Westminster Hall Sitting of 4 July 2001

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Dementia
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Caplin.]
9.30 am
Mr. Paul Burstow: I am pleased to have the opportunity to initiate a debate on the important subject of care services for people with dementia.
I have some personal experience of the subject, because I have shadowed three carers for the past three years, two of whom were caring for people with dementia. I want hon. Members to imagine what it is like to work an 18 and a half hour day every day with no holiday for five years. One of my constituents, Joyce Evans, has led such a life for the past five years. I met her during last year's national carers week.
I spent a morning with Joyce and her husband, shadowing her and seeing what the role of a carer is all about. To be honest, one cannot do that role justice in a morning, just sitting, talking and listening. Albert has Alzheimer's disease. It has robbed him of his memory and has robbed Joyce of a lifelong companion. They have been married for 41 years. It was a humbling experience to talk to Joyce and learn about her life. She has a wicked sense of humour that seems to keep her going. However, a darker side comes through in her letters, which reveal the struggle of caring for a loved one with Alzheimer's disease. Joyce has to plumb the deepest reserves to keep going. She said that she had been given a lot of support since the diagnosis of her husband's disease. They had received help with applying for benefits, such as attendance allowance. Social services had helped arrange for Albert to attend the Downsday day centre four days a week, and Joyce's doctor had been very supportive, once visiting at 2 am.
The Downsday day centre is crucial for Joyce, giving her space. Since Albert has stopped shaving himself, helpers at the centre do that for him and also give him a bath. Joyce has a strong and supportive family who live locally and a network of friends with whom she can have lunch. Albert is 78. He worked as a gas fitter. When the Shanklin estate in my constituency was built some time ago, Albert was one of the team that did the fitting work. On the day that I visited Albert, he was in a good mood. Joyce told me that, when he is in a bad mood, he tells people to bugger off. Sometimes he may go further than that.
When I arrived at the house, it was locked up like Fort Knox. Joyce explained that Albert was wont to go roaming. The only way to stop him was to ensure that the whole house was securely locked. Her son-in-law came to the rescue and fitted the locks. Extra locks might stop Albert getting out, but they can stop Joyce getting in. On one occasion, Albert locked her in the
70WH
back garden for half an hour, and there was no way out of the garden. It sounds funny now looking back, but it was not funny at the time.
Joyce is eight and a half years younger than Albert, and she needs to be to cope. Five years of solid care have taken their toll. Joyce is physically and emotionally drained. Unless one is a carer, one cannot put oneself in a carer's place and understand the mixture of emotions that are stirred up by caring day in and day out. It struck me that a combination of formal and informal help had made it just possible for Joyce to carry on caring for five years.
Should society expect Joyce to carry on caring? That is fine if that is what she wants to do. However, it is wrong if it is out of a sense of obligation, and because the alternative is degrading and unacceptable. Surveys show that most of us want to carry on living in our own homes for as long as possible, which I support. We must make sure, however, that the unsung heroes such as Joyce do not shoulder an unbearable burden. That is the reason why I chose this topic for debate.
Happenstance and good fortune, and the drawing of ballots for the Adjournment debates, have meant that we are debating this subject during Alzheimer's awareness week. This year, Alzheimer's awareness week is based around the theme of everyday matters. I know that that is true from my time shadowing Joyce. Alzheimer's disease is a label that commands fear before sympathy. People with the disease, and those around them, experience social exclusion and isolation.
Research recently published by the Alzheimer's Disease Society shows that 75 per cent. of carers for people with dementia see their friends less often than they used to, and 40 per cent. have less than an hour to themselves each day. Certainly, that is the experience of Joyce and of Lillian, a carer whom I met last year. Lillian powerfully communicated her deep isolation to me one day when, as I was about to leave, she said, "It is nice to have someone to talk to." She did not normally have that.
There are more than 700,000 people with dementia in the United Kingdom. Dementia affects one person in 20 over the age of 65, and one person in five aged over 80. Alzheimer's disease is the most common form of dementia, but there are others. As the population ages, the total number of sufferers will grow, even if drug treatments reduce the prevalence of the illness. The combination of mental frailty and physical disability makes those who are affected by some form of the disease vulnerable. As dementia progresses, sufferers require increased care and specialist support.
I do not intend to caricature the Government's record on dementia, because there have been some achievements. The national carers' strategy and the national service framework for older people are two examples of that. There is much common ground between the political parties on what we must achieve for people with dementia and their carers. However, I question the pace of progress and whether the Government's thinking is informed by adequate ambition and urgency.
In January 2000, the Audit Commission published a report entitled "Forget Me Not—Mental Health Services for Older People". The Audit Commission reported a massive disparity in the funding provided for

71WH
services for older people with mental health problems; a difference of 8:1 from one area to another. It also found that
"specialist help for users and carers is patchy and often uncoordinated."
The Audit Commission said that all the elements of a comprehensive service needed to be drawn together strategically. It identified the following: a need for clear goals on the intended balance between home-based, day, out-patient and hospital services; good quality information to inform planning, including monitoring of service quality; and an approach that promotes innovation and works towards jointly commissioned services by health and local authorities, as emphasised by national policy.
The "National Service Framework for Older People" was published 14 months later, in March 2001. Much of its content should be applauded, although it misses the opportunity to secure significant improvements quickly for those who require dementia care. Although the standards set out in the NSF are welcome, they lack the ambition and the practical standards necessary to effect change.
On the time scale, the first milestone for mental health in the national service framework is not due until April 2004. In three years' time, the plans should be drawn up, and the methods of communication and assessment will have been worked out, but what about the services? The Audit Commission has mapped out the key elements that must be in place to improve services. Why cannot April 2002 be a milestone for the completion of the review of local mental health services, referred to as an action point in the national service framework? Surely the cross-cutting audits that were set in motion by the Audit Commission's report "Forget Me Not" should assist that process. There seems to be no reference to that important exercise.
Health and social care services should devise, agree and implement local protocols by December 2002. Why has everything been left to 2004? Action plans, which set out how to develop, and—if necessary—reconfigure home-based, day, out-patient and hospital services, should be drawn up and finalised by April 2003. These milestones must be set in stone before 2004. We must not allow the wholesale reorganisation of the national health service to get in the way of establishing such services as soon as possible. We should take meaningful steps to address the huge funding inequalities identified by the Audit Commission. The need is urgent. There are hundreds of thousands of Joyces and Alberts out there.
Earlier this year, I sent a questionnaire to 150 social services authorities around England. Sixty responded; a 40 per cent. response rate, which is not bad for research of that sort. Some 72 per cent. of social services departments that responded are unable to meet current demand for nursing beds for the elderly and mental ill; 68 per cent. are unable to meet current demand for residential EMI beds; 62 per cent. report shortfalls in provision for older people with challenging behaviour; and 58 per cent. report shortfalls in provision of specialised dementia care. One could say that those findings demonstrate that nothing has changed since the Audit Commission report of January 2000, based on
72WH
auditing work that was done during the previous year. The shortage of specialist care means that vulnerable elderly people and their families are left in limbo; too often the spotlight seems to fall on bed blocking or delayed discharges in the national health service.
The untold story is that of a family struggling to cope with the complex needs and challenging behaviour of loved ones in their own homes. The Government have not adequately addressed that, particularly in the care homes sector. A collapse in confidence has led to large-scale closures of homes, a piecemeal loss of beds and a loss of capacity, which means that areas that need provision no longer have it and others have too much.
There is a need for investment in those specialist services—I am sure that we will hear more about that from the Minister—but the national service framework does not make it clear where those resources are going to come from or what is required locally to ensure that they are targeted to develop necessary new services. The Government cannot rely too much on the development of intermediate care as a substitute for targeted investment in specialist long-term care to deal with dementia. Having given their all, families should not be expected to struggle with intimate caring duties when specialist care is required, nor should vulnerable elderly people be placed in a home that is not properly funded or staffed to meet their needs.
People with Alzheimer's are among the most vulnerable in our society. Their needs are easily ignored. Of the 850 carers of people with dementia surveyed by the Audit Commission, fewer than half were asked whether they needed any help once the diagnosis had been made. Only one third were told how to care for their relatives or how to cope with dementia. The rest were left uninformed and had to work it out for themselves. From my discussions with Lillian, someone who cares for another person with dementia, I learned that her process of navigation through the system was an appalling experience. Ultimately, it took the involvement of voluntary organizations—for example, a carers centre in my constituency—to help her get the benefits she was entitled to, and gain access to the services and support that she and her partner should have had from the outset.
The findings of the Audit Commission were echoed recently by new research carried out by the Carers National Association in its report "You can take him home now". That was published a couple of weeks ago, during national carers week. The Carers National Association found that, over the past three years, consultation and involvement arrangements have deteriorated in discharge planning from hospital. They have not got better.
The association surveyed the issue in 1998, and found in the present survey that it was asking the same questions again, often of the same carers. The perception is that the implementation of guidance that governs discharge planning has got worse, not better. We need to look at the guidance again and ascertain whether it is being complied with across the board in the NHS. The evidence from the Carers National Association's work is that the guidance is, at best, patchy and not being complied with properly in many cases.

73WH
In the course of its research, the Association discovered several cases of carers, looking after someone with dementia, who had been poorly treated. NHS staff did not seem to know either about the diagnosis of dementia or how to communicate with individuals and their carers. Consequently, carers were often ignored and their views were not taken into account. They were not assessed or consulted about the discharge. One carer said that NHS staff had talked only to her mother, who had told them that everything was fine at home. They did not talk to the carer at all. As a result, none of the information about the care package or the day of discharge was passed on to the carer. That caused the carer immense difficulties in trying to deal with the situation.
People with Alzheimer's disease or other forms of dementia can benefit from social and health care support. Early diagnosis and assessment is crucial, as it enables people and their carers to receive the services, information and treatments that they need at the right time.
Although general practitioners are often the first port of call for those concerned about dementia, only 52 per cent. of GPs surveyed by the Audit Commission felt that an early diagnosis was beneficial. Fewer than half felt that they had received sufficient training to help them diagnose and manage dementia. However, early intervention can reduce stress for both the person with dementia and his or her carer, reduce crisis intervention and prevent or delay institutionalisation. Many health professionals previously dismissed dementia as old age, and people were all too frequently told that nothing could be done.
Support for GPs from local mental health professions is vital, as the Audit Commission has emphasised, so why is the national service framework not pressing for that? Why is the framework not expanded, with targets set out?
The Audit Commission correctly identified the fact that many people strongly preferred to be supported in their homes. Home-based assessments and a greater emphasis by commissioners on community-based care were identified as critical factors to tailor services to meet the complex physical and mental health needs that result from dementia. The Audit Commission recommends that the mix of staff deployed should be reviewed locally and re-balanced where necessary. Again, why is the national service framework not driving that forward?
The Minister would be surprised if I did not say that Liberal Democrats remain concerned about the Government's proposals to pay for the nursing care of people in long-term care. That will not fully reflect the health needs of people with dementia. It is essential that people with dementia have their mental and physical health needs met by the NHS and that personal care is free.
Research indicates that the prevalence rates of dementia vary little between residential and nursing home care. The personal social services research unit found that 54 per cent. of individuals admitted to residential beds had mild impairment and that 25 per cent. had severe impairment. Of those admitted to nursing beds, 38 per cent. had mild impairment and 46 per cent. had severe impairment. That means that
74WH
those people with dementia in a residential home may have exactly the same, or possibly even greater, nursing needs than those in a nursing home. However, they will be confronted with a charging regime for the care that they will receive that is entirely different from the regime facing the person in the nursing home. Where is the sense in that? Where is the justice?
I hope that the Minister can confirm that no cash limits will be set on the funds available to cover the costs of nursing care provided under the Health and Social Care Act 2001. There appears to be some doubt about that, on the basis of written answers that I received from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), in the previous Parliament. The figure that he gave was £100 a week. Clarification is needed on whether that was simply a basis for estimating costs and not a cash limit. The sooner that is clarified, the better.
Pages 98 and 99 of the national service framework appear to contain contradictory statements concerning the use of neuroleptics or anti-psychotic drugs. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate people's concern that those drugs are inappropriately prescribed and overprescribed to people with dementia. They have undesirable side effects, which may worsen the symptoms. Their effect is dramatic. Many carers report that, within days of taking the drugs, their relatives are turned into zombies; unable to speak, eat, walk or go to the toilet without assistance. Recent research suggests that older people living in nursing homes receive four times as many prescription drugs as those living at home.
Page 98 states that treatment of dementia will always involve
"prescribing antipsychotic drugs for more serious problems, such as delusions and hallucinations, serious distress or danger from behaviour disturbance.".
As I read that list last night, it occurred to me that that might apply to some hon. Members. That was a flippant comment, but there is cause for concern. Page 99 of the national service framework states that anti-psychotic drugs
"may hasten cognitive decline and may cause increased deaths.".
Is page 98 or page 99 correct? One says that prescribing anti-psychotic drugs is "always involved", and the other says that they may cause increased deaths. That is at best ambiguous and needs clearing up; at worst, it is completely confusing.
Dementia has been regarded as taboo for a long time; too long. The needs of dementia sufferers and their carers are met more by chance and personal perseverance than by any systematic planned response by the responsible agencies; something borne out by the Audit Commission and by my personal survey. In many cases, services do not exist in the depth that is required to meet the need. The national service framework is an important step in the right direction. Strides, not steps are needed now, however. I hope that the Minister can indicate how the goals set out in the national service framework can be expanded so that they are delivered sooner rather than later.
9.51 am
Dr. Evan Harris: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) for his assiduous pursuit—not

