assets that we have already paid for and, in doing so, it must be meticulous about adhering to fair competition policy and be transparent in meeting competition law and regulatory requirements. But let us see more of that hidden wealth we have paid for being exploited in ways that present it to other audiences while bringing funding back in to enhance the licence fee and thus the public service offering.
I want to talk about a subject also touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam; that is, the BBC and independent production. One of the risks of a "big but close" BBC is that it can act a little like a farrowing sow. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is not in his place. As a pig farmer, he would understand what I am talking about. Pigs have an unhappy knack of rolling over and squashing their piglets without realising that they are doing so. Sometimes the BBC can behave like that towards the independent sector. If the BBC is truly to condition the broadcasting ecology, it must become and clearly be seen to be the friend of the independent production sector. The 25 per cent independent production quota should be a floor rather than a ceiling and the BBC should take a positive approach to independent commissioning in order to help promote a vibrant broadcasting market.
Many noble Lords have touched on the issue of governance and accountability. I, too, add my congratulations to Michael Grade. I think it is the right appointment and an excellent choice. He will be robust in his championship of the BBC and of public service broadcasting. But it is clear that the governors and the new chairman must get the governance right in the run-up to the charter review. It is important that that is gripped early, long before it becomes a charter issue. There needs to be a robust review of governance and a redefinition of the role of the governors in order to rebuild respect in the governance of the BBC.
However, I do not believe that it is sensible to split the role of the regulator and the role of the non-executive director in the BBC. The organisation has only one purpose, and that is public service according to its public service remit. Both as regulators and as governors, they should be seeking to ensure that that single purpose is delivered. I do not think that there are two roles here.
For all other issues—commercial competition, taste, decency and so forth—the BBC is already subject to Ofcom and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Currie will hold the BBC's feet to the fire on those matters, as indeed he should. But I do not believe that there is a true distinction to be made between the role of the governors in regulating the BBC and their role in ensuring that the executives deliver the public service purpose. It is also slightly risky to have all of our broadcasters subject to a single regulator on issues of impartiality in a hotly contested and politically fraught area.
340
Those are the issues that will have to be tackled by the charter review. A last one that was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is this: let us not entertain any ideas that the charter should last for only five years. If we want a BBC that is timid, uninnovative and constantly looking over its shoulder because it is subject to permanent review, a five-year charter is the sure and certain way of achieving that. Let us look forward to a robust review, but let us not lose sight of the fact that in swimming with sharks, the very qualities of breadth, impartiality and vibrancy that make the BBC the envy of the world must not be lost.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I, too, thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on securing a slot to debate this subject. I speak as another former regulator, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has already pointed out.
I have listened to and very much applauded the considerable warmth expressed by previous speakers in their views of the BBC, but of course there has been criticism as well, and I have sympathy with some of it. We have heard today, as we hear in other forums, a discussion, for example, of the role and effectiveness of the governors, their lack of financial accountability, and whether the BBC should be fully regulated by Ofcom. These are not new points, of course, but they deserve and get, I am sure, rigorous scrutiny. However, they are only one side of the case.
I have found it interesting to note that there is rather less criticism of what the BBC actually does, delivers and produces. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, mentioned some valid and very real areas of criticism and concern, but the quality, integrity, availability, diversity and popularity of its radio and TV products remain almost universally commended. They are not just commended, but are appreciated much more fundamentally than that. Indeed, the most striking feature of this continuing debate wherever it is held is the growing realisation by concerned citizens of precisely how important to them is the whole concept of British public service broadcasting. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, dwelt on this point.
People know in their bones that the BBC sets a world standard in the quality of broadcast material, both in the UK and beyond. It is in that context that, unarguably, the BBC is the gold standard bearer; the Reithian standard against which all other broadcasters are judged, and which some of them—Channel 4 and S4C, for example—can certainly sometimes match or exceed. Above all, perhaps, what people see and appreciate is the public value of its output for the UK citizen's quality of life—a matter very convincingly set out in Mark Byford's recent speech to the Foreign Press Association— supporting democracy through independent, high quality, accurate and impartial news and current affairs; creating or partnering original ambitious British cultural programmes such as "The Canterbury Tales" and the "Big Read"; and its contributions as the biggest Commissioner of music in the world. I refer also to educational support, through its co-operation with the OU; its revision services for GCSE students; pioneering

341
expensive yet invaluable programmes such as the "Blue Planet" and, of course, the continuingly brilliant wildlife programmes of David Attenborough; and only last week we had the fascinating life and achievements of Josiah Wedgwood.
As other noble Lords have mentioned, the BBC has a universally respected global role, not only as the world's most trusted news provider but also in its role linking countries and communities and showcasing British creativity. There has never been a time when the need for the BBC World Service was greater. As your Lordships will see from page 21 of this week's The House Magazine, it is responding very well to that need. But we—the world indeed—cannot expect to have the BBC World Service without the core values of the BBC itself.
How many other publicly funded bodies and institutions in our society—or, for that matter, in any other society—can credibly make the same kind of claim to our respect? Local authorities? Hospitals? Railways? Universities? Some can, thank heavens, and still do so—but less and less, I fear. And why? Because they have become less and less independent and more and more dependent, from year to year, on Exchequer finance and the Treasury's hold on the purse strings. The greater the dependence on government-controlled money, the greater the damage to quality and independence. The recent debate on the university Bill illustrated that.
The BBC's success and independence depend, above all, on guaranteed access for a period of years ahead—and here I could not agree more—to something like the licence fee. I hope it remains for a full 10 years. I know that that is what Her Majesty's Treasury dislikes—a hypothecated tax—but it is the key reason, in my view and that of others, for the real independence of the BBC; independence not only from government, of course, but of purely commercial pressures such as audience figures and advertising revenue. The BBC knows that its owners, shareholders, citizens and viewers have a wider perspective than that: public value and diversity, as well as popularity.
The BBC knows, too, that it is more accountable in the broadest sense—its reputation matters—but more is expected of it. Noble Lords may be surprised to hear me say that in the light of Hutton, where it clearly made a mistake. Of course, who does not sometimes? But it was exposed to detailed public examination of a fairly ruthless kind, and probably rightly so. I acknowledge certainly that quality sometimes falters—one word, "Gilligan", sums that up—but, by the same token, even the Law Lords, noble and learned though they certainly are, sometimes nod. I doubt whether any of your Lordships would wish to condemn them on the strength of one word—"Pinochet", for example.
Would any other broadcaster have been similarly savaged? I do not think so. It would not have been seen as so important; our expectations would have been lower. Not so for the BBC. It knows, as we know, that it could properly be called to account, to appear in the dock in person. How many other media channels or
342
newspapers could or would have been challenged so directly? Would any others have been so expected and so ready to expose themselves in that way?
Can any of your Lordships recall any occasion when any newspaper or TV station proprietor and his chief executive or editor resigned their office because of a factual error in their output, and then followed it up with an apology as handsome as that made in the House by the noble Lord, Lord Ryder? Of course not. But coming from the BBC, we were not quite surprised, just because it is, and remains, different.
Given that case, I, like many noble Lords, am clear about one thing. It is not that there is no case for change in anything about the BBC—of course there is—and the rapidly changing competitive digital world in which it operates makes that inevitable. We must be ready to examine with candour and with courage all these areas, but it is for those who want to make such changes to prove their case for making them —all the more so if the changes they seek to make are fundamental.
As we await the result, like many of your Lordships, I wish to congratulate the new chairman, Michael Grade. In my role as a regulator in the past I had one or two brushes with him, but the quality and the spirit of the new chairman is very appropriate for the current moment.
.26 p.m.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I am pleased to congratulate my noble friend Lord Barnett on introducing the debate. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, is in his place. It was, of course, the noble Lords, Lord Hussey and Lord Barnett, who were chairman and deputy chairman at a particularly important time in the BBC. The great praise that I can offer them both is that it is they who could have saved the BBC as we have known it.
During their period as chairman and deputy chairman, Margaret Thatcher, as Prime Minister, opposed the BBC licence fee, which she condemned outright as a compulsory levy with criminal sanctions. How far she might have wished to reduce the position of the BBC we can only speculate.
I have always felt that their efforts, not the arguments, and the emollient way in which they opposed the wishes of the Prime Minister of the day was the equivalent of that of Sheherezade. Again and again, following a number of meetings, they were successful in delaying any action. And so the noble Lords, Lord Hussey and Lord Barnett, helped to preserve the BBC as we have known it. It is a great tribute to them both.
My contribution to the debate is based on the profound admiration that I have had for many years of the BBC. Of course it makes mistakes, but there are many people for whom I have high praise—some in this House—and they make mistakes too; we all do. But they should not be judged only on those errors; we have to look at the whole person—or, in the case of the BBC, the whole institution.