75WH
only today and for the past few weeks, but in the previous Parliament—of the issue of dementia and care of the elderly in general. He spoke about the happy coincidence of the debate taking place in Alzheimer's awareness week. Coincidence cannot be relied upon, however. One has to be persistent and continually raise these issues. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his hard work and persistence in making sure that this issue is always on the agenda for parliamentarians.
It is disappointing to note that no Government or Conservative Back Benchers seek to speak today. In all of our constituencies, there will be not only many people who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia, but many people caring for those patients, or who have relatives who are being cared for. All the issues raised by my hon. Friend will apply in every constituency to some degree. More people than those present will look to the Minister for specific reassurance on the Government's aims and aspirations and, just as important, how funding and human resources will be allocated to these areas.
My hon. Friend concentrated on care issues. While I agree with everything that he said on that subject, I intend to look at other issues as well. There are questions concerning diagnosis of dementia. We need to ensure that there is early and accurate diagnosis, and that other—more treatable—conditions are identified. We also need to ensure that co-existing conditions that are treatable are accurately and appropriately identified so that treatment can be given and that diagnosis of dementia, in its various kinds, is not just a write-off diagnosis for patients for whom there may be even more active treatments than are available for dementia. It is important that we ensure accurate diagnosis, not only of dementia but of co-existing morbidity.
I want to discuss treatment, both acute and longterm, to say a word or two about long-term care—reinforcing what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has said—and then to ask the Government a key question about their intentions as regards protecting current and future patients with dementia from the threat of being uninsurable. I have given the Minister advance warning of that question. Many people will be asking what the Government's intentions are; not least those who care for people with dementia and for their interests.
In terms of diagnosis, it is perhaps appropriate that we are holding this debate the day after the British Medical Association annual representative meeting discussed how much time GPs can spend in consultations with patients. The current average consultation time of about four minutes is inadequate for almost any interaction of quality between a patient and his GP. That is true from the patient's perspective of needing to get across what he has to say and, not least, from the point of view of the doctor, who has to take a history, do an examination, make a treatment plan and discuss it with the patients and/or their carers.
The Government's intention to extend the amount of time for consultations is welcome and will be endorsed by patients groups and doctors groups. However, it raises severe questions about whether the targets will distort clinical priorities when taken together with the demand that all general practice patients be seen within
76WH
48 hours where the resources are not available. I am talking not only about funding—although that is important—but, in particular, about staffing resources. Tales were told yesterday of patients who needed time taken with them, and in particular of older people and those with mental illness and their relatives. They have been squeezed out by the huge workload in general practice.
The Government must be clear and honest about whether their aims are deliverable, given the work force issues that we face. There are still inadequate numbers of GPs, despite the increase in the number of medical students being trained for general practice. Inadequate numbers of medical students and junior doctors choose general practice, and a large number of general practitioners are retiring. The elderly and, in particular, those with mental illness and dementia bear the brunt of truncated consultation times and the inadequate opportunity that GPs have to think, take histories, examine, plan treatment and explain all aspects of the care plan to patients and their relatives.
As regards the treatment of the elderly and the mentally ill, it is important that we consider what is happening with the new drugs for dementia. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has ruled that they are effective, and one can assume that they are effective, at least in clinical trials, from the fact that they have been cleared by the relevant regulatory committees. NICE has ruled that they are cost-effective, although it will be interesting to see what it decides is the unit of cost-effectiveness and the threshold below which it will continue to recommend drugs. It has also ruled that the new drugs are affordable.
It is hard for NICE to decide what is affordable, because it does not necessarily know the Government's full funding plans. It does not know the whole amount, or what the Government plan to earmark for specific treatments. The worry, which my health authority chief executive has expressed to me, is that spending required on the list of must-dos from NICE, which includes the greater prescribing of new drugs for dementia, exceeds the total growth money being given to health authorities. That is true, at least in my health authority.
In most health authorities, spending required on the list of must-dos exceeds the residual growth money that is left after health authorities take account of the other must-dos on which the Government have instructed them to spend. The result is that the extra prescription of cost-effective and apparently affordable medication is funded from within the existing envelope of resources; a euphemism that has replaced the word "budget". Effectively, treatments are being funded from existing budgets. That means that funding is taken from other treatment areas within the envelope of resource for a specific condition to implement the must-dos from NICE, which carry the imprimatur of national guidance.
There is a threat of potential legal action or a sanction from the Government or the Commission for Health Improvement if the guidelines are not followed. Patients wait longer waiting to see consultants, as the planned expansion in specialists able to diagnose and treat the condition is reduced to allocate more funding to the drugs budget. Clearly, not everything will be affordable within the NHS, but it is important that the Government do two things. First, they must be honest

77WH
about that. They would be praised, not criticised, for admitting that rationing exists and that some treatments and management plans from which doctors believe their patients would benefit are not available at the moment within existing resources. Secondly, over and above that, the Government must avoid too much central guidance without adequate resourcing because that will skew clinical priorities.
If sufficient funding is not available to implement those "must-dos", some people might argue that it would be better not to have the guidance because clinical priorities will be distorted and patients who cannot benefit from the new drugs will find that the services available to them are being reduced to fund those new drugs.
The figures that are emerging on the likely cost of full implementation of the NICE guidance—I accept that they come from industry sources—are between £70 million and £120 million. But that funding is not identified and, when other "must-dos" have been paid for, it probably does not exist within the growth money. The problem is difficult, and the Government's intention to put the drugs into the NICE process is well meaning, but what is their answer to the dilemma for an individual health authority that knows that the drugs bill increase will be greater than the amount of growth money that can be afforded for that disease area? Do the Government accept that an increase in prescribing cannot be funded as quickly as they wish or that they should do that even if it means cutting down on other care for patients with dementia?
Another area in which the Government must be clearer and reconsider their position is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam said, the funding of long-term care. Can it be right that if two patients with almost identical needs are receiving identical care, one may be means-tested and the other may not simply because of the nature and qualifications of the person providing the care? A registered nurse providing care for someone with dementia will be able to provide that care for free because it will be paid for by the NHS. If the care is provided by someone else who is also competent and able to provide that care, the funding will be based on a means test.
The Home Secretary said in the House on Monday that royal commissions should not be a substitute for Government decision making. However, on long-term care, the Labour Government, with our support, went for a royal commission and then overruled a critical aspect of its recommendations. They said that personal care—even when the need for that care stemmed from a recognised illness, such as dementia—would not be funded by the NHS and that only nursing care would be funded. That poverty of ambition and treatment discriminates against older people and may be one reason why the Government have been reluctant to ensure adequate regulation to cover discrimination against older people. My hon. Friends and I have tried to introduce into health legislation a duty not to discriminate; the Government's opposition to that may have stemmed from their decision to discriminate.
On insurance, a report from the Human Genetics Advisory Committee urged the Government to ensure that insurance companies do not carry out genetic tests unless they are approved, but that was ignored by the Government. The Association of British Insurers has
78WH
admitted that tests are carried out. There is no effective moratorium, unless the relevant Government committee rules that the test is not a valid one. The House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, which examined dementia, recognised that that is a problem and called on the Government to ensure that insurers do not use genetic tests before deciding whether insurance is appropriate.
I want to stress the importance of this matter for patients with dementia or those who feel that they may be at risk of suffering from it in future. There are some risk factors associated with the onset of dementia. It is a multi-factorial disease, so even the carriage of a certain genetic factor is not a good predictor of whether or when one will succumb to Alzheimer's disease; for example, through having a specific apoprotein gene. Nevertheless, long-term care represents a huge market for insurers, especially as there has to be a means test for personal care for people with dementia. Now that the Government have said that such means tests will continue—in a most un-cradle to grave-like way—insurers have recognised that there is a market for insurance in this area. Some companies want to ensure that they gain a competitive advantage over those that are not seeking such genetic tests.
The Select Committee on Science recognised the danger that, consequently, some people might be uninsurable or have to pay over the odds for insurance even when it is possible that they will not develop the illness, and that others may be encouraged to take tests to get a negative result when it is not necessarily to their advantage, from a clinical perspective, to do so. The Committee called on the Government to ensure that there is a moratorium on any testing until the matter can be debated further, and we have not yet had the necessary parliamentary, let alone public, debate.
The Government's response to the report was to ask the Human Genetics Commission to examine the issue, including a public consultation. Having considered dementia, cancer and other conditions, it concluded that the Government must ensure that there is a moratorium on the use of genetic tests. Both the Science and Technology Committee and the Government's own creation, the Human Genetics Commission, have called for a moratorium. All hon. Members present—and, more widely, the public—want to know how the Government intend to implement the recommendations of those reports.
Dementia has an impact on huge areas of Government policy, not only on health care. One of the problems in ensuring that adequate resources are put into the treatment of such illnesses is that cost-effectiveness analyses are looked at too narrowly, which misses the wider picture in terms of the effect on carers and social services budgets. This is such a prevalent condition—and its effects on patients and their carers, family members, friends and society are so profound—that, despite the admirable aims of the national service framework's plan for dementia, the Government must do more work not only on funding but on policy changes in long-term care, on honesty about what can be afforded in the NICE process and on wider issues, such as genetic testing.

79WH
We seek answers to those questions from the new Government, even at this early stage, and I hope that the Minister will provide them.
10.8 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Before turning to the subject of the debate, I should like to take this opportunity to express to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the hope that all goes well with the birth of her baby. I am sure that other hon. Members join me in wishing her a safe and happy delivery.
I declare an interest in the debate that will help hon. Members to understand my viewpoint: my mother died of Alzheimer's disease, so I have close personal knowledge of its impact. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on obtaining the debate in the week that the Alzheimer's Disease Society seeks to raise awareness of the impact of the disease. He says that the timing is a coincidence, but I am sure that he exercised foresight and planning.
Those reading the record of this debate and who take an interest in Alzheimer's will note the comments made about the absence of Back Benchers; I, too, regret their absence. For the wider audience of Hansard and in defence of new Members, I should like to point out that it can take a while to find Westminster Hall at 9.30 am during one's second week in Parliament. As experienced Members recognise, Parliament is to some extent in limbo, but the outside world may not realise that. Absence is not a mark of disrespect to the subject matter.
I congratulate the Alzheimer's Disease Society on its campaign to raise awareness of the disease. I feel passionate about the subject. Alzheimer's is the Cinderella among the major causes of disease and death that afflict us. I urge the Government to accord it the same importance as other diseases in their strategies and to find language that will draw the public's attention to the significance of the disease. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam had his soundbite when he said that we need to make "strides not steps". My soundbite is, please make Alzheimer's a sexy subject. There are cancer tsars and drug tsars, so I urge the Government to find a similar way of raising awareness of Alzheimer's.
Immediately after my mother died, I remember my father doing what many bereaved spouses do: he asked "Why?" A friend of mine was rather direct in her reply: she said that the disease was one of the three most common causes of death, which were cancer, cardiac disease and dementia. That was an abrupt way to put it, but it helped my father to understand that my mother's death was not the huge surprise that it seemed to him. The public is largely unaware of how many people are affected by dementia: previously, we heard the statistic that one in five is affected. One reason why the disease is becoming more prevalent is that we are living longer and the disease is largely one of older age. That is all the more reason to make it a sexy subject. I appeal to the Minister to see what she can do.
Others have spoken about drugs that treat Alzheimer's disease—an important aspect of the subject. Regrettably, nothing has so far been found that
80WH
cures the disease, but there are drugs that arrest its progression. The decision made by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in January this year on the clinical effectiveness of such drugs was helpful, but we Members of Parliament know that it is taking a long time for the effects of that decision to filter through to those suffering from Alzheimer's so that people can get hold of the drugs that arrest the disease.
From various surgery cases, I have recorded a number of excuses for not prescribing such drugs: for example, because of waiting lists, consultants have been allowed to prescribe to only a limited number of people. Most constituents consider it unfair if someone else gets the drugs that they cannot obtain. The development of memory clinics is also being used as a reason not to prescribe the drugs at present; and GPs are being blamed for not referring patients to consultants at a sufficiently early stage. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) offered a highly plausible explanation of why GPs are finding it difficult to cope. I was appalled to learn that the average consultation time had been reduced to four minutes, especially in view of the fact that it is quite difficult to diagnose the early onset of Alzheimer's. I doubt that four minutes of conversation would make it easy for a GP to spot the onset.
One reason why I appeal to the Minister to look again at improving access to Alzheimer's drugs is that there is a strong public savings argument involved: if an Alzheimer's drug can arrest the progression of the disease, the pace at which the state has to provide additional support and care services to the patient can be slowed. If the Government's concern is the cost of the bill for Alzheimer's drugs, a full cost-benefit analysis covering the benefit of arresting the disease's progression must be carried out. I urge the Minister to do that.
In a local case, a problem in the west midlands caused great concern to my constituents, especially those who suffer or whose relatives suffer from Alzheimer's disease A drugs trial was carried out under the title "Europe 2000", ostensibly to examine the clinical effectiveness of Alzheimer's drugs; patients could not have access to any of those drugs unless they were prepared to take part in the trial, but those who participated did not know whether they were getting the placebo or the drug. That occurred at a time when the effectiveness of the Alzheimer's drugs involved was fairly well known internationally. Some doctors, caught between patients wanting the drugs and an awareness that they must go on the trial, felt that it was profoundly unfair to experiment with patients in that way. The trial made those of us in the west midlands feel discriminated against.
I want to do something that is, I think, only possible in the early days of a new Government. I appeal to the Minister to consider an idea that might help the Government to find a way out of the postcode lottery of the prescription of drugs such as the Alzheimer's drugs. During the previous Parliament and as part of its manifesto, the Conservative party proposed an exceptional medicines fund, which would involve top-slicing the health budget and setting aside a portion of money for more expensive drugs and treatments, so that NICE's decisions about clinical effectiveness could be implemented with a budget attached. Such a solution