343
I believe that the BBC is one of our two greatest institutions. The two greatest institutions in our country are the BBC and our Civil Service. It is a terribly sad reflection of our times that these are the two institutions which are under the greatest threat at the present time. Those who admire them both must speak out strongly in their support.
A major strength of the BBC is that we turn to it at times of crisis or of national importance. The BBC sets standards from which others cannot depart too far. It has shown its integrity and its independence and, faced with a quite unwarranted attack, sought to defend itself. It is a British institution in which one places much confidence and, as we have seen, those who attempt to denigrate the BBC find that it readily rebounds upon them. The assertion is that the BBC ought to have verified the 45 minutes with an ardour that the Government themselves did not verify in their own claim that weapons of mass destruction could be deployed in that time.
The question is: which media group is perfect? The obvious answer is "none". What we who admire the BBC can claim is that, overall, in its news programmes, it is reliable and trustworthy. The BBC does not answer to advertisers; it is not beholden to them, yet it is measured by one yardstick and much of the rest of the media is judged by another, more flexible one.
What is deeply deplorable, and even menacing, is the way in which one report, which included an inaccuracy, was used to attack the BBC and to bring about the departure of its chairman and chief executive. We all know that, from looking at some countries, the BBC must not be the Government's lapdog. It must not be bullied, a point that my noble friend Lord Dubs made very well. That is why Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke had to demonstrate their independence, particularly because of their political background. What was wrong was the wholly intemperate way in which the Government attacked the BBC—not just Andrew Gilligan. In the face of the constant and unremitting pressure from Alastair Campbell, they had to demonstrate a sturdy defiance. The torrent produced a feeling that their independence was under attack. Their behaviour was honourable. If the representations had been less vehement, an accommodation could, I believe, have easily been reached.
When one looks at the inaccuracies of Fleet Street journalism, one is impressed by the standards of the BBC. The Government do not often attack Fleet Street with its sometimes deplorable standards, but have chosen the BBC, which has the highest standards of all the media. By contrast, the way in which the BBC has reported fairly the attacks upon its own integrity, including even unflattering stories about itself, is impressive.
Comments have been made about the independence and standards of Channel 4 and ITV 1 and 2. I acknowledge this valuable aspect. The question we have to ask is how much of this is due to the standards set by the BBC. The noble Lord, Lord Currie, accepted
344
this important role. This is an important yardstick, and we all benefit from it. If the yardstick were removed, where would the commercial temptations lead us?
The governors cannot just be independent monitors—the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was right. They are seen, quite correctly, as supportive of the BBC's role. What is required is an overall view of the work of the corporation and the capacity to advise—sometimes robustly—but it should not be unsympathetic external advice. As my noble friend Lord Barnett pointed out, there is no evidence of failure by the governors. Of course they can make mistakes, but any mistakes must be seen in the context of 80 glorious years of British broadcasting. We may come up with some improvements in the way in which the governors are selected and run their affairs, but the greater danger is the consequence of charter renewal, which may do too much. We have to beware of that.
I was chairman of the National Audit Office for 14 years. The main reason for that, of course, is that we were not very successful in winning elections during that period. The National Audit Office is a magnificent body. It expanded, and I had the privilege of proposing the present leader of the NAO—the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It does a splendid job, but when it comes to risk-taking, there are real problems. Of course it can see to financial rectitude and it can understand risk-taking in the Ministry of Defence field. But when it comes to risk-taking in particular areas where the BBC and the arts are concerned, it does not have that kind of expertise and it is not easy to see how it could obtain it. That is why I think we should retain the present position, and that the governor's powers should not be reduced.
On the renewal of the charter, I hope that we will reach a political consensus. It would be very sad if this becomes a political football, as some people have thought. However, I hope that we shall come to appreciate that this was a period when things went slightly wrong and that we can see the wider picture and make sure that the BBC stays with us as the important embodiment of our culture and our society as we have known it.
6.35 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on getting this slot today, not least for mentioning, in such favourable terms, his impression of the Liberal Democrat views about public service broadcasting. We are grateful for his reference to my honourable friend's remarks in The House Magazine and elsewhere. They were reinforced by my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth.
We on these Benches believe very firmly that the BBC should remain the dominant institution in public service broadcasting and in the country's broadcasting landscape. That is not to say that we do not recognise that as we come up to the charter renewal—the Government recognise this because, otherwise, they would not be consulting so widely on it. We are at a difficult point. I do not quite follow the point of the

345
noble Lord. Lord Dubs, as to why Hutton should have changed public service broadcasting so radically. I can see that it has been changed in the short term, but I cannot see that it has been altered for all time. Perhaps we can have a chat about that outside the Chamber.
I am probably just over the average age of Members of your Lordships' House. I always used to think that I was younger but as I looked around the Chamber tonight while listening to the debate I saw so many young and distinguished faces from the broadcasting industry and I realised that I have been glued to a radio or television set for most of what will be my 69 years.
I had a peripatetic youth. I was born before the war, as my age indicates, and was moved around during the war. I have jotted down on my piece of paper what were the most extraordinary moments in broadcasting that I experienced. I think my most extraordinary memory is of a summer's day in 1943, I think, listening to "ITMA" on the radio in the middle of the day when the sky was black with American bombers going on daylight bombing raids. There was a curious incongruity to this extraordinary happening in the sky and this wonderful programme with catch-phrases that held everybody so enthralled.
I never saw television until the coronation of Her Majesty the Queen in 1953. I saw it in France, where I was spending a short time with a family before going into the Army. I was asked to a very large gathering in the smart 16th arrondissement to see the BBC's relayed programme of that extraordinary event. It was a very wet day, as your Lordships who were alive at the time will recall. The French audience, who were affluent and elderly, were spellbound during the broadcast. Much to my embarrassment—I had only just turned 18—when it was time to leave, everybody shook my hand as they went out of the door. I always thought the reason for that was their admiration for our monarchy, but I now realise that it probably was not. It was the recognition that they were seeing first-class television broadcasting.
I have to say that since that day, broadcasting has been rather a disappointment to me. I remain firmly a radio listener. I have jotted down what I listen to and what I watch, and for a parliamentarian, I watch and listen to quite a lot. On the radio, I listen to "Today"; on Mondays, I listen to "Start the Week", and on Thursday mornings I listen, when I can, to the programme of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg—"The Moral Maze"—though that may give an inflated view of my intellectual capacity.
When it comes to television, it is not quite so encouraging. Almost every night I watch "Newsnight". I also watch "Have I Got News For You", snooker—whenever it is broadcast—and I switch to Sky for the boxing on Saturdays. I watch the History Channel and repeats of "Seinfeld" and "Dad's Army". As noble Lords may gather, I have some interest in France having spent my formative years there, so I sometimes watch the French satellite channel TV5.
On a serious note, we must decide what public broadcasting is all about. I do not think that that debate has been fully entered into. The Government
346
are clearly trying to influence this debate and they are going about it in a sensible way. We all know about quality. I was interested to hear two very experienced noble Lords mention "beyond quality innovation". That is a great thing for the public service broadcaster —something it can do with the kind of funding that it has. It can be dangerous from time to time; it should be able to afford to fail. That is where there could be a conflict. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, mentioned the National Audit Office. If the National Audit Office is going to overlook what has already been done by the in-house auditor, inevitably, if it sees what is perceived to be a waste of money or something that does not offer value-formoney, it will start to find things that can be disposed of. Innovation will surely be one of those. That is a serious matter that must be addressed.
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the Elstein report clarifying the purpose of public service broadcasting, which our excellent Library gave to me. It seems almost taboo to mention the report, but I found it absolutely riveting. It dug away at things and pushed to the boundary discussion about what was perceived to be wrong with the present public service broadcaster. People have been put off by the solutions that were given, and I agree about that. However, to have dug away at some of the problems of the public service broadcaster and the difficulties that it faced was very brave. It is an extremely interesting report to read. I recall that it said that it was necessary to clarify the purpose. As a result of DCMS consultation, I hope that the purpose will be clarified. In 80 years, the purposes must surely have changed quite radically.
The need for pluralism nowadays is clear. Although I described it with a sense of humour, my eclectic watching is not unusual. Most people nowadays have broad interests. We do not all gather round the next day and discuss the same programme. We all have our own interests. Pluralism is very important in public service broadcasting. The whole landscape of advertising revenue means that the responsibility for public service broadcasting output is almost entirely with the BBC. Channel 4 and ITV cannot, without great difficulty, fulfil their public service remit, which is damaging.
The reputation of the BBC will outlive hiccups such as the Hutton report and, should a satisfactory settlement be reached for the review, the BBC will go on for some time to come. There is an interesting question in the DCMS's report, which asks:
"Should the BBC provide something for everyone?"
That strikes me as an important question. Can the BBC today possibly maintain its quality if it has to provide something for everyone? After all, we are a very widely constituted society. We are a multicultural, multi-racial and multi-religious society. We must have some objective standards or aims about what public service broadcasting will deliver, otherwise I fear that we will see too much effort to please everybody.
The way that the educative, entertainment and information roles are carried out will decide the future of the BBC. It will only carry on through the support of the licence fee payer—the public at large. It must do that with

347
quality and without derivative programmes—I absolutely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Currie and Lord Puttnam, about derivative and celebrity-led programmes, which represent the state of affairs in much of our theatre now.
Was Gavyn Davies right? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, asked whether changing the dominant position and advantage of the BBC within the broadcasting environment would open the door to political interference and commercial pressure. That is a very important question. The Elstein report did not agree, which is interesting. Surely, the continuing threat to the independence of the BBC is the Government's control of the licence fee, which they always hold over the BBC. It needs a leader with enormous strength of personality. I echo what other noble Lords have said about the appointment of Michael Grade. He is remarkable. Incidentally, if noble Lords ever go to dinner with Mr Grade, they should get him to do his impersonation of Tommy Cooper because it is by far the best I have ever heard.
Time is short. There is no more that I can say to a distinguished House full of noble Lords who have great experience in this subject. I am being watched very closely by my noble friend Lord McNally here beside me, who has flown in from Bulgaria—although not to hear my speech. He would have been making this speech, and with his robust good humour, he would probably have touched nerves that I cannot reach. There is no time to go into some of the interesting things that have been said. My recommendation to noble Lords who have not been present this evening is for them to read the Hansard report of the debate, because it has been fascinating.
On a final note, I am absolutely addicted to radio. Please leave it in the public sector. Whatever happens, please let it be publicly financed to maintain its quality in the future. If we think back to pre-television days, the reputation of the BBC was founded on the importance of radio to people in this country.
6.47 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I will immediately follow the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, in saying that I am also completely addicted to Radio 4. It has been as much a part of my education as anything else, so I entirely agree with what he said. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, for raising this important debate to call attention to the forthcoming BBC charter renewal. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich on his excellent maiden speech. I am rather sorry about our tradition of not being controversial, because we should use these opportunities early on in this period of charter renewal to be a little controversial and radical and think about all the possibilities for the future of the BBC. I have had a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, to say how sorry he is that he could not attend this debate. The governors of the BBC are busy discussing their document today, so he cannot be with us, which is a great shame.
348
We welcome the appointment of Michael Grade as the new chairman of the BBC. I have always thought that he has a great deal of chutzpah and I join the grandchildren of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in saying that I guess that also means "blind".
This is a crucial time for the future of public service broadcasting. The broadcasting landscape has changed dramatically since the last charter renewal process, with the advent of new technology such as digitalisation, the increasing numbers of channels and availability of new platforms for delivery allowing greater diversity in programming choice, both in radio and television. Most notably, the expansion of the Internet and services such as BBC Online have meant that we now have greater choice in how, where and when we access information.
This charter renewal period offers the opportunity to consider the position and role of the BBC as an institution. The numerous issues to be addressed in this review are challenging and wide-ranging. At this early stage, definitive solutions to change should not be offered until the responses to the first phase of the consultation process have been digested. Furthermore, the BBC's submission to the review will not be made until the incoming chairman and director-general have assessed their position.
In May 2003, the Conservative Party consulted an independent group, which calls itself the Broadcasting Policy Group. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to the Elstein report. The group was asked to address the key issues that it believed required reform within the charter renewal process. The resulting report was designed to stimulate debate, both within the Conservative Party and the broadcasting arena as a whole. Although some of the report's proposals are very radical, I believe that if we are to have an open and honest debate about the key issues that affect the future of the BBC, wide-ranging options on differing sides of the broadcasting spectrum must be introduced. We must make full use of the opportunity, but those options must be considered with great care, and always with an eye to the future, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said, bearing in mind the keen competition that the BBC will face.
The Government's charter renewal consultation paper begins by asking,
"what do you value about the BBC?".
The BBC's role as a public service broadcaster is a central part of the British broadcasting ecology, although public service obligations are additionally conferred on the three terrestrial commercial channels. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the role and remit of the BBC as the dominant public service broadcaster is clearly defined. The charter states that the function of the BBC is to inform, educate and entertain. In return, the citizens of the United Kingdom expect the BBC to provide, among other services, impartial and accurate news programmes that they can trust.
I refer to a recent report by the Centre for Policy Studies to provide an example of why the BBC must ensure that these obligations are met. The report is entitled, An Outbreak of Narcolepsy—why the BBC must