81WH
would also help to solve the problems that multiple sclerosis sufferers have in obtaining beta interferon. One of the Opposition's tasks is to introduce ideas that challenge the Government, and the Government have not minded accepting one or two of the Opposition's ideas. I commend our idea to her as a practical way around the problem of the postcode lottery that afflicts the prescription of Alzheimer's drugs.
As other hon. Members have said, the problem of Alzheimer's is inextricably linked with long-term care provision. It is a sad fact for sufferers of Alzheimer's and other forms of long-term dementia and for the relatives caught up in the progression of their disease that there is a long road to go down. The patient will invariably need much help and residential care, but because Alzheimer's is a degenerative disease, it takes time before that happens—time in which the prospect can become a source of real worry to relatives helping a dementia sufferer. Spouses in particular worry about whether they can afford long-term provision and whether their home might have to be sold to pay for it. Those are the real worries that grip people's minds when a doctor diagnoses the onset of Alzheimer's disease.
I was concerned to read, in the first set of weekend newspapers after the general election, that the Government have changed their mind about nursing care as a component of long-term care. Will the Minister clearly state whether the Government are rowing back from their pre-election announcement about paying for nursing care? In a written reply, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), said that the Government had no plans to change their mind, but I have been around here long enough to know that the little phrase "the Government have no plans" is not a cast iron-guarantee that the Government are not going to change their mind. We need to hear that the Government are going to implement their provisions for nursing care within long-term care provision. Alzheimer's sufferers and those who have to help to look after them are anxious to hear about that.
Several helpful pieces of research have been undertaken by the Alzheimer's Disease Society, of which I am sure the Minister is aware. However, since the debate is about care services and provision for sufferers of dementia, I should like to draw her attention to a report produced by the society called "Food for Thought"—a survey of Alzheimer's sufferers that examines the experience of care provision for those who must go into residential care or who are already in hospital. It is shocking to learn that 52 per cent. of respondents were concerned about the quality of food for dementia patients in hospital, 49 per cent. did not think that those with dementia were given enough to drink and 58 per cent. did not feel that enough assistance was provided.
I have already declared try interest in this matter and I shall recount my painful personal experience, which sheds light on the current shortcomings in provision in residential and hospital settings. Because of their mental impairment, patients who have Alzheimer's disease cannot assert their desire for the things that they need. My mother was not eating enough in a residential care setting—I must state straight away that I do not necessarily blame the care home. When Alzheimer's disease is advanced the situation becomes very difficult
82WH
and requires specialist care. It was thought that if I, as a relative, came in to feed my mother, it would help her nutritionally. It is a distressing experience to have to feed one's parent in the way in which one might feed a baby or a toddler. It suddenly occurred to me as I was feeding my mother that the problem was not that the food was unpleasant—it was very nice—but that she clearly did not have an appetite. Then I caught a glimpse of a sore on her mouth and it occurred to me that the problem might be with her teeth. In fact, she had incredible gum disease and decay and was in huge pain, which was why she did not want to eat.
I recount that experience because I fear that it may not be unusual. My mother had reached the point where she could no longer express the pain that she was in. I suspect that the inability of patients suffering Alzheimer's disease to state what they need is often overlooked—one needs to assert oneself in a care setting. This is a plea to the Minister to read "Food for Thought", which is especially relevant in Alzheimer's awareness week. She must encourage those who care for patients with dementia to think about the wider aspects of their patients' well-being such as nutrition and oral hygiene. We all accept that there is currently a crisis in the care homes sector and many of them are going out of business. It is difficult for them to make ends meet and to secure care home assistants. There is competition to employ care home staff, so to ask them to give more training and to spend more is to ask a great deal at a difficult time. However, training is an important aspect of the care that we give to patients suffering dementia.
I also commend to the Minister the report "Dignity on the Ward" by Help the Aged, which also flags up the difficulty that dementia patients experience in hospital. Sometimes it is not until their relatives come in that anyone spots anything amiss. Extra training for the care of patients with dementia is important.
Dr. Evan Harris: Does the hon. Lady accept that when nurses are overloaded and overworked, those who lose out are those who are least able to speak out for themselves and to push for the attention of overworked and overstretched nurses? The Government accept that a heavy workload falls on nurses. It is perhaps as a result of that that cases have arisen of elderly people in hospital, particularly those with mental illness, not receiving adequate nutrition.
Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I would underline it by saying that the vacancy rate for nurses is aggravating that situation. On a geriatric ward where there are four vacancies, it is difficult for the remaining staff who are, in effect, each doing the work of two people to determine that if patients are not eating, it is not because they do not want to eat, but because of a reason or reasons that they have been unable to articulate. The crisis in nursing vacancies means that the nurses who are present are—through no fault of their own—not able to give the level of care that they would like to provide. We should not underestimate the stress that that causes nursing staff: it is not satisfying to go home at the end of the day knowing that things could have been better if only the ward had been properly staffed.
I should like to reinforce the point about carers. We depend very heavily on the good will of those who care for dementia sufferers. Many of them do it well beyond

83WH
the call of duty because they love the Alzheimer's sufferer. They may well carry on caring beyond the point at which it is medically wise either for the patient or for their own health. It may be that the spouse caring for the Alzheimer's sufferer is even older than the patient. In my constituency case load, I have seen many instances in which it would have been wise for residential care to have been provided earlier. Many people go on well past the point at which they should get more help.
The money that the Government have made available to help carers is not necessarily getting through. Will the Minister look at the fact that funds allocated to local authorities to improve provision for carers, in particular respite care, are sometimes arrested at source because local authorities see the money as a way of offsetting the costs of care that they are already providing? Carers on the ground have not experienced a huge improvement in respite care provision. Sometimes those moneys are allocated to the provision of help in the home. In the eyes of the local authority, that is a form of respite care, but I am not so sure. The Alzheimer's Disease Society's report shows that 40 per cent. of carers have less than one hour to themselves each day: help for carers is not getting through properly.
Dr. Harris: The hon. Lady is making a series of important points about carers. One other that she might take up is the fact that an overwhelming predominance of carers, particularly those caring for their parents, are women who take themselves out of the work force to do such caring work either for reasons of tradition, or because they are healthier than the males in the family. The amount of support that is given to carers reflects how society treats women, on whom that burden falls.
Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman makes a generous point towards the fair sex. Many women find themselves in the caring role because that is what they are brought up to do, and they do it well, but as the number of working women increases, the position becomes more difficult. I am sure that he and other Members know of cases in their constituencies of significant income being lost as the woman retreats from the workplace to meet the demands of close members of her family for whom she feels she has a duty to care. The Government should recognise that duty. It is, in the last analysis, an act of extreme good will, but it does save the state a lot of money. That is why I said earlier that a proper cost-benefit analysis of such provision should take into account the factor of good will. That is very important.
Finally, I emphasise the social exclusion aspect. It begins at an early stage of the onset of Alzheimer's disease: the sufferer may undergo quite a change of personality, with the result that the sufferer and his or her relatives find themselves retreating from their normal social activities. At that stage, quite apart from considering the medical aspects of the disease, it is important to support the relatives of the sufferer through the period of retreat and to help the carer to keep going. Will the Minister look at that?
I concur with the views of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon on genetics and insurance. If one has an Alzheimer's sufferer in the family, the genetic link is a cause for concern. I was deeply relieved
84WH
to hear him say that the illness is multifactorial and that a predisposition does not necessarily assert itself. One of the main reasons why insurers are so wary of an indicator of Alzheimer's in a family is the long-term care implications. That brings us back to addressing longterm care provision for those who have a degenerative disease that will, almost invariably, lead to the high costs of residential care.
In closing, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to something of which I am sure she is aware: John Bayley's book about his wife, Iris Murdoch. If anyone has been successful in recent times in making Alzheimer's more of a sexy subject, it must be John Bayley, to whom I pay tribute. Through his book, he has raised awareness of the disease, and has enabled everyone to imagine what it is like if someone in the family is struck by it. He says:
"Alzheimer's sufferers are not always gentle: I know that, but Iris remains her old self in many ways…"
That is a description that many who have experienced the disease will recognise. One of the challenges to us as politicians is to reach out through the compassion and sense of duty that somebody like John Bayley feels towards his wife, and to make sure that he does not feel alone with his problem, unheeded and unsupported. I hope that this debate has given the Government some ideas that they can use to ensure that we provide better support for the John Bayleys of this world.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Before I call the Minister to reply to this important debate, which it has been fascinating for me to listen to, I should like to wish her well with her pregnancy and hope that she has a safe and happy delivery. Having chaired the Select Committee that undertook a lengthy inquiry into maternity services, I remain interested in the subject even today.
10.33 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): Thank you, Mr. Winterton. I thank you, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and others for their kind remarks. An hour and a half spent in the cool conditions of Westminster Hall has been even more pleasurable than it would normally be.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing this debate, and on his interest in the subject. It is a subject that he has pursued over a considerable time and he has raised these issues in great detail. In Alzheimer's awareness week, I must also pay tribute to the Alzheimer's Society for all the work that it has done to raise awareness of the condition.
The hon. Member for Meriden referred to the importance of raising awareness, or of making Alzheimer's dementia sexy, as she put it. That is a challenge, and it is a tribute to the work of organisations such as the Alzheimer's Society that awareness is growing; more attention is paid to the condition, which affects many people across the country.
Hon. Members have spoken about their experiences, either of family or of constituents. I join the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam in paying tribute to his constituents Joyce and Lillian and to carers throughout