349
improve its coverage of the EU. The report addresses the increasing role played by the European Union in our national political life and concludes that this position is not adequately reflected by the BBC's coverage in this area. The time allocated to this important topic is of increasing significance. Only yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that following the enlargement of the EU on 1 May, the electorate should be asked for their opinion on the adoption of the European constitution. The CPS report found that since the European parliamentary elections in 1999, the time devoted by the main BBC television news bulletins was just 2.6 per cent. The report states that an analysis of the BBC's coverage of the EU also reveals an underlying assumption that listeners would find European politics dreary.
The question of the ratification of the European constitution is of fundamental importance to this nation. The relevant issues need to be covered comprehensively, thus allowing the electorate to make an informed, educated decision about their country's future governance. Suggestions to remedy the problem include the adoption of an EU affairs slot on news services and the appointment of a European affairs editor to ensure that the BBC's public service obligation in this area is fulfilled. These proposals should be considered by the BBC in light of this report. While the press provides alternative views on whether the EU constitution should be adopted, the BBC will be required to provide a balanced and impartial approach to the issues pertinent to this referendum.
I turn now to the question of funding. How the BBC is financed has long been one of the most contentious and debated aspects of its organisation. The main funding alternatives have been outlined in many reports, including the Peacock committee report in 1986 and Davies report of the Independent Review Panel in July 1999. The Davies panel, asked to consider how the licence fee could be supplemented rather than replaced, concluded that,
"from the BBC's point of view, the licence fee is the best way to finance public service broadcasting. The security of regular income allows the BBC to take a long term perspective … however, the downside, as with all forms of guaranteed, tax based revenue is that it frees the BBC from the need to respond to changing consumer preferences".
The primary funding alternatives available include advertising, voluntary and compulsory subscription and the licence fee. I do not believe that advertising would provide an acceptable means of funding the BBC. Advertising spend is finite, and the ability of commercial broadcasters to make high-quality programming should not be compromised in any way. We need to ensure that the broadcasters subject to public service obligations remain in a commercially sustainable position in future. Furthermore, as Professor Eric Barendt—Goodman professor of media law at University College, London—said recently,
"introducing advertising on some or all of the BBC's public services would be likely to alter the range and quality of BBC programmes, leading inexorably to a more populist and less distinctive schedule. The programmes would have to attract high spending audiences … which could force the BBC to cut back on challenging and innovative programming … or to reschedule minority programmes out of peak times".
350
Clear advantages exist in the development of subscription-based funding. Subscription could take a number of forms, such as voluntary, compulsory or individual programme subscription. The main advantage with this system of funding is that payment could be made on an individual or "per home" basis depending on programmes watched and number of television sets owned, as well as ability to pay. The BBC is central to the public service broadcasting ethos. At present, a voluntary subscription service would not be desirable as a method of funding the BBC, as it could dilute the fundamental principles of public service broadcasting, such as universality and social inclusion.
A gradual move towards compulsory subscription could be considered as an alternative to the licence fee. Compulsory subscription would provide a determinable income stream for the BBC but would also facilitate the forthcoming digital switchover. The compulsory subscription rate could include core BBC public service radio and television channels with the option to take further additional channels if desired. This method of funding would allow the citizen an element of choice as to which niche BBC channels they receive. However, reception of the core channels could be, as at present. a mandatory requirement. Compulsory subscription would allow the administrative costs in collecting the licence fee to be considerably reduced.
The increased availability of new technology, such as wireless Internet connection, which provides immediate access to high-speed streaming data services anywhere, including restaurants and coffee bars, warrants further consideration. WI-FI, as with a fixed internet connection, allows users to watch live, real-time BBC news broadcasts on their computer wherever they are in the world. As convergence continues and technology improves, the computer user will be able to access more data and programming via the Internet.
How the licence fee would provide a viable longterm funding mechanism for the BBC and the funding issues presented by this new technology must be fully considered. I believe, in light of the rapid advancement of technology, that the current renewal period of 10 years is long. Perhaps a shorter period of seven or even five years should be considered.
I find the proposal by Carol Tongue and David Ward to establish a council for public service broadcasting of particular interest. Their submission to the BBC' charter review public consultation proposes that,
"it is necessary in the first instance for the issue of funding to be removed from the primary political domain and from lobbying by the BBC and other interested parties".
An alternative body, albeit with distinct powers, was suggested by the Broadcasting Policy Group.
It is imperative that the governance of the BBC is independent from both governmental influence and from the BBC's executive structure. The current system, whereby the governors are both the regulators and champions of the BBC, is not tenable and will become increasingly unsustainable. Here I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Indeed. I have strong sympathy with the view that the current board of governors does not in essence adequately reflect the

351
diverse interests of society. A transparent, accountable and external constitution must be put in its place. I urge the Government to consider an alternative structure that allows the BBC to remain strong and independent. The word "independence", which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, focused on in the first place, is the most important word in this debate. We also welcome the publication today of Ofcom's review of public service broadcasting, Is television special? I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Currie, had to say this evening.
I see that my time is up, but I want quickly to touch on one important area relating to the BBC's commercial activities. The BBC continues to work hard to try to persuade us that its commercial activities remain at arm's length from its publicly funded activities. However, in truth there are areas where the BBC is blatantly abusing its powerful brand, for example, in areas of cross-promotion. The BBC will, I fear, undermine its reputation as a public service broadcaster, diminish its ability to defend its core purposes and weaken the UK broadcasting industry as a whole if it does not take up this issue with care.
On the positive side of its commercial activities, I join the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in urging the BBC to consider ways of using its incredibly valuable intellectual property worldwide to commercial advantage—more funding for greater investment in quality programming makes good sense.
I wish that I had more time to respond to my noble friend's passionate speech about programme content. The process of charter renewal has just begun. We need more time for debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said the other evening in the debate on higher education, there is never enough time to say what needs to be said. I wonder if it might be possible for those of your Lordships who are particularly interested in this matter to meet informally. Personally, I believe that together we could make a valuable contribution. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, who said that political consensus is what is required here. It is something that we in your Lordships' House could really look to. In that way I believe that we could make a really valuable, worthwhile and long-term contribution to the debate and therefore to the future of our most loved BBC.
7.1 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, the month of March 2004 was a horrible month for me. I spent a good deal of it travelling round the country—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions—on behalf of my department taking part in the public consultation on the charter review. At this point I look carefully at my officials in the Box who are lovely people.
I visited independent producers and watched children in Govan, Glasgow conduct a debate on the licence fee. I visited children in Southampton who had
352
their own TV studio in their school. I talked to BBC and other public service broadcasters. I held industry seminars and rather unsuccessful public meetings. All of those people had the right to say what they thought about the BBC. The only person who did not have that right was me. I do not care for that. I am not known as a person without opinions. The same position applies today. The only opinion I can pronounce on behalf of the Government as we get into the public consultation process is that we believe that the outcome will be a BBC which is strong and independent of government.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, extended that to the BBC being independent of advertising as well. I was about to say that I had some sympathy with that but that would be going beyond my remit. However, I heard what he said. I am grateful to the noble Lord both for finding a slot for this debate and for the way in which he introduced it. All of the comments that have been made and the very many deeply felt views which have been expressed today are now part of the consultation process, or will be when Hansard is published tomorrow morning. It is difficult to beat the sound bite of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, about the role of the BBC in making popular TV good and good TV popular. I think that he would agree to extend that to radio, but that comment sums up what many of us think about the BBC. It was a good introduction to what has been a good debate.
It was a particular privilege to hear the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. If he will give me the relevant phone number, perhaps I can make my reservation for his future speeches because certainly today's speech was an excellent maiden speech. He referred to religious broadcasting. He may know that under the guidance, with the help of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, we have, as we undertook to do during the debates on the Communications Act, convened a very wide-ranging meeting on religious broadcasting which will take place on 30 June this year. At that meeting we shall hear a very wide range of views on the issues on which the right reverend Prelate touched in his speech.
As I am not in a position to express opinions, all that I can really do in the time that is available to me is to say something about the way in which we are approaching the charter review. It is fortunate that the debate is taking place on the day on which Ofcom presented its findings and conclusions on stage one of its review of public service broadcasting. That was referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Thomson and Lord Puttnam, and, of course, by the noble Lord, Lord Currie. The great thing about the report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Currie, referred, is that the very wide-ranging research carried out by Ofcom showed continuing public support for the BBC and for a greater social purpose for the BBC. The report maintains the duality between the role of citizen and consumer. The Ofcom report states that even if, with wider choice, the role of the BBC in maintaining the interest of the consumer fades away, the role of the BBC in protecting the role of the citizen will continue and, indeed, be strengthened. That makes it all the

353
more perverse that Ofcom still insists on using the portmanteau word "consumer". I acquit it of any charge of abandoning the citizen, but it is going about it in a very strange way.
However, having said that, our own consultation activity, which has been going since December, is proceeding very well. In early December we distributed more than 400,000 leaflets on request to public libraries, local government offices and anyone who would take them. We distributed 200,000 leaflets to Take a Break on 4 March. As I said, we have held public meetings and consultation visits throughout the United Kingdom to allow people to speak directly to Ministers about the issues. We have also given children and young people an opportunity to have their say. There have been around 5,500 responses to the initial consultation, including a large number from interested organisations and the broadcasting industry. We have had 26,000 visitors to the charter review website. All of this work is hugely complicated to analyse but we are now engaged in the analysis process although clearly it is too early for me to give any indication of the thrust of that.
Following that analysis we shall carry out our own research and, around the turn of the year, we shall publish a Green Paper in which we shall reach preliminary conclusions and in which we shall isolate some of the significant and viable options which might arise from the consultation process. At the same time we have ensured the independence of the process by putting in place a strong adviser to underscore our commitment to objectivity. As is well known, that adviser is the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who will chair a small independent panel to help to marshal the arguments and set out the options for consideration.
All of this was started early to ensure that we have adequate time to debate the issues and develop what will replace the current charter on 1 January 2007. Following our Green Paper to be produced at the turn of the year, a White Paper will follow in 2005. They will take into account the results of major consultation exercises, the first of which closed at the end of March, as I said. At that stage, we must clearly think about parliamentary scrutiny. I do not think that any agreement has been reached with the authorities or usual channels in either House about what the parliamentary scrutiny will be, but I give an undertaking that it will be no less thorough than the scrutiny that took place on the previous occasion.
I have done most of what I am able to do. There are a few factual points that noble Lords raised to which I can respond. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to digital coverage and the fact that about 25 per cent of the population is not able to receive digital terrestrial television. I hope that he realises that the significance of that is that we have said that we shall not undertake the switch-off of analogue television until the act of switch-off makes available, from analogue spectrum, the same coverage of digital television as there has been. We cannot achieve 100 per cent before switching over, but we can achieve the same proportion when we carry out the switchover itself.
354
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, had some very valuable things to say about the coverage of European issues in broadcasting and by the BBC. In particular, she spoke on the need for impartiality in considering those issues. Now that we shall have a referendum, that is even more important. The existing charter and agreement ensure that the governors exercise responsibility for impartiality, and that the BBC treats,
"controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality, both in the Corporation's news services and in the more general field of programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy".
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, queried the timing of the charter review process and suggested that the charter should be reduced to five years.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I said as strongly as I could that I hoped that the rumours about five years were totally untrue and that the Government remained firmly committed to 10 years.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that; I misunderstood the noble Lord. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, made the same point. He is quite right, of course. The significance of that was that the Government decided very early on that we would set a formula for the licence fee until 2006, to ensure that there was no political pressure possible through it during the run-up period to the renewal.
Earl Ferrers—the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers; he likes to be addressed properly—made a point about responsibility for taste and decency on television. He was answered largely by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. However, under the terms of the Communications Act and associated amendments to the BBC agreement, the core responsibilities of the BBC governors are retained. The Act introduced a number of new external requirements to be monitored and enforced by Ofcom. They include most programme code standards, including taste and decency. There has been no weakening of the regulatory process, although the noble Earl is of course entitled to his view about the result in terms of what appears on screen.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that, although the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that the matter was monitored, the horse has already left the shed? It is only monitored because something bad has been said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand the noble Earl's point and that there are those who feel that, whatever the rules, there are occasions—some people think that there are large numbers of occasions—when they are not adhered to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, made a point about independent production quotas. It is certainly true that, in 2002–03, only 21 per cent of qualifying programmes on BBC1 and BBC2 were independent productions. I do not excuse that in any way. The BBC expects to exceed the quota for the present year, 2003–04, and the governors will monitor the position very closely. I entirely agree that the

355
25 per cent should be a floor, not a ceiling, and that we should look to a larger role for independent production companies and for an improvement in the relationship between the BBC and the independent productions that it commissions.
I have made a boring speech; I had to make a boring speech. I make boring speeches on the subject all the time, because I cannot do anything else. I repeat the mantra: the result of the process will be a BBC that is strong and independent of government.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, and the one noble Earl, who participated. The debate has been particularly good, and was enhanced by the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I am sure that we all want to hear him again on many occasions. He is obviously attuned to the House at a very early stage. He was amusing and had excellent points to make, and we were delighted to hear him.
I obviously cannot refer to many of the speeches. However, the noble Earl referred to me and everyone else who participated as television tycoons. I have never been described in that way before. I do not know whether to thank him, but I have certainly never considered myself a tycoon in any sense of the word. It is very interesting; he spoke of the "F" word being used 1,429 times—I think that he counted it, personally—over a couple of days. I hope that it will not happen again, and that he will be able to stop counting very soon.
I have one comment to make on the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Puttnam. He wanted to see the board of governors being able to challenge the executive. When the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, was the chairman and I was his deputy, I am happy to say that we always were able to challenge the executive and did. I hope that future boards of governors will continue to do the same.
My only other point—I do not have much more time—is for my noble friend Lord Dubs, who made an excellent point. Everyone who spoke in the debate wanted to see greater independence for the BBC. My noble friend spoke about the possibility of having an independent body along the lines of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England deciding the size of the licence fee, rather than the Government themselves. I have had a little to do with the Monetary Policy Committee on the Select Committee on Economic Affairs, and I appreciate the point. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh is in a listening mode, rather than having an opinion at this stage, I hope that he took note of that comment, which is well worth making.
Again, I thank everyone who has participated in what I consider to have been an excellent debate by a very distinguished band of speakers. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

International Self-Defence
7.19 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresfordrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they accept the legitimacy of pre-emptive armed attack as a constituent of the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter; and, if so, whether they will define the principles upon which it will be exercised.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I formulated the Question, I did so in response to comments made by the American President, President Bush, about the new policies that he was introducing. The Prime Minister is following in his wake, as he has on so many occasions. On 5 March, the Prime Minister addressed a meeting of businessmen in his constituency. He said:
"It may well be that under international law as presently constituted, a regime can systematically brutalise and oppress its people and there is nothing anyone can do, when dialogue, diplomacy and even sanctions fail, … This may be the law but should it be?".
He continued:
"Before September 11th, I was already reaching for a different philosophy in international relations from a traditional one that has held sway since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, namely that a country's internal affairs are for it and you don't interfere unless it threatens you, or breaches a treaty, or triggers an obligation of alliance".
The Westphalian treaty put an end to the Thirty Years War, which had wasted Europe and caused millions of deaths and untold suffering on a scale that was not repeated until the great wars of the 20th century. It had high ideals, based upon Christian values, and if the promotion of peace and harmony between nations, which was contained in that treaty, did not by any means always lead to the peaceful conclusions that its signatories foresaw, nevertheless the principles of that treaty held sway until 1914 and were subsequently incorporated in and informed the Charter of the League of the Nations and the United Nations Charter in 1945.
The fundamental tenets of the United Nations are set out in Article 2:
"All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations".
These principles were derived from the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648.
War is illegal. There are only two exceptions. The first is armed intervention authorised by resolution of the Security Council. The second is the right of a member state to act in self-defence, as set out in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which says:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security".

357
That gives an inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs.
Self-defence justifies the use of armed force in the violation of another state's territory—crossing a border—in three instances: where an armed attack is immediately threatened; where there is an urgent need for defence; and where there is no practicable alternative to proportionate action in self-defence. In 2003, no threats existed to the territory or to the military forces of either the United States or the United Kingdom.
In the early months of 2003, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General gave a legal opinion, which in effect launched the attack upon Iraq since we now know that the generals refused to move without it. He did not seek to suggest in the summary of his opinion that we have been allowed to see that the attack was justified by reasons of self-defence under Article 51. I agree with him.
He justified the invasion on the basis that the 1990 authorisation of force by the United Nations, which launched the first Gulf War, was revived by the failure of Saddam Hussein to comply with the terms of the 1991 ceasefire; in effect, that he had blocked the investigations that were being carried out by United Nations inspectors. I totally disagree with him. The Iraq war was illegal. I do not propose to spend much time on this topic because it is not the main thrust of my argument, but Resolution 1441, when finally agreed in November 2002, did not contain the familiar trigger words that would have authorised the United States, the United Kingdom, or any member state, to take military action against Iraq.
The original draft of the resolution, as disclosed on 2 October 2002, sought to lay down that failure to comply with the inspection provisions of the resolution would constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations. It went on:
"such breach authorizes member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area".
That was the wording that the United States and the United Kingdom were contending for. That is what they wanted: specific authorisation. Those were the words that triggered the Korean War, the first Gulf War and United Nations-backed armed interventions in Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda and Bosnia throughout the 1990s. They authorised member states to use,
"all necessary means to restore international peace and security".
In all the instances that I have quoted, the Security Council responded not to threats of aggression, but to actual invasion, large-scale violence or humanitarian emergency. Seven weeks of negotiation and exhortation by United States and United Kingdom representatives at the United Nations in October and November 2002 failed to get the explicit authorisation of military force that the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States were seeking. If they did not need such authorisation because it already existed under the resolutions of 12 years previously, why did they seek it?
I do not doubt for a moment the integrity and professionalism of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, but the refusal of the Government to waive legal professional privilege so that we can see
358
the whole of his opinion, together with his instructions, leads to the inevitable and reasonable inference that it contained qualifications that only historians will be able to judge. I assure your Lordships that it is rare for any lawyer to give an unqualified opinion.
But now in his latest statement the Prime Minister moves to support American efforts unilaterally to change international law. I suppose the view is that the Security Council did not countenance armed intervention into Iraq: it must therefore be circumvented in some way. It is instructive to remember that the United States led members of the United Nations Security Council in condemning the pre-emptive tripartite aggression carried out by England, France and Israel against Egypt in the 1956 Suez War. The United States was party to promoting resolutions that demanded the immediate withdrawal of British, French and Israeli forces. Later, the United States voted with the other members of the Security Council to condemn Israel for its pre-emptive attack on Iraq in 1981, during which Israeli planes destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor. That attack was also condemned by the British Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher.
What then is this new doctrine of pre-emption, which certainly did not exist at that time, that Mr Bush and his hard-line administration have adopted? On September 20, 2002, the administration unveiled its new national security strategy. This document addressed the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorist networks armed with the agendas of fanatics, as they put it. The strategy claimed that these new threats are so novel and so dangerous that they should:
"not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of selfdefense by acting preemptively".
Now the US claims a right of self-defence to act preemptively, on its own. To use the word "pre-emptively" in this context has been recognised as a misuse of language.
Senator Edward Kennedy, speaking in the US Senate soon after this publication, on 7 October 2002, pointed out that strikes that target a country before it has developed a capability to become threatening are not pre-emptive attacks, but preventive attacks. He said:
"The coldly premeditated nature of preventive attacks and preventive wars makes them anathema to well-established international principles against aggression. Pearl Harbor has been rightfully recorded in history as an act of dishonourable treachery".
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because Japan believed that America was preparing to expand its influence in the Pacific. Senator Kennedy went on:
"Historically, the United States has condemned the idea of preventive war, because it violates basic international rules against aggression".
So when in February and March 2003 the United Kingdom, with the assistance of Spain, again sought Security Council approval for military action in an oblique fashion by their draft resolution of 7 March, the Security Council was not persuaded. The draft resolution was withdrawn presumably because this