85WH
the country, who put so much time and energy into looking after loved ones and relatives who suffer from such a difficult condition None of us should underestimate the dedication and effort of carers; these are difficult to imagine for someone who has not faced such circumstances.
Everyone will agree that we need to do more to support carers in the work and support that they give, often out of love or a sense of duty. They have to bear emotional as well as financial and time pressures. Many suffer from loneliness or guilt and, as a society, we should do more to support them.
As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, the Government have introduced a national carers strategy, and we have increased the amount allocated to support carers in England through the carers grant from £50 million last year to £70 million this year. That needs to increase, and it will; to £85 million in 2002–03 and to £100 million the following year. That is an important step towards ensuring that up to 75,000 more carers receive a break from their caring responsibilities. However, it is not simply a question of additional resources. We must also ensure that carers are properly involved from the very beginning in the development of services and support for those who are suffering from dementia, as the national service framework made clear.
The national service framework for older people should not relate simply to older people who suffer from particular conditions or diseases. It must relate also to carers, their families and those who support them, whether by involving them in decisions about care or in discussions with NHS or social care staff. At every stage, we need a seamless and integrated service that considers the needs and wishes of carers as well as those who suffer from the condition.
I shall deal with hon. Members' points in turn. We must recognise that we need to raise standards and investment in care for dementia. That process has already begun, but we recognise that wide variations remain throughout the country that we need to tackle over time.
The national service framework for older people that was published in March sets out for the first time national standards and service models of care for health and social services for all older people, whether they live at home or in residential care or are being cared for in hospital. To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Meriden about cancer and heart directors, we have introduced a national director for older people's services, Prof. Ian Philp, who has already begun work to raise awareness and improve services for older people.
The national service framework has eight standards for four areas: respecting the individual; intermediate care; providing evidence-based specialist care; and promoting an active, healthy life. Standard seven specifically relates to mental health in older people, but many key themes of the NSF are relevant to all older people, including those with dementia.
It is a fundamental principle that ageism should play no part in decisions about treatment and care and that people should never be unfairly discriminated against in accessing NHS or social care services as a result of their age. The second important principle is that people
86WH
should be treated as individuals and be able to make choices about their care. Older people and their carers should receive services that deal with their needs.
The aims of the mental health standard are to promote good mental health in older people, to treat and support those who suffer from dementia and depression and to ensure that older people have access to a fully integrated mental health service that provides effective diagnosis, treatment and support for them and their carers. That means agencies and professions breaking down barriers and working together in the interests of the people whom they serve.
Mrs. Spelman: The Minister's comments about mental health apply across the spectrum for mental health sufferers. Might her comments be an early sign that a Bill on mental health might shortly be introduced?
Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady will know that matters relating to the timing of Bills are announced by the Leader of the House, and that there are always pressures on parliamentary time.
Improving the prevention, care and treatment of mental problems in old age involves early recognition and diagnosis of the problem, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said. Accurate and early diagnosis can enable people with dementia and their carers to plan for the future and to make crucial decisions about where and how they want to live and about what sort of care would best suit their needs. The NSF has as a priority the establishment of protocols in primary care for early detection, diagnosis and treatment. A great deal of development work will need to be undertaken with the new primary care trusts, where responsibility will lie.
Systems need to be in place to ensure that health and social care agencies can communicate with each other and agree how and when to refer people with dementia to the appropriate services. To achieve that, we are promoting specialist mental health teams, including social workers and health professionals. Agreed protocols between health and social care will need to be implemented. Those care pathways are set out in the NSF.
Mr. Burstow: Much of my speech rested on that point. Apart from mental health, almost every other standard in the national service framework has milestones before 2004. The Minister rightly identified the need to develop protocols. Will there be earlier milestones or earlier points at which progress will be monitored and reported on?
Yvette Cooper: I intended to deal with the hon. Gentleman's points on the pace of implementation, which is important. I recognise his desire for change to be implemented as fast as possible. The fact that so many milestones will not be monitored until 2004 does not mean that change will not begin before then. It clearly needs to do so. We are urging those involved in health and social care to form local implementation teams to begin planning and developing. In the case of primary care, a lot of development work will need to be done before those milestones are reached.
We carefully considered and consulted on the timing. We must recognise that capacity issues are involved and that, to be effective, the process of reform can take time.

87WH
We need to judge the balance between the right pace of reform, or measuring reform, to ensure that everyone can meet it effectively and has the resources in place, and ensuring that milestones are in place to drive change forward.
Such issues are always difficult. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon discussed the problems of constraints on capacity in the NHS and social care and the need to expand that capacity. He said that we must be realistic about what we can deliver and at what pace. A balance must always be struck. The NSF made the right judgment on the basis of considerable consultation about when to start monitoring milestones to ensure that they are implemented and to be realistic about the progress that we believe that the NHS and social care can make over time.
Some other milestones in other areas affect people with dementia. For example, the single assessment process, which is key to delivering person-centred care, was identified as an early priority for delivery and will be introduced by April 2002. That will have a knock-on impact on mental health and dementia. as well as on other areas.
Mr. Burstow: There will be a single gateway and assessment, but not the necessary protocols for the specialist services. Will that not make the establishment of the single assessment worthless for people with dementia? The Minister and her officials should reflect that the milestone says that the plan should be in place by 2004. That is not even talking about the services being reconfigured or about any of the other issues that are dealt with by the Audit Commission.
Yvette Cooper: I do not accept that the implementation of the standard by 2002 will be worthless for people with dementia, because the single assessment is a critical step forward. It will make a big difference to many families who are not experiencing coordinated assessment as they should and will improve the care that they receive. Changes must be made across the pathway of care, but we must be realistic about the capacity of the national health service and social care to deliver changes instantly.
Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot warn on the one hand about demanding more of the NHS than it is able to achieve, given the need to expand capacity but, on the other hand, demand that all the changes, which we agree to be necessary, are implemented instantly. We need to see clear progress, but we must be realistic about the time that that progress will take. Changes are already being made and will be made during the next year to make the single assessment process work effectively, which will benefit those suffering from dementia.
The hon. Member for Meriden mentioned a specific concern about dental services. Dental and oral care will be part of the single assessment process, so I would expect to see dental assessment as part of individual care plans. I am happy to correspond further with her on that if she has more questions. I mentioned already that carers may often need practical support and have physical and mental needs of their own, which must be
88WH
recognised by the specialist mental health teams. An active community health team will find itself addressing the needs of the carer as much as of the patient.
The NSF process means that people will have an individual care plan, shared by all agencies managing their care and treatment, and the assessment of an individual with dementia will take into account the complexity of his or her needs and require frequent review. The assessment will result in care packages that help older people with dementia to live safely at home if possible and may include personal care, care of the home, finance and support for carers. The care packages may also include appropriate technology, such as cooker or door alarms, and we must increasingly look to technology to support people.
Many older people with dementia will need access to specialist mental health services, which means providing a range of services from diagnosis, including the treatment of more complex problems and community and in-patient services for those with clinical need. Again, the emphasis must be on promoting independence of older people with dementia and on supporting them and their carers in the community, whenever that is possible and practical. We are looking to all key stakeholders, including the network of dementia services development centres, to help implement the NSF at the local level.
Hon. Members raised concerns about treatment and, in particular, access to drugs for those suffering from Alzheimer's and dementia. We were pleased to accept the recommendations of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence that Aricept, Exelon and Reminyl should be available on the NHS as one component of management for people with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. All health authorities must adhere to that guidance, and we will monitor their performance. In our manifesto, we said that we would ensure that all health authorities would be required to fund the drugs and treatment recommended by NICE.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is worried that health authorities will be unable to afford that, and the hon. Member for Meriden asked why we could not have a dedicated or top-sliced fund. Health authorities are receiving extra money for NICE recommendations. We anticipated the need for extra resources to fund those recommendations and increases in the drugs budget, and we have acted.
When we announced the extra resources that were going to health authorities throughout the country, we made it clear that the extra money being invested in the NHS had increased from an average of 3 per cent. to 6 per cent. a year in real terms. Some of the extra resources and growth money will go towards funding NICE recommendations.
My problem with a top-sliced fund is that, in the end, the hon. Member for Meriden is talking not about putting more money into the system but about carving the money up differently. It is important that, where we can, we preserve the principle of giving health authorities the flexibility to be able to respond to local need, and they are receiving additional resources to do so.
Mrs. Spelman: Only 50 per cent. of health authorities currently fund Alzheimer's drugs, so there is quite a long way to go. The difficulty is the same as that with the provision of funds to local authorities for carers; implementation can be patchy around the country. Sufferers of Alzheimer's under a national health service find the postcode disparity difficult to understand.
Yvette Cooper: That is why I agree that the postcode lottery must be addressed, which is what NICE is all about. Health authorities need to fund NICE's recommendations. They do not have the discretion to decide which recommendations they like or dislike; the recommendations need to be implemented. We said that we would take further action to put that beyond doubt and we shall have discussions about how best to take the matter forward. We expect authorities to respond to NICE recommendations, because its very purpose is to tackle the postcode lottery.
Dr. Harris: The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry forecasts that the total NICE bill will be between £78.4 million and £123 million, of which about £42 million will fund the Alzheimer's drugs. If a health authority says that its must-do list exceeds its growth money, is t hat figure wrong? Does the Minister accept that cost pressures in at least some authorities will exceed the amount of growth money, so that cuts, savings and cost improvements will need to be made in other budgets to fund what she has described as a must-do?
Yvette Cooper: Different estimates have been made of the impact of different NICE recommendations, and we are providing health authorities with additional resources to respond to them. Inevitably, however, they face cost pressures in different areas. We are providing additional resources to the health service across the board so that authorities can respond to the recommendations and we shall continue to do so. We accept the need for extra investment and capacity in the NHS, but we must also ensure that national standards are in place. Some authorities have gone faster than others; that created the postcode lottery in the first place.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is concerned about the NSF's wording. I am sorry if it is misleading and I will be happy to write to him to clarify it. As I understand his point, the wording suggests that there are occasions when certain drugs may be appropriate, but that does not necessarily mean that every patient should be prescribed a particular set of drugs.
The hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam and for Oxford, West and Abingdon asked about nursing and personal care. Those matters were debated during the progress of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. From this October, for the first time, free nursing care will be introduced for people living in nursing homes. In response to the question put by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, let me make it clear that there are no cash limits on nursing care. In response to the hon. Member for Meriden, I do not know where the
90WH
speculative stories in the press came from. The plans will be implemented from next October, with free nursing care available then for people in nursing homes. That will obviously impact on those with dementia as well as others in care homes.
The Liberal Democrats have called on us many times to fund personal care as well as nursing care. I remind them that two thirds of people in nursing homes already have part or all of their care provided. Their proposals would not benefit people on low income. Providing free nursing care and making the system of personal care and support fairer will cost an additional £360 million a year. The Liberal Democrat proposals, however, would require considerable extra funding—about £1 billion—and would neither improve care for anyone nor benefit the worst off. Decisions have to be made about priorities. The Government have made it clear that they want to provide additional support for the ill and to invest in improving care.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon mentioned genetic testing and insurance. I have time to deal with it only briefly. I have grave concerns about this matter and believe that we must protect people against unfair discrimination in insurance. We asked the Human Genetics Advisory Commission for its views. In response to its interim advice and following the report of the Select Committee, we have made it clear that there should be a moratorium until the longer-term issues—about testing, implications for insurance, equity and unfairness—are properly examined.
The Human Genetics Advisory Commission continues to reflect on the issues and is examining what form the moratorium should take, how long it should be for and how much additional work should be done in the meantime. The insurance industry has expressed its willingness to extend a moratorium, but we must ensure that it is implemented. We have clarified our intentions and we shall continue to discuss with the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the insurance industry how best to implement the moratorium. Technology can provide huge benefits, but we must ensure that it does not cause huge social problems and unfairness.
I hope that I have dealt with the specific issues raised by hon. Members. On the general issue of care home capacity, work is under way with the independent care homes sector, as well as with local authorities. For a long time, people in the NHS and the social care and the voluntary sectors have worked hard to draw up proposals for the national service framework. A huge challenge lies ahead to ensure that the NSF is properly implemented in accordance with the intentions of all those who drew it up.
The fact that so many different organisations were engaged in partnership in drawing up the NSF—which has been welcomed by many people, and which we should be able to implement—is a source of optimism for the future. We need that partnership, as well as a process of investment and reform, to secure improvements in the care of those with dementia. That process is under way. I pay tribute to all those involved in caring for those with Alzheimer's disease.