359
Government realised, through telephone taps of the Secretary General's conversation with its members, that the resolution had no chance of being passed.
According to Bob Woodward, extracts from whose book, "Plan of Attack", are published in the Washington Post today, the President told Mr Blair on 12 March 2003 that he had had it with the resolutions:
"'If we don't have the votes', Bush said, 'pull it down. We're through'."
So the United States and the United Kingdom were unable to persuade the jury of world opinion that there was sufficient evidence of a security threat to justify the invasion, the destruction of property and the loss of life which the war entailed. And world opinion was right. The need for authorisation by the Security Council is the essential safeguard against military adventure. If a country cannot persuade the members of the Security Council and avoid a veto by a permanent member, it does not have a case for a legal war.
Where do we now stand? Should we traipse into a war on the say so of the President of the United States? Do we ourselves declare war simply on the basis of our own intelligence sources which so singularly overestimated the threat posed by Iraq? If we abandon the need for authorisation by the United Nations, what other principle is to be applied?
Critics in the Prime Minister's own party have had their say. Tam Dalyell denounced Tony Blair's Sedgefield speech as "passionate, self-justifying drivel". Robin Cook, writing in the Independent on 19 March, the anniversary of the invasion, said:
"A fitting way to mark the anniversary would be to drive a stake through the doctrine of pre-emptive strike and bury it where it cannot be disinterred to justify another unilateral military adventure. The new Bush doctrine claimed the right to make war on any country that could be a potential threat some years down the road. Iraq has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that intelligence cannot provide evidence reliable enough to justify war on such a speculative basis".
Does the growth of international terrorism change the parameters? The answer is no. The Iraq invasion itself was not a response to terrorism because no link with Al'Qaeda was ever claimed by the British Government. And as for Afghanistan, the Security Council immediately passed resolutions which recognised the right of the United States to defend itself against the attack of 9/11 and eventually authorised the invasion of Afghanistan. It had full United Nations Security Council approval. The United States did not complain then about the United Nations' response.
If one state can claim the right in international law to defend itself by pre-emptive military action, entirely on its own assessment of a potential future threat, then every state can claim it. The security of the world in every part will be destroyed.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is to be thanked for and congratulated on having given us the opportunity to
360
consider this issue today. I say genuinely that I have had a lot of anxiety about intervening in this debate. To intervene in such a learned debate, opened by someone with as much legal experience as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to be wound up by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, for whom I have a great deal of respect, and to have the insight of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, with his legal experience, is quite a challenge for a layman.
I took heart by re-reading the charter and remembering that its opening words are,
"We the Peoples of the United Nations".
It is most important that we do not allow consideration of these issues to become monopolised simply by legal analysis. There was a spirit of "we the peoples" in the aftermath of the Second World War which means a great deal.
Secondly, in a lifetime spent in international work in and out of Westminster, I have become convinced of the imperative of the rule of law internationally. In doing so, two other considerations have increasingly struck me. First, it is not just a matter of having a rule of law; it is a matter of having equal access to the rule of law and consistency in its application. Therefore, if we in the United Kingdom. together with our friends in the United States, are advocating the cause of the international rule of law, we should be at all times exemplary not only in the detailed legal requirements but in the spirit in which we observe it. After all, we in our own society have for a long time said that it is a matter not only of justice being done, but of justice being seen to be done. People must feel that what is being done is in accordance with the law.
Having said that, and again drawing on my experience of international work, it would be naive to suggest that in the highly dangerous world in which we now live there are no issues surrounding the possible need for pre-emptive, perhaps even preventive. action as distinct from waiting to react. The cost of waiting to react could be incalculably great. But I would argue that in the greater cause historically of the sustainable rule of law across the world as a whole, it is more important than ever that any changes in the rule of law are approached honestly, in a considered and balanced way, through political debate at international level so that international consensus is built behind what is being done.
But if we are also talking about preventive and preemptive action, there is another lesson to be learnt. It is a sensitive issue, but it is no good dodging it. If such action is to be contemplated, it is indispensable that that action is based upon sound, carefully evaluated intelligence and not upon what can be imagined by people, whether that is fair or not, as a political decision to take certain action for which intelligence is then collected to justify the political decision. That is an absolutely crucial consideration.
My next point is that it is rather like discussing the Bible and other documents of equal significance. There is a danger about debating specific articles of the charter. The charter is a carefully crafted document. One has to look at the charter as a whole.

361
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, quoted from Article 51 and I shall not bore the House by quoting it again. However, in this context one has to look at Article 39 to which the noble Lord referred. It states:
"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".
Article 51 is clearly an article that is very realistic. It says that if something happens that requires immediate action—and obviously requires immediate action—that action may be taken. However, the charter goes on to make it plain that such action has to be brought together under the auspices of the UN as soon as possible. That action may be taken, but that brings us to the kernel of the difficulty: almost everyone has put 9/11 down to Al'Qaeda. However terrible the regime was in Iraq, and as someone who has been responsible for work carried out by a humanitarian agency in Iraq in the bad years, I take second place to no one on the horrors of that regime—it was a terrible regime—it has to be acknowledged that the involvement of Iraq in 9/11 has never been established.
So what was the action in Iraq about? The only justification under Article 51 was that there was an imminent and overpowering threat. As we have seen, that has not been established. It makes it all the more questionable why the methodical work, which was being undertaken by the UN through its inspectors and so on, should have been short-circuited, rather than waiting until that work was completed and there was a chance to evaluate it. It is apparent that there was not an overriding case in terms of imminent danger and overpowering threat.
Of course, weapons of mass destruction were central to the argument. Weapons of mass destruction have not been found. I have always been a little cautious about saying that because the weapons have not been found that shows that the war was illegitimate. It is theoretically possible that the weapons may still be found. I believe that it is highly unlikely, but it is possible. My concerns are about whether they could have been deployed overpoweringly and speedily, justifying action under Article 51, and about the need for UN authority.
Another argument is that the Iraqis failed to act in accordance with previous UN resolutions, to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred. But the previous UN resolutions dealt with the material, the weapons and so on that could be a threat. The evidence is still conspicuous by its absence in terms of overweening urgency in this situation.
Reflecting on these matters, I have come to the conclusion that it would be wanton irresponsibility on the part of the Government not to take the issue of international terrorism seriously. We all have to be prepared to consider how the new challenges, which until quite recently we never envisaged, should be tackled. I have a great deal of feeling for the responsibilities that lie on the shoulders of my noble
362
and learned friend the Attorney-General. I am glad that it is he who is shouldering those responsibilities because I have a great deal of respect for his outlook on political affairs.
If we are to tackle the issue of terrorism, it is not just an immediate terrorist threat in a specific situation that should concern us; we should be concerned that terrorists operate and succeed in a climate of significant, widely-based ambivalence. If many thousands or millions of people do not get up every morning saying, "Our first task is to eliminate, to reveal, to bring to justice terrorists", if people whose plight is so terrible in economic and social terms that sometimes they wake up in the morning saying, "They are doing terrible things, how horrible, but perhaps they are on our side, even though the action they are taking is wrong", then the terrorists have the climate that they seek which gives them maximum room for operation because there is a climate of ambivalence.
We therefore have to be resolute in tackling the issues of economic and social justice. But it is not simply a matter of economic and social justice on which we have to be resolute, but also the matter of political power. Coupled with the economically and socially disadvantaged, there are many highly intelligent, extremely well-educated people in the world who feel totally excluded from the power structures of the world. That is a diabolical mix which gives terrorists the best possible situation from their own standpoint in which to deploy their wickedness.
We have to tackle the issues of the distribution of power. We have to show that when action is taken it is not just taken by a small, well-endowed—literally— group of nations, telling the world how it should be run, but that it is undertaken with the maximum possible endorsement by the international community. That is absolutely essential to winning the battle for hearts and minds. That is why I have always felt that it is unfortunate to suggest that before such action is taken, there is a legal requirement alone to have a UN Security Council resolution. As the law stands—before we change it—that is certainly a requirement. But what really matters is that such a resolution by the Security Council should be the seal of authority on an international consensus that has been built. The task is to build international consensus and not to say that we are dispensing with collective international responsibility and taking over the running of the world ourselves. That is the issue. Language becomes very important. It is not a matter of saying, "We are going to do this", or "We are going to do that". It is a matter of saying that together with all the people in the world who care, together with those in Iraq who care, we shall do those things so that the responsibility is shared.
I know that the case was put together on the basis of previous resolutions. I have alluded to the degree to which those previous resolutions may not have been contradicted quite in the way in which sometimes it is easily assumed they were contradicted. Much more importantly, if something of the significance of Iraq was to be undertaken, it seems to me that it was

363
crucially important that it was undertaken in the demonstrable context of the maximum possible international consensus.
I conclude by saying that we are now looking at the future. I think that the world has been extraordinarily forgiving. People across the world are now looking at the future and at what we are to do for the future of Iraq, the future of stability in the region and the future of stability throughout the wider world. I beg the Government to learn from what has happened in recent years. It really is absolutely essential that in all that is done for the future we have the explicit, specific and demonstrable authority of the international community as represented in the authority of the United Nations.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for introducing the debate. It is a pity that more noble Lords are not speaking on this important topic, but the hour is late. Like my noble friend Lord Judd, I rise with some hesitation; perhaps more so. This is a debate about international legalities. Many noble Lords who spoke today, as my noble friend Lord Judd said, are themselves eminent and learned members of the legal profession. I am not a lawyer and perhaps I feel a little out of my depth. But the subject is important and I have certain views that I should like to add.
I suppose it was inevitable that the discussion today would centre on Iraq, which is one of the two centres of great unrest in the Middle East. I shall not speak about Iraq but will confine my points to Israel and Palestine. Is it not odd that in a part of the world where Turkey occupies part of Cyprus, where Syria occupies and controls Lebanon and where Armenia occupies part of Azerbaijan, that only Israel seems to bear the brunt of occupation and has to answer questions about preemption? Much of what I will say this evening will be centred on the fact that other countries, including our own, take pre-emptive action, but it seems to be Israel that is singled out and treated with a harsher level of condemnation.
It would be useful to look at some of the background to the situation. Perhaps noble Lords will bear with me. I know that much of it is known, but I should like to make a few points. For three and a half years Israel has been subjected to a horrendous and continuous barrage of Palestinian-instigated violence from within the West Bank and Gaza Strip; 400 civilians have been killed, which is equal to two Madrids, in a country of 6 million people. What is not often mentioned is that many of the people—in this case 2,000—have been horrendously injured, often by flying ball bearings and nails.
The Palestinian Authority has taken almost no steps to comply with its fundamental obligations under the Israeli-Palestinian agreements to combat terrorism, to arrest terrorists, to confiscate illegal weapons, to prevent incitement and to co-operate on matters of security. To the contrary, Palestinian officials have consistently supported and encouraged terrorist actions and engaged in incitement.
364
In order to comply with its responsibility to protect the lives of its citizens, Israel has initiated a series of defensive measures intended to protect the lives of its civilians, while limiting, as far as possible, injury to Palestinian civilians.
Painful dilemmas are created by the fact that the terrorists invariably locate themselves within civilian areas. While the prevention of injury to civilian bystanders must be a paramount concern, the fact that a terrorist deliberately places himself within the civilian population does not grant him immunity.
Noble Lords will remember that in the Bosnia crisis, in Kosovo and latterly in Afghanistan, we ourselves have been faced with the same dilemma. It is in the nature of cowards to hide behind the skirts of civilians, and hospitals and schools are their buildings of choice. What wonderful propaganda it makes for them when a shell explodes in the wrong place.
Among these defensive measures, as a rare and exceptional measure, is the targeted killing of terrorists acting with impunity from within the Palestinian territory. Considered use of this measure is both lawful and appropriate.
I should like to look at the right of self-defence in the face of terrorist attacks. No state is required by international law to remain passive in the face of an armed attack. This is a cardinal principle of customary international law.
Israel's options for prevention have been severely narrowed by the failure of the Palestinian side to comply with its obligations to combat terrorism, and, to the contrary, by its active support and encouragement for many terrorist acts.
The alternative to targeted killings—in other words waiting for more innocents to be blown apart by Hamas—will result in far more deaths than those that occur in targeted killings. Until the Palestinian authority can effectively suppress terrorist activity, Israel is left with no choice but to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure itself.
Let me address Article 51 of the United Nations charter. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, summarised some of its key points. Israel remains in the position of being barraged with attacks by a terrorist group, which explicitly promised to persist. Israel is not required by international law to remain passive in the face of these armed attacks. Use of phrases such as "assassination" and "extra-judicial killing" to describe such defensive acts is just a little inappropriate.
"Assassination" is generally used to describe the murder of a prominent person or public official for political ends. The targeting of terrorists focuses not on the public role of the individual, but on the role played by him in the murder of innocent civilians, and has as its goal not political motives but the saving of lives. "Extra-judicial killing" implies that an alternative legal recourse is available and has been deliberately ignored. On the rare occasions that Israel targets terrorists, it is precisely because no legal recourse is available. As such, the policy is no more extra-judicial than any individual using force to defend themselves from attack.

365
I turn to the fourth Geneva Convention. Some have contested that terrorists cannot be targeted in this manner due to protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions. That claim is unsubstantiated, however, as the Geneva Conventions are intended to protect civilians during times of hostilities. It follows that an individual who actively promotes and engages in terrorist attacks, utilises weaponry and armaments, or leads a hostile military organisation, cannot be defined as a civilian by any stretch of the imagination. He or she could not expect to benefit from those protections provided for civilians under the conventions. Put simply, it seems to me that those individuals who directly and actively partake in hostilities forfeit the immunities of civilians under those Geneva Conventions.
I should now like to address the topical issues of the killings of Rantissi and Yassin as well as other Hamas leaders. This is clearly an issue that causes great worry and much hand wringing. Sometimes I throw up my hands with disbelief when I hear the words that are uttered in support of these brutes, thugs and killers. These people, the Hamas leadership, have only one redeeming feature—they tell the truth. They say they want to kill all Jews, that they will never recognise the state of Israel and that they want an Islamic state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. That is what they say and it is true. And as I said in your Lordship's Chamber last week, Jews take it very seriously when a leader says he wants to kill us all. We have heard it before and we did not believe it. These days it tends to concentrate the mind. Rantissi was one of the leaders and proponents of an extremist terror organisation which has committed 425 terror attacks, not including those that have been foiled by the Israeli defence force, killing nearly 400 Israelis and injuring more than 2,000.
Rantissi personally vowed that Hamas would continuo its attacks on Israeli citizens and repeatedly rebuffed all attempts of reaching a negotiated ceasefire, stating that,
"we will be unified in the trenches of resistance. We will not surrender, we will never surrender".
He was adamantly against the notion of negotiation with the state of Israel, refusing even to accept the existence of Israel as a legitimate state, and he repeatedly declared his severe opposition to the Oslo accords, which were formed on the basis of such political recognition. Rantissi perpetually rejected any attempt at a ceasefire with Israel, as well as any type of political understandings between the Palestinian authority and "what is called the state of Israel", as he put it.
The Hamas doctrine leaves Israel with little feasible alternative. These circumstances necessitate that a state, which is responsible for the welfare of its citizens, defends them from such attacks. Past terror attacks, and the certainty of them in the future, compel Israel, as it would any other state, to defend itself and its citizens from terrorists who promise intentionally to inflict tremendous harm.
As the Labour leader Shimon Peres remarked following Rantissi's death:
"This is not the type of operation we are enthusiastic to carry out. We do it because we have no choice".
366
Were Hamas to agree to and actually implement a ceasefire and negotiate with Israel, Israel would discontinue the policy of targeted killings. Sadly, Israel was unable to find a peaceful partner in Mr Rantissi, just as with Sheikh Yassin.
That leaves another hypocrisy. When coalition forces in Iraq successfully targeted the sons of Saddam Hussein, nobody cited Article 41 or the 4th Geneva Convention. Rantissi, like his predecessor, Sheikh Yassin, was responsible for the sort of indiscriminate killings of which the Hussein brothers would have been proud. Therefore, it must be asked why Israel's targeting of Rantissi was so deplorable when the death of the Hussein brothers was widely supported by the international community. Here is yet another hypocrisy: when our special forces based in Afghanistan and Pakistan are busy, presumably, tracking down terrorist number one, Osama bin Laden, nobody complains. Indeed, I suggest that there would be some rejoicing were he to be removed from the scene. So why should Israel be treated any differently?
I wish to remind noble Lords of an occurrence where Israel did take pre-emptive action, which has already been mentioned in this debate, and that was widely condemned by countries around the world. In 1981, the Israeli Air Force bombed the Osirak nuclear plant in north-east Iraq. At that location Iraq had been developing its own nuclear bomb and was close to going live. The plant was flattened. Saddam's nuclear hopes were destroyed. Israel reacted as she did because she felt that her existence was being threatened—and so she was. Had Israel not taken that action, imagine Saddam and his sons with the bomb. Imagine him marching into Kuwait, Iran and Saudi Arabia. What would we have been able to do? Absolutely nothing. Sometimes pre-emptive action saves the day.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for enabling me to speak briefly in the gap. As my speech follows that of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, I had guessed that I would hear much about the Israel/ Palestine situation with which I agree. I shall make just one comment on that. Sheikh Yassin, who was recently the subject of a targeted assassination, had made the statement:
"We are against the killing of all civilians, but Israelis are not civilians".
The results are there for us all to see.
I wanted to speak because I was quite surprised that my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford apparently relies entirely on the rule of law. That is a good idea in principle. But if the rule of law must be adjudicated at times by the UN—and in order to comply with the rule of law, before making attacks on other countries, one must get the permission of either the Security Council or the UN; I am unsure which—that is a belief in the UN that I find difficult to share.
If, when the terrible massacres were occurring in Rwanda, an appeal had been made to France or even the United States to send in troops to try to prevent the violence, the UN might not have authorised that. In that case, under the rules as I understand them, the