Electoral Law
11 am
Mike Gapes: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise these matters. I shall focus on events that took place in my constituency and raise wider issues relating to the role of the Electoral Commission, the law as it relates to sitting Members of Parliament before an election is called and the role of the internet and of well-funded extremist groups attempting to unseat Members of Parliament.
First, let me quote from an article from my local newspaper, the Ilford Recorder, of 14 June. Under the headline "Police halt poll protest", it states:
"Police were called to a polling station on Thursday"—
that is, polling day—
"after receiving complaints about the behaviour of political activists distributing leaflets outside.
Redbridge Council staff overseeing the voting at the polling station at Christchurch Primary School in Wellesley Road, Ilford, called in police at 8pm after becoming concerned by the behaviour of members of the Association of Ilford Muslims.
The group were handing out leaflets to Asian voters asking them not to vote for Labour candidate in Ilford South, Mike Gapes. Similar events took place at other polling stations in the constituency.
Officers confiscated the leaflets and warned the activists—who are critical of Mr Gapes' support of anti-terrorist legislation, Israel and the Middle East Peace Process—that they were prohibited from demonstrating outside polling stations.
They were told they would be arrested if they returned. Police stayed on the site until the end of voting at 10 pm.
There were also heated exchanges and stand up rows outside the polling station in Eton Road, Ilford, as voters ignored the association's pleas to snub Mr Gapes."
The article goes on to print a statement from the secretary of the Association of Ilford Muslims denying that any intimidation had occurred. I shall say more about the association later.
That was not the first problem that I had encountered in the campaign. The preceding Saturday, 2 June, we had been campaigning in Ilford Lane, one of our main shopping centres. Some of my Labour supporters, who were carrying leaflets and balloons, were harangued and harassed by a group of young men as we walked down the street. It got so difficult that I called the police—I feared that some of the elderly people in our group were in danger of being physically attacked. The police came and the situation was calmed to some extent, but the group continued to follow us up and down the street for two hours, shouting such things as, "Racist", "Murderer", and "How many children have you killed today?"
That evening I received a telephone call from a local business man who runs a restaurant. He had been enthusiastic when he saw us on the street and had given food and water—it was an incredibly hot day—to some of the campaigners. That evening, members of the group that had been involved in the previous incident went into his shop, threatened him saying, "We know where you live," and ripped down the posters that he had put up in support of my candidature.
The following morning, Sunday 3 June, we were out leafleting in Loxford, a ward with a very mixed community. I have in my constituency many different
92WH
people from many different backgrounds. We live harmoniously. In a typical road in Loxford ward, one finds Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and atheists all living as neighbours. First languages spoken include Punjabi, Urdu, Gujarati, Hindi and Tamil. A whole variety of people of different backgrounds live as near neighbours without any problems. However, as we were leafleting in Loxford ward, a man arrived with a mobile phone. Within 10 minutes, five other people arrived and followed us down the streets. They chanted "Racist" and "Murderer" as I put leaflets through doors. I ignored it and for more than an hour we continued our leafleting campaign.
When all this began, I resolved not to be intimidated or prevented from carrying out my democratic duty as a candidate and contacting my electors. The incidents came as no great surprise to me. Their origin goes back some months. Toward the end of 2000, with the situation in the middle east becoming tense and the new intifada, I received telephone calls and e-mails from a few individuals who wanted me to "explain my views" to the Muslim community. My views are clear and on the record. I have a website. I have always advocated a two-state solution. I have advocated compromise and peace. I visited Gaza in 1995 and met Arafat. None the less, to those individuals, the fact that I was an officer of the Parliamentary Labour Friends of Israel somehow made me unacceptable.
They began sending questionnaires requiring yes or no answers. Then, they insisted that I should meet them to discuss whether my views were acceptable. An e-mail from Mr. Zulfiqar Bukhari was the first of many. His brother, Mr. Asghar Bukhari, whom I shall mention again later, also started to e-mail me. I said that I would be happy to meet and speak to Muslim constituents at any time. I have always been approachable and accepted such invitations to meet my constituents, so that was not a problem. However, I then tried to make arrangements. I told the general secretary of the mosque that some young people wanted to hold a meeting with me and I started to make the arrangements to have the meeting at the mosque. It was then that the mood of the group changed.
On 14 November, I got an e-mail from Asghar Bukhari that said:
"Due to the mood in the community about the continuing atrocities and elements within the mosque who feel you have done very little on behalf of the Palestinians, we feel it would be both unwise and unfair to expose you to such a crowd.
We have wisely decided to have a meeting with you within the mosque walls 'privately'…If you decide within the meeting that you will actively support our demands in the House of Commons we will read out the results of the meeting before the prayer begins to a crowd of perhaps 1000 of your constituents. Equally, if you decide you cannot agree to our demands we will also read this out.
The results will be delivered to your Muslim constituents whilst you are still within the mosque."
I gave that invitation short shrift. I attended the mosque and was warmly received by the Imam, the general secretary of the mosque and the community as a whole. I made a speech during the main prayers to 1,000 men, then answered questions from those who wanted to pursue matters further at a meeting upstairs. Some of that discussion was quite heated. Nevertheless, I was delighted to receive a good, warm response from the overwhelming majority of my constituents.

93WH
The group concerned decided that it did not like the way in which I was appealing directly to my constituents. At the end of January and the beginning of February, I started to receive e-mails from another young man, Mr. Inayat Bunglawala, who originally styled himself "Representative of the Islamic Society of Britain Ilford Branch". He wrote:
"I have compiled attached with this note a list of some of your statements in the House of Commons on various issues that will concern the Muslim population of Ilford. The Islamic Society of Britain Ilford Branch intends to vigorously encourage Ilford's Muslims to participate in upcoming general elections. We want Britain's 2 million Muslims to play a positive role in the affairs of this country, and to be frank we are very unhappy with your statements on these issues."
Mr. Bunglawala had done a scissors-and-paste job on statements that I had made in the House of Commons over a nine-year period, taking one sentence from this half-hour speech, one from that five-line question, and so on. Underneath were paragraphs of interpretation of my views. I asked, "Why be so selective? I have said a lot more of interest to all my constituents. Why do you not print everything I have said?" I sent a comprehensive statement in reply to Mr. Bunglawala's friend, Mr. Bukhari, who in November had sent me an e-mail containing a number of questions. I asked him to publish my views, but his reply was, "Oh, we don't have space to publish your statement."
I refused to go along with the game and as a result, at the end of February, I was in formed that a leaflet would be produced. It was duly printed. The first of four leaflets that were put out against me in the period from the beginning of March to the general election, it was headed: "Mike Gapes, No Friend of the Muslims". There was no imprint, just a mobile telephone number printed on the bottom of the leaflet. It was produced not by the organisation that I thought Mr. Bungalawala represented, but under a nom de convenience—a name used for political reasons: the Association of Ilford Muslims. However, I know that it was produced by Mr. Bungalawala because the text was identical to his e-mail to me. It included statements such as,
"Note there are 300,000 Jews in Britain but over 2 million Muslims in Britain. The Jewish community has over 20 declared MPs while the Muslims have only one MP."
The implication was that people should be elected on the basis of religion rather than any other criterion. I believe that these people thought that I was Jewish because I am in the Parliamentary Labour Friends of Israel. I am not, but whether I am or am not Jewish is irrelevant: I have fought anti-Semitism all my life and will continue to do so. It is one of the reasons why those responsible for the leaflets do not like me.
After the selective quotes, the concluding paragraph of the leaflet states:
"Let us in Ilford send a strong message to all that we will not tolerate Islamaphobia and anti-Islamic views in Parliament. Getting rid of Mike Gapes will send a massive shock wave through the pro-Israel lobby."
The leaflet was distributed outside all the mosques and delivered door-to-door in the constituency. I put out press releases stating that I would not be intimidated by the leaflets, that I rejected such politics and that these people were against me because they were rejectionists and extremists who opposed the middle east peace process, which I support. They criticised me because I
94WH
oppose Saddam Hussein's regime and because I warned of the dangers of a process of regression and reversion to the reactionary policies of Khomeini in Iran. They criticised me because I raise human rights issues involving Arab countries, such as the fact that women do not have the vote in Saudi Arabia and small things of that kind. The group said that I had labelled all Muslims as extremists. What I actually said was that the vast majority of my constituents of all religions and faiths reject such politics, and that the vast majority of Ilford Muslims are politically moderate and reasonable people who have no truck with such politics. The same is true of the vast majority of British Muslims. That was my view then and it is my view now.
Mr. Inayat Bunglawala was quoted as saying that 10,000 leaflets had been distributed by 10 May 2001. He had informed us that a second version was being printed in colour. That first appeared on Friday 13 April and was distributed outside mosques and put on cars in a street near my home. It had almost, but not quite, the same text. It states:
"Mike Gapes MP, A TRUE FRIEND OF ISRAEL, No Friend of the Muslims"
and included a picture of an Israeli tank and a Palestinian boy throwing a stone at it. The wording was almost identical but was changed to toughen it up and stated:
"Getting rid of Mike Gapes will send a massive shock wave through the pro-Israel lobby and make it clear that Muslims are not to be trifled with."
At the same time as that second leaflet was produced, a version of the first leaflet was printed in Urdu; that was the third leaflet. The second and third leaflets had no imprint, but included two mobile telephone numbers. I shall not put those numbers on the record, but one belongs to Mr. Bunglawala and I believe that the other belongs to Mr. Asghar Bukhari. I have their addresses and they will be sent to the Electoral Commission.
A fourth leaflet then started to appear. A scrappy document, it gave the contact name of Asghar and a mobile telephone number. It stated:
"A Vote for Mike Gapes MP Ilford South is a Vote for Israel"
and included pictures of horrific scenes. It continued:
"11,000 Palastines"—
the word was mis-spelt—
have been shot and 400 killed, Mike Gapes continues to be the deputy chairman of the Labour freinds"—
also wrongly spelt—
"of Israel.… Why?"
It urged:
"A NO VOTE FOR MIKE GAPES AND THE LABOUR PARTY".
I am not sure how many of those leaflets were distributed, but I expect that it was several thousand. Four leaflets—probably 40,000 copies—were distributed. A question arises about the legitimacy of such campaigning under electoral law.
In addition, most Saturdays for several months the Labour party had had a street stall. My Conservative opponent was also out with his "Save the pound" campaign and petition. The group decided to position themselves next to the Labour stall and handed out its leaflets to people who came to the Labour stall. On one

95WH
occasion, someone took a Labour leaflet and tore it up. Whenever they thought that someone was a Muslim—they were not good at recognising them, because Sikh and Hindu friends of mine were approached—they would go up to them and say, "Do you know that that is Mike Gapes? He is a terrible man, responsible for awful things." I have photographs of some of the slogans, which included:
"MIKE GAPES MP, WHY DON'T YOU SUPPORT HUMAN RIGHTS?"
and
"VOTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, DON'T VOTE FOR MIKE GAPES "
Those appeared before the election in April and continued to appear into May. Mr. Bunglawala, Mr. Bukhari and others campaigned from that street stall. What was the cost of that campaign? I would guess that it was quite a lot.
When the election had been called, telephone calls started and people rang me to say that they had received a telephone call at home from people saying, "Don't vote for Mike Gapes. He's an Islamophobe. He is anti-Muslim. He is against our religion." I cannot say how many calls were made, but judging by my constituents' reaction, there was a considerable number. Interestingly, the phoning was not very accurate either. A lady with the surname Chaudhry wrote me a very nice letter pointing out that although she was a Christian, it had been assumed that she was a Muslim because of her surname, and her father, who had converted to Christianity, had been somewhat shocked to receive a phone call telling him that, as a good Muslim, he should reject me. I also had calls from Muslims who were upset and offended by the allegations, and I encountered—this is where the poison started—people with genuine concerns who had seen the leaflet but did not know my real position. I spent a lot of time talking to constituents either directly or over the telephone in response to the allegations.
Then, another variation of the campaign started. Earlier this year, a group called VoteSmart set up a website linked to the Muslim Council of Britain. Asking "Will your MP support Muslim issues in the next Parliament?", they gave us ratings of zero to plus five and zero to minus five. Needless to say, I appeared with a minus five rating. Interestingly, the person responsible for the Muslim Council of Britain's website has the e-mail address: inayat—b@hotmail.com—Inayat Bunglawala, who is on the media committee of the Muslim Council of Britain. He is also my constituent and is responsible for the leaflets against me.
That website did not merely list my name with those of other MPs who had been given various ratings. It has a whole special section on "Mike Gapes MP: 'No Friend of the Muslims' ", which reproduces one of the original leaflets. It is accessible through both the Muslim Council of Britain's website and through VoteSmart. I subsequently found out that it was available on websites all over the world. An American website called Islam for Today mentions:
"A campaign by London Muslims to unseat a British member of parliament from the governing Labour party at the 2001 general election."
96WH
Again, it contains the phrase "Mike Gapes MP: 'No Friend of the Muslims' ". The website reproduces, in its entirety, Mr. Bunglawala's leaflet. Another website, Middle East News Online, carried the headline "UK Muslims launch campaign against pro-Israel MP" and said:
"The Association of Ilford Muslims, AIM, have distributed thousands of leaflets in English, Urdu and Gujarati to homes, mosques and shopping centres in the constituency."
There follows an interesting remark that contains, I presume, a misprint:
"Secretary of AIM, Inayat Bunglawala, said there had been a fanatics response".
Other material appeared in a free English-language publication called The Muslim News. That cannot be bought in bookshops, but is given out in mosques all over the country. The issue of 23 February had a headline: "Muslims urged to `votesmart' in General Election", under which was written:
"In east London. the initiative is being taken one step further by confronting Labour MP for Ilford, Mike Gapes, about his stance towards Islam and specific Muslim countries … Mr. Inayat Bunglawala told The Muslim News"—
and so on and so forth. For several issues, The Muslim News ran stories about the campaign against me, including one headed, "Campaign against Gapes".
I had been demonised and turned into a hate figure because I refused to be intimidated by such stuff. I found the reaction interesting. I received an e-mail from a man called Faisal Bodi who said that he was a freelance journalist and would like to interview me about the campaign that was being run in my constituency. He wrote:
"I'm doing a piece on the threat posed by Muslim voters to sitting Labour MPs at the forthcoming election. I know that Ilford, South has experienced a high-profile campaign and would like to use this as the main example. I'm interviewing somebody from the association of Ilford Muslims this afternoon and would like to do the same with you."
I did not know Mr. Bodi, but I assumed that he was a journalist because he was working for the BBC. I willingly agreed to put my side of the case on the basis that it was a BBC programme. I was happy to engage in the debate.
Mr. Bodi was perfectly pleasant when he interviewed me. He was late, but I rearranged my time and came all the way into Westminster, even though Parliament was in its Easter recess. For about half an hour, we discussed a range of questions, including Muslim schools, unemployment, the Lawrence report, ethnic minority recruitment to the public services and police, discrimination legislation and the situation in Bahrain, where women have recently got the vote. However, my comments about none of those issues appeared in "The World Tonight". What did appear was an unbalanced piece: my opponents were allowed to say, without being challenged, that I am an Islamophobe and, to use Mr. Bodi's phrase, a "proven enemy of Muslims".
I wrote to the BBC to challenge it about the piece being unbalanced. After I did the interview, I discovered that Mr. Bodi is not really a journalist: he is a polemicist for extreme Islamic causes. Although the BBC did not accept that the programme was unbalanced, it admitted in a letter sent by Miss Prue Keely, that
"With regard to Mr. Bodi and his political opinions, he came to us as a freelance journalist recommended as having good access to radical Muslim communities. It is my view that we should have