367
countries being called in could not have done anything about it, because they were not being threatened, and the massacre would have continued.
In the same way, what would have happened if the Holocaust had been occurring only within the borders of Germany, and if Germany had not been at war? At that time, would we have authorised other countries to go in to prevent the Holocaust? I have not yet heard anyone address the issue of massacres, which tend to occur within a country.
The same applies to Bosnia. The massacres that took place there were an issue brought before the UN. So far as I can recollect—I admit that I have not researched it for today—the UN was disinclined to support any attacks on the Serbs to prevent what was going on. As usual, it took America's effort, supported strongly by Britain, to bring the necessary attacks upon that country without UN permission and to bring the massacres to an end, with a peace agreement arrived at in due course. The entire reliance on the UN frightens me.
My last point is one that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, made. It relates to the attack on the nuclear establishment of Iraq. At that time every country in the Western world, and probably elsewhere, verbally attacked Israel for such a dastardly act. But during the Gulf War it was interesting to note that not one country felt that the destruction of Iraq's nuclear establishment was anything but good. Incidentally, had Iraq's nuclear establishment not been destroyed, might it not have used it when the war commenced?
I am sorry to say that we are being a little simplistic when we consider that we can rely entirely on the goodwill of the UN to prevent terrible things happening in this world.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I start by disabusing the noble Lord, Lord Judd, of the fact that I am a distinguished lawyer. That accolade belongs to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, whom we are very grateful to see, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I might be a lawyer, but I am not distinguished. I have forgotten most of the law that I ever knew. The simple points that I shall make are largely political rather than legal.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, on bringing forward this timely debate. He ranged widely, and, possibly taking the advice of his noble friend Lord Russell, my noble kinsman, started off with the Treaty of Westphalia. I am afraid that my research took me back only to 1837, when the United States Secretary of State Daniel Webster, following the attack on the "Caroline", explained that to qualify as self-defence, there must be,
"necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment of deliberation … [the act should involve] nothing unreasonable or excessive, since the act justified by the necessity of self-defence must be limited by that necessity and kept clearly within it".
368
Obviously, going on from self defence to what we could term anticipatory self defence, there is considerable controversy. I do not wish to be drawn into that this evening, although that is properly the subject of the debate. I will concentrate more on the simple issue of the recent Iraq war, and the reasons put before another place as to why that war should be justified and why certain of us in another place voted for going to war. My noble friend the shadow Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve, made clear in a debate in another place on 9 March why he voted for the war:
"I did so based on my assessment of the position and, of course, on the material that the Government presented to the House—presumably, the exact basis on which the Government intended hon. Members to make up their minds".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/3/04; col. 1421.]
We are therefore grateful that Her Majesty's Government's most senior law officer, the Attorney-General, is with us this evening, and we hope that he will be able to explain in some detail why he made that decision. As I think he knows, we on these Benches feel that there is a strong need to publish the full legal opinion that he offered to his colleagues in the Government to encourage them, and no doubt the senior military, about the legality of the war. My honourable friend the shadow Attorney-General made it clear, again in that debate, that we accept that normally—I stress normally—that kind of legal opinion is not published. However, this is not a normal occasion.
The shadow Attorney-General also said:
"It is ordinarily important that such advice should remain confidential. The reason for the confidentiality is exactly that enunciated by the Foreign Secretary: the desirability of being able to get advice without it being published and also because—I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman would not disagree—the Government cannot hide behind the advice of an Attorney-General. It is the Government's decisions, based on advice, that have to be taken. In the old days, the advice used to be called an opinion. It is someone's opinion, not the gospel truth, that is offered to the world. It is the best advice that an individual, having sought the opinion and help of others, can offer the Government on what may be a complex and difficult issue".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/3/04; col. 1421.]
However, we are involved here with some complicated issues and with the vagaries of international law. We are also confronted with the fact that there were reports that there was another legal opinion from the Foreign Office that came out against the war. Perhaps the Attorney General can confirm this, but as I understand it, the author of that report resigned as a direct result of going to war.
As I made clear, normally we would accept that the advice from the Attorney General should remain confidential, but on this occasion, in March of last year, a summary of that advice was published by the Government. They argued that this compromise meant that the opinion was made public, but that confidentiality could be preserved. The summary stated:
"Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security".

369
The summary states that the fundamental reason for going to war against Iraq was that Saddam Hussein ignored successive United Nations demands to abandon his weapons of mass destruction programmes. This was backed up by the Government's September 2002 and 2003 intelligence assessments, which have been the subjects of further debate and considerable comment.
It seems to me, as it did in that debate on 9 March to the principal Liberal Democrat spokesman, Sir Menzies Campbell, that the principle, or the convention, that such advice not be published was breached by that publication, and also that it was a recognition by the Government of the special circumstances of the time. Again, I stress that my honourable friends, many of whom voted with the Government on that occasion, voted on the basis of what limited advice they saw—they did not see the full advice—and on the Government's intelligence assessments. It seems that the Government therefore recognised that there were special circumstances, and it seems that the case for publication of the noble and learned Lord's advice is a pretty strong one.
The Question that we are dealing with tonight can go much wider than the simple issue of the legality of the war in Iraq. Other noble Lords have commented on the situation in Israel and in other parts of the world. The noble and learned Lord could, if he wished—I hope that he will not—treat us to what might amount to an academic dissertation on the generality of the possibility of action under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In the light of the Question, it would, I suppose, be legitimate for him to do so. However, following last year's events and given the importance of the decisions that the Government and Members of another place had to make when they voted for the war on the basis of the intelligence dossiers that were published, we understand, after a certain amount of editing and on the basis of the advice given by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, that this debate is another vehicle for the noble and learned Lord either to explain his advice in some detail or—far better—to agree to its publication.
Certain members of the Government have seen the advice. I understand that some members of the Government who later resigned, such as Clare Short, claimed that they had not seen the advice. We owe it to them, to those who voted in another place on the war and, more important, to the Armed Forces who did the fighting—many of whom paid the ultimate price—to let the legal opinion see the light of day. Whatever the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General says this evening, we cannot in future let our soldiers go into battle with serious doubts about the legality of their action. From the Chief of the Defence Staff downwards, all must have full confidence in the rightness of what the Government ask them to do.
8.16 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on having secured the debate. He asks Her Majesty's Government,
"whether they accept the legitimacy of pre-emptive armed attack as a constituent of the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter; and, if so, whether they will define the principles upon which it will be exercised".
370
Despite the discouragement from the noble Lord opposite, I shall answer the Question, although I will go further—he need have no doubt about that.
Article 51 of the charter provides that,
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations".
It is argued by some that the language of Article 51 provides for a right of self-defence only in response to an actual armed attack. However, it has been the consistent position of successive United Kingdom Governments over many years that the right of self-defence under international law includes the right to use force where an armed attack is imminent
It is clear that the language of Article 51 was not intended to create a new right of self-defence. Article 51 recognises the inherent right of self-defence that states enjoy under international law. That can be traced back to the "Caroline" incident in 1837. If the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will not accept the description "distinguished lawyer", he can at least accept "accurate lawyer". It is not a new invention. The charter did not therefore affect the scope of the right of self-defence existing at that time in customary international law, which included the right to use force in anticipation of an imminent armed attack.
The Government's position is supported by the records of the international conference at which the UN charter was drawn up and by state practice since 1945. It is therefore the Government's view that international law permits the use of force in self-defence against an imminent attack but does not authorise the use of force to mount a pre-emptive strike against a threat that is more remote. However, those rules must be applied in the context of the particular facts of each case. That is important.
The concept of what constitutes an "imminent" armed attack will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats. For example, the resolutions passed by the Security Council in the wake of 11 September 2001 recognised both that large-scale terrorist action could constitute an armed attack that will give rise to the right of self-defence and that force might, in certain circumstances, be used in self-defence against those who plan and perpetrate such acts and against those harbouring them, if that is necessary to avert further such terrorist acts. It was on that basis that United Kingdom forces participated in military action against Al'Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. It must be right that states are able to act in self-defence in circumstances where there is evidence of further imminent attacks by terrorist groups, even if there is no specific evidence of where such an attack will take place or of the precise nature of the attack.
Two further conditions apply where force is to be used in self-defence in anticipation of an imminent armed attack. First, military action should be used only as a last resort. It must be necessary to use force to deal with the particular threat that is faced. Secondly, the force used must be proportionate to the threat faced and must be limited to what is necessary to deal with the threat.

371
In addition, Article 51 of the charter requires that if a state resorts to military action in self-defence, the measures it has taken must be immediately reported to the Security Council. The right to use force in self-defence continues until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. That is the answer to the Question as posed.
But I go further, particularly because it has been suggested that the military action taken against Iraq was based on an alleged right of pre-emptive action against Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps I may say very clearly that that is not the case. It has never been the position of the Government that the military action against Iraq was legally justified on grounds of "pre-emptive self defence". In particular, I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Judd that that was not the basis of this Government's action.
As your Lordships are aware, my view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq was set out in a Written Answer to my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale on 17 March 2003. On the same date, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary submitted a memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Committee which gave further detail of the legal position. Those documents made clear the Government's view that a legal basis for the use of force against Iraq existed in the combined effect of UN Security Council Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441.
It is evident, therefore, that the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq was not to be found in an alleged right of pre-emption, but rather in an authorisation given by the Security Council. Perhaps it is regrettable that the detail set out in those government documents—in particular, the FAC memorandum—is often overlooked by those commenting on the legal position.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, raised, as has been raised previously, the issue of disclosure of such advice as I may have given to the Government. There have been many calls for that. But the Government have made it clear repeatedly to this House and another place that they do not intend to do so, given that there is a longstanding convention, adhered to by successive governments, that advice given by the Law Officers is not publicly disclosed. The convention enables the Government to seek and receive full and frank legal advice in confidence. That is in the public interest so that governments of whatever party take full and frank legal advice and act in accordance with the rule of law. I do not intend to say anything different today. I disappoint the noble Lord, although I suspect that there is no surprise in my saying that.
I take the opportunity to address some of the criticisms levelled at the legal position set out in my Written Answer. In doing that, I should like to make it clear that I am expressing my view of the legal
372
position for the benefit of the House. I do not intend any waiver of legal professional privilege in any advice that I may have given.
I want to make four points. In a sense, this responds to allegations made today or previously by those who take a different view; I always respect an alternative legal point of view. The first allegation is that the action was unlawful because it was not authorised by the Security Council. In my view, that is not correct. Resolution 678 explicitly authorised the use of force. The second allegation is that the authorisation to use force given by the Security Council in Resolution 678 cannot be relied on in 2003. That is perhaps the principle argument that is raised. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made it today.
However, the view that the authorisation in Resolution 678 is capable of being revived by a material breach by Iraq of the ceasefire conditions imposed in Resolution 687 is not new. That is supported by, first, previous practice of the Security Council. The coalition took military action against Iraq on the basis of revived authorisation from Resolution 678 on two previous occasions, in 1993 and 1998—under two different governments, Conservative and Labour—following determinations by the Security Council that Iraq was in violation of its obligations.
Secondly, it is supported by statements made by the United Nations Secretary-General. Following the 1993 action, the then UN Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros Ghali, said:
"The raid yesterday, and the forces which carried out the raid, have received a mandate from the Security Council, according to Resolution 678, and the cause of the raid was the violation by Iraq of Resolution 687 concerning the ceasefire. So, as Secretary-General of the United Nations, I can say that this action was taken and conforms to the resolutions of the Security Council and conforms to the Charter of the United Nations".
He repeated that view in his introduction to The United Nations and the Iraq-Kuwait Conflict 1990–96, published by the United Nations in 1996. He stated that following the adoption of Resolution 687.
"enforcement measures remained in effect, including … the Council's authorisation to Member States to use 'all necessary means' to uphold Iraqi compliance",
with its obligations.
Thirdly, that is supported by the terms of Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441, which I remind noble Lords was passed unanimously, 15 to nil, by every member of the Security Council, including Syria, makes explicit reference to the authorisation to use force in Resolution 678 and to the fact that the ceasefire was based on an acceptance by Iraq of the conditions set out in Resolution 687. This is a clear indication that it was understood by the members of the Security Council that a determination that Iraq was in material breach of its obligations would revive the authorisation to use force in Resolution 678.
These points are not always remembered by those who take a contrary point of view.
Lord Roper: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord made reference to the fact that a material breach would provide an opportunity for further action, but if I remember rightly there was also discussion in the Security Council of the suggestion that there would have to be a determination by the Security Council that there had been such a material breach.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord is uncharacteristically wrong in his facts. That is because there was, first, a determination by the Security Council itself in Resolution 1441 unanimously that Iraq was in material breach. One sees that in the first operative paragraph of the resolution:
"Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations".
Secondly, and this is very important, it made a predetermination that if, after all these resolutions and after 12 years, Iraq did not now comply with its final opportunity, that would be a further material breach. Operational paragraph 4 decides that,
"false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution of failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of this Resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations".
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving way. Does he not agree that while what he argues seems absolutely logical in one context, there is a reasonable ground for other members of the United Nations Security Council to say, "Surely we have to agree that the situation is now right to take the action that was envisaged"? That is what the international dispute is about.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, if one examines the very important language used in Resolution 1441, one sees explicitly in operational paragraph 12 this and this only: that in the event that the matter came back to the Security Council which, as we all know, it did on a number of occasions, it was to meet to "consider the situation". That language was deliberate. It was not intended that it was necessary for the Security Council to take a further decision following a further material breach by Iraq. Several members of the council argued for this during the negotiation of 1441, but their proposals to amend the text to require that the council had to decide what action to take at that stage were not accepted.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords—
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I will give way but I am very conscious of the time. There are other important points I need to deal with and I invite the noble Lord to be as quick as he can.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I will be quick. Will the noble and learned Lord deal with my point that the Government were negotiating for authorisation of
374
further force before resolution 1441 was passed? If they were seeking further authorisation, why was that necessary if his argument be correct?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, it was not necessary. That is the point. What matters is the resolution that was ultimately passed then and there with the determination of an actual material breach, with a final opportunity given to Iraq and with a clear statement that a failure fully to comply or co-operate in any way would constitute a further material breach. There is no doubt—one can look at what was said by Dr Blix, and all the evidence in relation to it—and it was never contested otherwise, that Iraq failed to take that further final opportunity.
Lord Rea: My Lords, perhaps I may make a very brief point.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I am anxious to spend a moment or two on a third issue with which I must deal.
My noble friend Lord Judd made the important point that this is not a lawyers' debate but a debate about people. He referred to the response to the difficult challenges that we face. I am grateful for what he said about the heavy responsibility the Government bear—which they do—to protect the citizens of this country against all kinds of threats, but that they should not be dealt with only by the use of force.
Of course that is right. But it is important—and this debate provides the opportunity—to touch on the need for a wider international debate about the question of the use of force by states. It is an important area for discussion and we need to seek a political consensus at international level on the circumstances in which the Security Council should act under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter.
For the first 40 years of its existence the Security Council was constrained by Cold War political realities. A great deal has changed since then and the Security Council's practice has developed considerably. It has acted, for example, in relation to Somalia, eastern Zaire, East Timor, Sierra Leone and, most recently, Haiti.
The Security Council does not authorise in every case and the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, was right to remind us of the situation in relation to Kosovo. That is why I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that there are only two circumstances in which force is justified. There is increasing acceptance of the view taken in 1999 that imminent humanitarian crises justify military intervention.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made an important contribution to the debate in his Chicago speech in 1999 and he made a further important contribution to it in the Sedgefield speech on 5 March. We welcome the contributions that others have made to the debate—for example, the Canadian-sponsored International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty—and we very much welcome the establishment by the United Nations Secretary-General of a high-level panel—including the noble

375
Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, of this House, although in a personal capacity—which is looking at how the United Nations can improve its response to the broad range of threats to international peace and security, including the circumstances in which the use of force is justified.
I am afraid that I am prevented from dealing at any length with the points made by my noble friend Lord Mitchell and the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs. I simply say this. The Government deplore and have repeatedly condemned the terrorist atrocities committed against Israel and we recognise its right to defend itself against terrorism. But we also say that Israel must act in accordance with international law. That is what lies at the heart of the statements which have been made about the recent targeted killings.
The tragic impact of suicide bombings has been all too clear. Israel is entitled to take steps to ensure its security and safeguard itself against terrorism, but that conflict cannot be solved by military means alone. Ultimately, Israel's security can be achieved only through a just and lasting settlement negotiated between the parties. The road map offers the best opportunity for peace and we now look for both sides to move forward in implementing its obligations.
I am here to answer for the United Kingdom Government, not for anyone else's view. That would be extending my brief a little too far. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to what the United
376
States has said; I am not here to answer for it. If one looks at the document, one sees much more than simply a statement about unilateralism.
I conclude with the very wise words of Kofi Annan, who said last September,
"it is not enough to denounce unilateralism, unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some States feel uniquely vulnerable".
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I make the point that I tried to interject while he was in the midst of making an important point? Why was it not possible to allow the United Nations Security Council inspector, Hans Blix, to determine whether there had been a material breach of Resolution 1441? Instead, why was there an attack while he was still only half way through his work?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I shall answer the noble Lord's question. If one looks at what Dr Blix said in his reports to the Security Council on 27 January, 14 and 20 February and 6 March, when he issued a 173-page paper detailing unresolved issues, one sees that he did answer that question. His document catalogued Iraqi evasion, deceit, and the feigning of co-operation while in reality pursuing a cynical policy of concealment. Twenty-nine instances of Iraqi failure provide credible evidence and there were at least 17 occasions when inspectors uncovered evidence that contradicted the official Iraqi account. That utterly supports the view, which nobody contested, that Iraq had failed to take the opportunity which the Security Council unanimously had given it.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before nine o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Paramilitary Activity
  Northern Ireland: Paramilitary Activity
  Belfast Education and Library Board
  Belfast Education and Library Board
  Northern Ireland: Railways
  Northern Ireland: Railways
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Republic of Ireland: Official Languages Act
  Republic of Ireland: Official Languages Act
  Northern Ireland: Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister
  Northern Ireland: Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Irish Language Agency
  Irish Language Agency
  Law Officers' Advice to Government: Disclosure
  Law Officers' Advice to Government: Disclosure
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure: Cultural and Linguistic Diversity Funding
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure: Cultural and Linguistic Diversity Funding
  West Belfast Festival
  West Belfast Festival
  China: Human Rights
  China: Human Rights
  African Court of Human and People's Rights
  African Court of Human and People's Rights
  European Convention on Human Rights
  European Convention on Human Rights
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: Detainees
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: Detainees
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: Privy Counsellor Review Committee
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: Privy Counsellor Review Committee
  Community Punishments
  Community Punishments
  REME Volunteers Battalions: Wheeled Recovery Vehicles
  REME Volunteers Battalions: Wheeled Recovery Vehicles
  Defence Information Systems
  Defence Information Systems
  Ministry of Defence: IPv6
  Ministry of Defence: IPv6
  Astute Class Submarines
  Astute Class Submarines
  English Language Courses
  English Language Courses
  Schools: Pedometers
  Schools: Pedometers
  14 to 16 Education
  14 to 16 Education
  Adult Learning
  Adult Learning
  Wind Farms
  Wind Farms
  British Coal: Litigation
  British Coal: Litigation
  Gas Oil Bowsers
  Gas Oil Bowsers

  Northern Ireland: Youth Justice Agency
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  I have placed copies of the Youth Justice Agency's corporate plan for 2004–07 and business plan for 2004–05 in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The business plan contains eight key performance targets I have set for the service for 2004–05. These are:

  1. Contribute towards the development and publication of an NIO public service agreement target to reduce the reconviction rate for all offenders (compared to a predicted rate for Northern Ireland).

  2. During term-time, 95 per cent of children in the Juvenile Justice Centre will receive 20 hours a week of education and training.

  3. No escapes from the Juvenile Justice Centre.

  4. Over the year no more than 3 per cent of the total new admissions to the Juvenile Justice Centre should be non-accidentally injured.

  5. Over the year no more than 2 per cent of the total members of staff should be non-accidentally injured while engaged in the work of the agency.

  6. No members of the public should be non-accidentally injured on agency premises.

  7. Deliver at least 70 per cent of the planned training days specified in the corporate training priorities plan for 2004–05.

  8. Expenditure is within budget allocated.

  Northern Ireland: Discretionary Social Fund
  Baroness Amos
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  I am pleased to announce that the Northern Ireland Discretionary Social Fund budget for 2004–05 will be
  WS 14
  £58.25 million: £12.64 million will be allocated to grants; £45.51 million to loans and £0.1 million will be held as a contingency reserve. The new allocations represent an increase of £1.65 million over the initial gross budget set at April 2004. This increase will he funded through higher loan recoveries, plus an increase in net Treasury funding of £0.94 million for this year. This £0.94 million is the second of three annual increases from a £8.2 million boost for the Discretionary Social Fund announced in the autumn 2002 Pre-Budget Report.

  The Community Care Grant budget has been increased by £0.94 million to £12.64 million. This will provide more help to customers, in particular families with children and the disabled.

  The loans budget has been increased to £45.51 million, an increase of £0.71 million on the initial 2003–04 loans budget. To improve the fairness of the scheme, budgets will be allocated in a way that will over time achieve greater consistency of outcome for customers wherever they live.

  Details of the budget allocations, together with a note explaining the basis on which they have been made, have been placed in the House of Commons Library today.

  Civil Servants: Guidance on Conduct of Government Business before Elections
  Lord Bassam of Brighton
  My right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr Douglas Alexander) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The Government have today issued guidance to civil servants on the principles which they should observe in relation to the conduct of government business in the period before the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament, Greater London Authority and to local authorities in England and Wales.

  The guidance stresses that civil servants should conduct themselves in accordance with the Civil Service Code and is based on the need to maintain the political impartiality of the Civil Service and the need to ensure that public resources are not used for party political purposes.

  The guidance will come into force on Thursday 20 May 2004, ahead of the elections on Thursday 10 June 2004.

  Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Library.