97WH
made a more comprehensive introduction to the piece noting his known support for Islamic causes. We were not aware of his Guardian article on Israel's right to exist. I learnt of it on Wednesday."—
the day after the broadcast on the Tuesday night. She continued:
"I regret we did not check further prior to commissioning the piece and I have told the programme team that these are my views."
The article that Miss Keely mentioned stated that Israel had no right to exist. It is one of several pieces by the prolific Mr. Bodi that I have come across on the internet. Mr. Bodi is a strong supporter of Hamas and an opponent of both the compromise policies pursued for several years by the Palestine Liberation Organisation under Arafat and the anti-terrorist legislation that we put through in the last Parliament. He is also an opponent of the process of compromise and dialogue that we have been trying to pursue and encourage in the middle east.
As the BBC decided for its own reasons that it did not want Mr. Bodi to make programmes of that nature again, he decided to write a two-page attack on the subject which was published in The Guardian during the election campaign. My picture was featured in the article, in which I was singled out as the man responsible for Faisal Bodi being banned by the BBC. As I pointed out in a letter printed in The Guardian on May 23, there was nothing shadowy about my position, which I made clear on my website. My complaint was that Mr. Bodi had misrepresented me in his unbalanced piece and that the BBC was broadcasting material during the run-up to an election that could be interpreted as encouraging people in my constituency not to vote for me. That is the nub of the electoral law issue. I have provided a lengthy account of the background, but it is important to get such matters on record.
I wrote to the BBC about the programme. The joint editor of the piece wrote back saying:
"As to electoral law, I am advised that—as a news report outside an election campaign—none of this story comes under any electoral law of any sort."
Fair enough. When I asked the Labour party head office for legal advice about the initial leaflet—the one sent out at the beginning of March or April—it contacted the Electoral Commission. The commission replied:
"The Association of Ilford Muslims have been made aware of the provisions of section 75 of the RPA 1983 and that should they continue to publish their newsletters or other local material during the election, they must operate within the £500 ceiling. They have also been informed of the imprint requirements relating to any election material. We are not aware that the leaflet in question has been reissued since the election was called."
That letter was sent on 5 June—conveniently, two days before polling day—and was a response to a statement sent by the Labour party on 5 April. By the time Labour party head office received the commission's reply, nothing could be done about it. The first I knew of the response was after polling day. The Electoral Commission clearly takes the view that material attacking a Member of Parliament is allowed. However, I believe that the material was designed to influence the election; it continued to be distributed throughout the campaign without an imprint and without meeting the conditions laid down by the Electoral Commission.
98WH
The other side of the issue relates to electoral expenses. I have some concerns about on whose election expenses return such election material will appear. The people in the Association of Ilford Muslims were not only telling people not to vote for me but telling them to vote for my Conservative opponent, Mr. Suresh Kumar. That was confirmed by Faisal Bodi's articles. Let me quote from a magazine called Jerusalem File, May 2001, Vol. III, no. 5. Under a headline, "Voters target pro-Israel MPs", an article stated:
"For the last month the east London constituency has been the scene of a gloves-off battle between Mike Gapes, the local MP—a member of the Labour Friends of Israel—and the Association of Ilford Muslim's (AIM), which wants Muslims to back the Conservative candidate, Suresh Kumar."
It then quotes Mr. Asghar Bukhari, an AIM campaigner, speaking in the radio piece that Mr. Bodi had produced. Mr. Bukhari asks:
"How can this man possibly claim to represent Muslims on Palestine when he has such anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian form and when he is even a friend of Israel?"
Mr. Bodi then writes:
"Gapes has a seemingly safe 14,000 majority but if AIM's hopeful defection of Ilford South's 7,000 Hindus to Kumar materialises, he could be in for a big shock."
Reports in other papers said the same thing.
It is clear that such matters affect election expenses. As a result, my agent decided to raise the matter with the Conservative full-time agent in my borough, Mr. Alan Doran. He wrote asking for clarification on whether the Conservative party's candidate or any of its members had had any associations or discussions with the Association of Ilford Muslims. We received a reply not from the agent but from the Conservative candidate, who was acting as his own agent—which is legal, but unusual. Mr. Kumar made it clear that he had had discussions with the Association of Ilford Muslims, but did not answer any of our questions. I shall go no further than that at the moment, because there are still a few more days before election expenses returns have to be lodged. I am waiting to see the returns lodged in my constituency to determine whether any of the material is included within the expenditure of any of the other candidates, or whether AIM has submitted a statement to the Electoral Commission about its expenditure during the campaign.
I want to raise several points with the Minister. I am sorry that the background has been so detailed, but such matters are complicated. The Association of Ilford Muslims told people to vote Conservative and put out material saying that getting rid of Mike Gapes would be a great thing. I understand that expenses incurred for a candidate before their adoption as a candidate can count as election expenses, but putting out material against a sitting Member of Parliament, implicitly or even directly on behalf of another candidate, does not. I would be grateful for clarification on that point. When one puts out material before an election, if one is running a legitimate campaign, one has a stop point and carefully ensures that none of it is put out after the election is called; otherwise it counts towards one's election expenses. The people campaigning against me carried on beyond that point. They were reprinting the leaflet on 10 May for an election campaign that had been announced before then, with Parliament having been dissolved shortly thereafter. Those are serious matters.

99WH
Another issue is the harassment and intimidation of electors. In addition, under section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, the question of expenditure arises if more than £500 was spent on a concerted plan of action against me—and I would argue that it was certainly concerted, planned and involved action. There was no printer's imprint on the material that was produced. A wider issue is that of websites that reproduced the material in its entirety, again without an imprint—with a mobile phone number and nothing else—and carrying the name of the Muslim Council of Britain, which is the legitimate umbrella group for Islamic organisations in this country. Are the people involved aware of the requirements of the 1983 Act?
This is not just a matter for me. I was re-elected on 7 June with a majority of 13,997 on a much lower turnout than in 1997. There was a swing to Labour of 2.75 per cent., when all the neighbouring seats in east London, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham), had small, in her case, or larger swings against Labour. My constituents rejected the extremists' campaign. Muslim voters rejected the politics of mass hate; they rejected those involved and what they stand for. That is the best message that can go out from Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Jews in my constituency. We work together, live together and go to school together. We are an harmonious community and we reject the politics of hate and attempts to introduce them into our community.
I have a big majority now, although when I was elected in 1992, it was 402. I could take on the association's campaign with the reasonable assurance that, whether or not it worked, I would still be re-elected. However, colleagues in all parties who have small majorities could be subject to such campaigns orchestrated not only by the AIM but by other groups and on other issues. The magazine Q News published a hit list of Members of Parliament who were to be removed because of their views on the middle east. It included Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour and, incidentally, Ulster Unionist Members—I am not sure how many Muslim voters there are in Belfast, South, but the constituency featured in the list none the less. We need to think through the role of third-party campaigning. We need to be clear about election law on such matters.
I appreciate the opportunity that the House has given me to raise these matters. The Government should, at an early stage, examine the operation of election law and take lessons from the most recent election campaign so that the behaviour that I have described is not repeated with near impunity in local government elections next year or in other elections. I will be sending a copy of my speech to the Electoral Commission, which I understand is producing a report on the election; it is already at the printers and is due out soon. Clearly, that will be too early to deal with the question of election expenses: it will be printed before the relevant deadlines and before a lot of information has become available. That is unfortunate. I hope that it will be an interim report and that the commission will produce a comprehensive report based on the experiences of those of us who were involved in the election.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. Quite a few hon. Members have indicated that they want to speak, and other hon. Members should bear that in mind when making their speeches.
11.42 am
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: My contribution will be brief.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) on giving us the opportunity to discuss electoral law. His very full contribution was something of an eye-opener to me. I represent a part of the world that is proud to have a robust tradition of political debate, but what the hon. Gentleman described goes well beyond that. When we hear tales of intimidation and victimisation, alarm bells should ring in the ears of all of us who consider ourselves to be democrats—whether Liberal or not. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take some comfort from his return to Parliament. Whatever tactics some of his constituents might have employed, the vast bulk of them are clearly of a different mindset.
I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on drafting the topic for debate sufficiently widely to allow me to take a completely different tack. I want to bring a brief point to the Minister's attention, although he might already be aware of it because I wrote to his Department on 21 June. A professional lady who has lived and worked in Orkney for a number of years is a constituent of mine and a Dutch national. For some years, she was allowed to vote in elections to the local authority—Orkney Islands council—and to the European Parliament. She has never been allowed to cast her ballot in elections to this House. That has been the case for as long as she has lived here. I would not necessarily agree with that position, but it had a logical consistency in the distinction between a national Parliament and other bodies.
Will the Minister deal with a point that my constituent raised with me—that, since the operation of the Scotland Act 1998, she is now allowed to vote for her Member of the Scottish Parliament? She pays her taxes to Westminster and is able to have a say in how taxes are spent on health, education and other devolved matters, but she cannot have a say in how the remaining 50 per cent. of taxation, which relates to Departments responsible to this House, is determined. Since the Scotland Act 1998, that position is no longer defensible and requires reform.
We are members of the European Union, which is based on the principle of freedom of movement of goods and labour. There is little sense in allowing free movement of labour if people who have moved within the EU are taxed but allowed no say in how their taxation is spent. I realise that the Government have a full legislative timetable for this Parliament, but I hope that the matter might find its way into the category of legislation that, as I recall from my previous career as a lawyer, falls under the title of "Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts". I invite the Minister to clarify the Government's position.
11.46 am
Dr. Brian Iddon: I come to this debate from a slightly different direction from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), but I want to make some serious observations about the 7 June election. I am concerned about the harassment of voters at the entrance to polling stations.
My election agent and I approached the chief returning officer in Bolton, who is also the chief executive of Bolton metropolitan council, several weeks before the election and requested that police be provided at five key polling stations in my constituency. Police used to be present at all polling stations during nearly all elections, especially general elections. We made our request following reports from our party workers about the local elections of May 2000. Our request was not met, and in my constituency on 7 June I saw little evidence of any overt police observation of the electoral process.
Our request was reasonable and the Government should take up these matters with chief returning officers. It is odd that we send our own Members of Parliament to observe electoral processes in many other countries to ensure fair play, yet we do not ensure fair play in our own country.
I knew that our Tory opponent was unlikely to play fair when he started to fabricate letters from his London fax machine to the Bolton Evening News. The local and national press took up the issue. I shall not go into all the details, except to say that the contents of those letters led me to make an official complaint to the Commission for Racial Equality. During the campaign, the Tory candidate made a verbal attack on my wife at a public meeting, even though she was not present. There was flyposting, which is illegal in Bolton, and a leaflet was sent out for a meeting at which the principal speaker was Stephen Norris, but it had no imprint and the name of the printer was not mentioned.
Altogether, we made five official complaints to our chief returning officer before polling day about the behaviour of my Tory opponent. At this stage, I should perhaps say that my Tory opponent was a Muslim of Kashmiri heritage and he openly campaigned as the Muslim candidate. I recognise that that is not illegal, but greatly regret the introduction of sectarian politics on to the political scene in my town. That was the first time that I have seen any evidence of that. I have many friends and supporters in all Muslim communities in Bolton, including from the Kashmiri community. They gave me their support as usual, for which I have thanked them. For obvious reasons, rumours were spread among the Muslim communities that my name is Jewish and that I am a strong supporter of Israeli politics. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth; I am treasurer of the Britain-Palestine group.
On polling day, we decided to put Gujarati and Urdu-speaking number-snatchers at our five key polling stations, mainly to observe my Tory opponent's tactics. From early morning, we received reports on the situation from our number-snatchers, so I went out with my agent to see exactly what was going on. Immediately outside each of those five key polling stations, cars or vans carried my Tory opponent's helpers and displayed his posters. From what we saw of their activities, the supporters were obviously there to influence the voters
102WH
as they approached the polling stations. Right outside the entrance to St. Phillip's church hall polling station was a large van, not only covered in Tory posters but carrying on its back a large blown-up version of the ballot paper, showing people how to vote for the Tory candidate—in box No. 4.
We have photographic evidence of all that I am reporting today. As the day advanced, we saw as many as five number-snatchers inside the polling stations blatantly telling people, usually in Gujarati, whom to vote for.
The worst scenes were observed at the Emmanuel church hall polling station in Derby ward. The entrance to the polling room was to the rear of the hall, and voters had to pass the gable end of the hall down a narrow walkway with a low fence on the other side. All day, a car containing a Tory helper sat at the entrance to the polling station. As the afternoon passed, the Tory candidate's supporters lined the fence, in my view to intimidate and harass Muslim voters. As mid-afternoon approached two Imam priests appeared, and even greater intimidation was apparent. Young boys tried to stick Conservative lapel badges on everyone who approached the polling station. One or two voters who turned up in cars got straight back in and left without voting.
An adjacent former medical centre was plastered in Tory posters, and stands carrying Tory posters were placed along the public footpath leading to the hall. We complained several times during the day to the chief returning officer and his staff and, to try and force the hand of either the police or the chief returning officer or both, my supporters were allowed to join the Tory supporters after 4 pm at the Emmanuel church hall polling station, but it made no difference. Two policemen merely came and went again without removing either my supporters or the Tory supporters, although we had asked them to remove everybody.
It was mayhem. In more than 30 years' campaigning in politics, I have never seen anything like what I saw at the Emmanuel church hall. Rules were blatantly abused, but the chief returning officer told me that he could take no action unless a voter complained. Many have, but only after the day and by letter. I forwarded the letters to the chief returning officer and have arranged to meet him in the next few days to discuss those matters further.
Voters should be allowed to approach and enter a polling station without being harassed by supporters of any political party. The key to that is to ensure a police presence all day—preferably at all polling stations and especially at general elections—to ensure that elections are conducted in as peaceful a manner as possible. The polling clerks are just too busy to be aware of what goes on outside their polling stations or even in the entrances. A code of conduct should be given to the candidates as well as the agents, so that they are all aware of which procedures are illegal and which are not. There is a grey area of the law to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South referred.
I hope that the Minister will ask his staff or the Electoral Commission to look at tightening the law, especially on harassment and intimidation of voters who are trying to get into a polling station. I realise that it is difficult. How can a householder be prevented from putting up a political party's posters in a window

103WH
immediately opposite a polling station? That is impossible. However, people can be kept away from the entrance to the polling station. Fortunately, I have a large majority and I was never in any danger of losing my seat. Imagine what would have happened had it been a marginal.
11.55 am
Norman Baker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) on securing the debate. In the immediate aftermath of the election it is right to review the conduct of that election in a constructive and non-partisan way. Like my colleagues I deplore the intimidation and harassment of voters wherever it occurs. As the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) rightly pointed out, we should also deplore any drift towards sectarianism in this country. Like other hon. Members I have been to Northern Ireland. We do not want the sort of system wherein people vote according to their religion, rather than according to the policies advocated by the candidates.
Compared with Bolton, South-East and Ilford, South, although perhaps not Orkney and Shetland, the campaign in Lewes was genteel and well behaved. I cannot produce reams of complaints about how candidates undertook the campaign. However, I should like to raise two issues arising from my constituency. The first—a pale shadow of the one in Ilford, South—is the campaign initiated by the Democracy Movement. That campaign was not unique to my constituency, but it was a strong campaign to denigrate my views on the pound and the euro. Surprising as it may be, my views were misrepresented; more to the point, they were misrepresented by means of a tabloid newspaper and other leaflets that were distributed during the election in a free newspaper. It was a high-quality insert and I have no doubt that the cost of producing and distributing that leaflet by means of piggybacking an existing newspaper will have been well in excess of £500.
The newspaper's objective was to help the Conservative candidate, although I do not think that the Conservatives had anything to do with it, or that the Conservative candidate knew about it or approved of it. Nevertheless, the objective was to return a Conservative rather than a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament. Mine was a marginal seat, but I am happy to say that my majority has significantly increased. However, had the issue of the euro taken off, that leaflet, which was reproduced in constituencies—especially ones represented by Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament—across the country could have been used to swing the results. Indeed, that was the intention.
We must look carefully at the rules that allow people outside political parties to produce literature that is designed to affect the result of an election. Political parties, by and large, stick to the rules on election expenses and everything else. People outside political parties, however, take a far more cavalier approach to such matters. The Government need to address that issue in the aftermath of the election.
The second issue is a minor one. My Conservative opponent and his agent tended to plaster county council verges with large Conservative posters. Occasionally,
104WH
they put up posters without the permission of the householder, but that is another matter. I do not blame the Conservatives for trying it on. However, when people complained, East Sussex county council took the view that it did not want to get involved and that it was a matter for the political parties—it was quite happy for its verges to be covered by political posters. In the end the problem became so absurd that it had to get involved and one day it cleared them all away. That was completely the wrong tack for the council to adopt. It should have insisted from day one that any posters erected on its property he removed; instead, the posters were allowed to fester for weeks before action was taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) raised some important points, in the exceedingly quick time of only four minutes. He left no room for anything other than a clear interpretation of his remarks and I hope that we get an answer to the vital issue that he raised.
I turn to the important issue of postal voting, which has not so far been mentioned. I welcome the Government's introduction of sensible measures to encourage people to vote by making it easier to do so by post. It was particularly sensible and useful to reduce the deadline to only six days before polling day, from the absurdly long period that had applied before. However, I am concerned that unless preventive measures measures are adopted, the new rules will allow exploitation and, dare I say, fraud of the electoral system. It is legitimate to ask, after the election, how robust and secure our electoral system is.
I was concerned by a report on the "Today" programme during the election campaign, which hon. Members may have heard. The reporter Andrew Gilligan undertook a project in Torbay, which at the 1997 election was carried with a Liberal Democrat majority of 12 votes. He looked up the names of deceased voters in the back issues of the Torbay local paper, the Herald Express and, using an internet site, checked whether their names were still on the electoral roll. He made applications for votes to be delivered to the addresses of various "Today" programme staff around the country—an application for a postal vote need not be sent to the address where a voter is registered. By Monday, he had received seven ballot papers, which would have been enough to have changed the 1997 result had all those voters voted for the Conservative candidate. The same logic obviously applies to other seats and other parties.
I also draw the Minister's attention to an article in The Guardian written by Nick Davies, who happens to be a constituent of mine—some erudite people live in Lewes. The article drew attention to the issue of ghost voters and commented that there were no ghostbusters to deal with them. Nick Davies said that he had evidence that those who wanted to rig elections could find a derelict building, add a couple of extra houses to a street or use the addresses of a hostel or anyone else with a transitory population, adding false names and creating false votes.
The Minister should know about an incident that took place in Cornwall, in the constituency held by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). A Conservative supporter—on that occasion—helped 17 elderly electors fill in a form to apply for postal votes and then collected the forms to take to the council. That was

105WH
fine on the face of it, but without their knowledge the 17 elderly voters ended up applying for proxy votes, naming various people who were to vote on their behalf, all of whom turned out to be Conservative party workers. Some of those workers expressed astonishment when they were told the story: they had been in ignorance of the activity. That shows that the system of proxy voting is also open to abuse.
In marginal constituencies, such abuses can swing the result. The opportunity exists for Britain to get the reputation that America temporarily acquired after the presidential count in Florida. There should be a clampdown on the use of proxy votes—indeed, now that we have better access to postal votes, I question whether proxy votes are necessary. We also need to ensure that postal votes are sent to the address where the voter is registered and not to any address that someone happens to pick out. We need checks to ensure that the register is accurate and does not contain ghosts, so that when people die they are removed from the register as soon as possible. Someone should be given the task of doing that to ensure that dead people's names cannot be used by someone else to vote. Much more has to be done in that respect.
I am also concerned about the arrangements at polling stations—not those to which the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East referred, although I accept that there is also a problem in that respect. I accept that it is possible—indeed, it happens frequently—for a person to give his name and address at a polling station, say that he has forgotten his polling card and to be given a vote none the less. The elector may or may not be known to the polling clerk; a person may have identified someone who never votes—a Jehovah's Witness, for example—and used that person's name and address to cast a vote unbeknownst to the person whose name and addressed has been used. We must clamp down on such practices: people who cannot produce their polling card at the polling station should be required, as they are not required at present, to show some other form of identification to verify their entitlement to vote under the name and address given. We in this country are in danger of becoming complacent about our system being free from exploitation and fraud. It is not.
On the matter of postal votes, I refer to a letter from constituents in Seaford who applied for a postal vote. The ballot was sent by the deputy returning officer in Lewes by first-class post on 25 May, but, according to a neighbour, it did not arrive until two days after my constituents went on holiday on 29 May, with the result that they lost their vote. How an election envelope that has to travel only nine miles by first-class post can take more than seven days to arrive is a matter for the Post Office to investigate.
There were postal strikes in some parts of the country and people who followed the procedures, who could reasonably expect to have voted, were disfranchised by the action or inaction of Post Office employees. It should be illegal to withhold postal ballot forms; if these are sent by post, it should be an absolute requirement on the Post Office to deliver them in a manner that is equivalent to recorded delivery to ensure that they arrive on time. If we encourage postal voting, it must not depend on the efficiency or inefficiency of a sorting office or a postman. The matter must be sorted out. People who apply for
106WH
postal votes are entitled to expect them to arrive in good time to be able to vote, but that was not what happened last month.
The robust and secure nature of our electoral system is in question. We can be confident that it works better than most in the world, but there are opportunities for fraud, exploitation and abuse. I hope that the Government will consider, on a non-partisan basis, hon. Members' suggestions about how the system can be improved.
12.7 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) on securing the debate. He expressed a great deal of frustration, which we can all understand. A leaflet that did not bear an imprint and that dealt with my views on hunting was distributed in my constituency. It is frustrating that legitimate candidates have limits on their expenditure and we are paranoid about breaking those limits: when people attack candidates or misrepresent their views, the first response is to produce a leaflet to refute what has been said, or to make telephone calls to that effect. However, if candidates are near to their expenditure limit, they cannot do that.
Another frustration is that if someone breaks the law, or comes close to doing so, there is precious little that can be done until the votes have been cast and the election is over. The most frustrating thing is that returning officers do not have much power and, as evidence cited in the debate shows, the Electoral Commission appears to be rather slow to respond. All parties should think about how such problems can be rectified far more quickly, because in a highly marginal seat they make a difference. It could even affect which party governs the country, although not at present, given the Government's majority. We are waiting for the Electoral Commission's report, when we shall no doubt have a fuller debate.
We were all disappointed with the turnout, but that is a political rather than a mechanical problem. There have been a number of experiments with local government, Sunday voting, postal votes for all and voting in supermarkets, but none has been a tremendous success. It is up to political parties to enthuse people to go to the polls. If we have more postal voting or proceed with voting by e-mail, the risk of fraud will be greater. I have always believed that it is good that people have to take the time to go to a polling station to cast their vote.
In general, I welcome the relaxation of the rules on postal voting, which seemed rather tightly drawn, given that the moment the election campaign started, people could not apply for votes. People can now apply towards the end of a campaign, and they generally received their postal ballot before election day, although there was concern about whether some received their ballots in time. The returning officer in Poole sent out a number of postal votes. Those who had registered early received their ballots early, and later applications were processed accordingly, which meant endless telephone calls from people saying that they were about to go away but had not received their ballot and asking when it would arrive. A provision in electoral law allows people to go back to a returning officer within four days of polling day and have

107WH
a ballot re-issued, but if people are not sure what is going on and things are somewhat chaotic, that is bound to cause difficulty.
I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) that there is considerable scope for fraud. Inevitably, the system must be based on trust, but if BBC journalists go to Torbay looking for a story, they will probably find one. We probably cannot afford a copper-bottomed system whereby every postal vote is investigated. Nevertheless, as a nation, perhaps we should invest more in our democratic services and give local authorities a little more money to ensure that registers are up to date and the names of people who have died are removed from them as soon as possible.
There are several problems with a rolling register. It is fine as a concept, although it creates much more work for political parties in updating their registers and computers. Some local authorities are very quick to remove people from the register. During the campaign, we heard about people who were taken off the register immediately after they had written to their authority to say that they were moving and no longer paying council tax in the area, but before they were registered at their new address. Such people missed out at both ends, whereas under the former system the register was current and based on being in place in October. If people were not on the register for their new address, they could return to their former address and vote there, so some people are missing out with a rolling register.
I also want to mention the telephone preference service. In the previous Parliament, the Government tightened up on telephone canvassing, mainly because of people becoming annoyed with double-glazing salesmen. The Conservative party assures me that we stuck to the TPS rules and telephoned no one, although some of my colleagues said that they were not sure whether the Labour party followed suit. Perhaps the Minister will ensure that, if there are TPS rules—the Electoral Commission may have a view on that—they are rigidly enforced and all parties do the same thing.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South referred to the internet, which is fairly important. There are problems with controlling the internet, and the trading of votes is another issue. As we all know, an election agent must authorise expenditure. If some expenditure is not authorised and unfairness is involved, we will have to consider that. We should carry out a general review. We need to take another look at postal voting, because there is concern about possible fraud. In particular, we need to ensure that, if there is a later deadline, the Post Office has the resources to get the votes out and people are able to cast their vote. We are still learning with the rolling register, and a little more money may need to be invested to ensure its accuracy.
The hon. Gentleman made another very relevant point: third-party campaigns started because of animal rights or because people have taken a dislike to a Member of Parliament may be more of a feature in future. That is not a party political point: all parties and all MPs may at some point face that problem. The hon. Member for Ilford, South has done the House a service by raising the issue. It must be investigated seriously to ensure that attempts to skew election results by unfair means are not allowed. Our democracy must operate on the basis of fair
108WH
and understandable rules so that we as political parties know what we are doing. The activities of third parties, particularly if they have a vendetta against an individual, must be nipped in the bud. We need a means of dealing with them when they are happening, not after an hon. Member has lost his constituency. Once the vote is counted and an hon. Member is returned it is far too late. We need some means of taking more immediate action or holding people responsible. It may mean having rather more draconian fines or perhaps disqualifying those who break the rules from voting.
12.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Man Whitehead): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) on securing the debate. He made an intelligent and helpful speech. All contributions this morning were positive and assisted mature consideration of the lessons that we can learn from the election to ensure that our democracy works well. My hon. Friend clearly had particular reasons for raising the debate and he set them out forcefully. I would like to draw the debate to a close by referring to some wider issues, a number of which have been discussed this morning.
All who, like us, submit themselves periodically to the electoral process have an interest in the way in which that process operates. All hon. Members probably have stories of the electoral trail and the problems that have arisen. It is important for the health of democracy that we keep matters under review and resolve any problems. As hon. Members have said it is important to get things right before elections take place, rather than having to look at a result that has sadly gone awry. Each general election gives us an opportunity to examine its workings and to come up with ideas for improvement. Today's debate is a useful contribution to that process.
United Kingdom elections are generally pretty free and fair. That has not always been the case. I am reminded of the Sandwich election of 1881, when the two parties taking part sequestered no fewer than 160 public houses as committee rooms and the beer flowed freely throughout. Indeed, an enterprising early Thatcherite who was a bill poster in the town managed to obtain work for both parties: he put up posters up for one party during the day, tore them down at night and put up posters for the other party the following day and so on throughout the election. I am also reminded of the Southampton election in 1895, when the Conservative candidate, Sir Tankerville Chamberlayne, delighted electors by proceeding from the bottom of town to Southampton common in a cart drawn by six sturdy townsmen, throwing sovereigns out as he went.
We have advanced a little from such practices, but I do not want make light of what my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, South and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) have told us this morning. I am concerned by what I have heard of the campaign in Ilford, South and the incidents in Bolton, South-East. I condemn any dirty tricks in election campaigns. If hon. Members have been subjected to intimidation or unfair practices in the election, it is not acceptable.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South will forgive me if I do not go into the details of his allegations. First, I do not know enough about it to do so

109WH
sensibly. Secondly, the appropriate way to pursue allegations of illegal and possibly criminal practices is through the law. I note that he intends to continue his investigation and to pursue those responsible. In such circumstances, it would not be right of me to comment further at this stage, but I would be interested to learn of any conclusion to those inquiries. As he emphasised, whatever went on in the campaign in Ilford, South, it had no effect on the outcome—indeed, he was returned with a swing towards him that was greater than that in my constituency, where I did not have to face the tactics that he faced. One could say that his result demonstrates the backfiring of those tactics. People should draw a moral from that.
In broadening the debate, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) made a specific and succinct point about the status of voters who are European Union citizens but cannot vote in UK elections. The fact that the voter whom he mentioned may vote in Scottish parliamentary elections underlines his point, but the Scottish Parliament is not a national parliament in the same way as those represented in the EU. There is a reciprocal agreement among EU member that states who may vote in national elections: citizens of each country may vote in their own but not other countries' national elections. A change to that agreement would be required for that position to be altered and, as far as I understand, there are no plans to make such a change. Any change would have to apply throughout the EU.
Perhaps the most important recent change on elections was the establishment last November of the Electoral Commission. I should make it clear that the commission cannot mount prosecutions for illegal actions; those are a matter for the police. Local police also decide staffing levels at polling stations, and hon. Members will know that in several parts of the country the police take an active interest in ensuring that the polling stations are free and accessible to all citizens. It is a fundamental prerequisite of our election system that people should be able to go to the polling station and cast their vote without harassment.
The commission has several duties relating to electoral practices, party funding and the conduct of any future referendums. It is also responsible for keeping electoral law under review and promoting understanding of electoral and political matters. Internet campaigning and voting, and postal voting are topics that the commission might consider in the future. It is able to produce reports at the request of the Secretary of State. One of the commission's main duties is to prepare reports on elections and its report on this year's general election is being prepared, as hon. Members have mentioned. I understand that the report will be published in late July, and I am sure that we all look forward to seeing it. It is for the commission to decide what goes into its report, but I am sure that it will want to examine how recent election legislation has operated. Its recommendations remain to be seen, but I assure hon. Members that we will consider them carefully. We will also try to ensure that hon. Members have every opportunity to contribute their views once the report has been published.
Until the report is published, data that could inform the debate remain unavailable, but we can draw a few wider conclusions on how recent changes to electoral law have operated. More changes have been made to the law
110WH
in the past year than have been made for decades, with two major pieces of electoral legislation going through the House recently: the Representation of the People Act 2000 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The former introduced a number of changes, including rolling registration, provisions to help people who are unable to register voto—for example, the homeless and those without a fixed address—postal voting on demand and provisions to help disabled voters. The latter focused more on party funding, but it established the Electoral Commission whose report we await.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) made a number of specific points on how those changes in electoral law work and whether there is cause for concern about rolling registration, the widening scope of postal voting and the security of the voting system as a whole. I concur with the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) who said that the British electoral system works on the basis of trust and that people who are determined to get round the system will occasionally be able to do so. However, there is no overwhelming evidence of systematic breaches of electoral law although occasional lurid radio and television programmes have suggested that there is.
Considerable safeguards for rolling registration are in place. Accusations have been made that the new system makes it too easy to register and that people can be registered twice. However, electoral registration officers have the power to check applications carefully and to require more information if they have any suspicions before adding someone's name to the register. The application form asks for information about voters' previous addresses so that they can be removed from the register there. Voters can be registered in two places at once, particularly if there is a delay in passing information back to the electoral registrtion officer, but it remains an offence to vote twice and voters cannot be certain that they have not been removed from the old register.
In the run-up to the election, there was much publicity about postal voting and the potential for fraud. Much of that publicity was unhelpful, but it is important to consider our reaction to concerns, given that the increase in postal voting was one of the minor successes of the recent election. Many people took the opportunity of having a postal vote without having to provide a reason, and that helped them to cast their votes.
Mr. Syms: Is there likely to be any assessment of the number of postal votes that arrived after polling day? That would be useful information.
Dr. Whitehead: I am not sure whether the data upon which such an investigation could be mounted are available, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and let him known whether such data are available and, if so, what conclusions might be drawn.
In some areas, 30 per cent. of the electorate applied for a postal vote, and there were increases of between 5 and 10 per cent. in the number of people with a postal vote in several constituencies. That shows that we are giving the electorate what is wanted. Postal voting is popular and suits modern life styles. I am not sure that we could easily place too many additional safeguards on postal voting in the way described by the hon. Member for Lewes without

111WH
undermining a number of the gains that have resulted from postal voting. For example, it is difficult to require that postal votes must go to a specific named address or the home address of postal voters because part of the reason for people wanting postal votes is that they are away from home. Allowance must be made for the nomination of an address when the postal vote is sent out.
However, there are considerable safeguards surrounding postal votes, which have been available for a long time. Postal votes are not new; the current issue is that the number of postal votes is increasing. Voters cannot obtain postal votes unless they are registered to vote in the area in which they apply. They can return to a polling station in the constituency if they wish, but cannot, having been sent a postal vote, obtain another postal vote and so vote twice. It is always possible for someone to pretend to be a deceased person and obtain a vote. That has always been an incipient problem with the postal voting system, but there is no evidence that that is a widespread fraud. Of course, it is always important to be vigilant.
All Members of Parliament who are concerned about the operation of electoral law and the smooth running of elections should ensure that we are vigilant about how the system works. We have seen enormous changes in that system in the last few months and it is time for us to pause for a moment to take stock. We can do that with the advice of the Electoral Commission when its report is published.

Footpaths (North Yorkshire)
12.30 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I am absolutely delighted to have secured this debate, but I speak with sorrow tinged with anger. I would like to express to the House the fear and anguish of the farming community in North Yorkshire and particularly in the Vale of York.
I accept that it is in everyone's interests to have accessible footpaths, especially when there is no foot and mouth disease. That has always been a priority for councils such as North Yorkshire county council, which happens to be Conservative-controlled. Nationally, 83 per cent. of all Conservative-controlled councils have accessible footpaths.
Since Easter, 800 footpaths or rights of way in North Yorkshire have been reopened. I accept that there is, as yet, no direct case of foot and mouth in the Vale of York, but it is poised all around us. We have had three contiguous culls and one suspect cull, the most recent from the outbreak at Danby Wiske. We see with horror that direct outbreaks in the whole county have now risen to 92, and they are pressing on all the frontiers of North Yorkshire's national parks. There are also outbreaks continuing at Settle and Hawes.
We are still, therefore, in the midst of a foot and mouth crisis. The Government's priority must be to eradicate the disease, and the Opposition will support them in that. Only when foot and mouth has been completely eradicated will visitors and walkers return to our rights of way and footpaths in comfort, and at the animals' safety.
The Government have recognised that. I have a letter from the Under-Secretary of State at the old Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which reached me on the day of the election. It says:
"In the light of the revised veterinary risk assessment, we are recommending that local authorities for counties where there has never been a confirmed case of foot and mouth disease, or where a previous Infected Area has been lifted, should proceed rapidly to reopen all rights of way."
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): It might be helpful if I point out that the hon. Lady received a letter from me last week setting out the current position on the opening of footpaths.
Miss McIntosh: I am sure that the Minister will wish to respond to my remarks at length, but my point is this: it seems crazy that at the start of the crisis, when the disease was nowhere near North Yorkshire, all footpaths were closed, but now, when it is lapping at our doorsteps, the Government are planning to reopen them. That is what the National Farmers' Union has said, and it also pointed out that, while most footpaths will be reopened on 20 July, it has until Friday to apply for exemptions, which means that not all will be reopened. That is the crux of my argument.
Against that background, and at a time when not only parliamentary candidates but the same county councillors who had been asked to take a decision at the end of May to come into effect at the beginning of June were up for election, the rural taskforce—albeit under a different Department—put pressure on counties such as

113WH
North Yorkshire to reopen footpaths. The timing was appalling. I put it to the Minister that the Government behaved in an utterly irresponsible and inappropriate manner by putting unwarranted pressure on counties such as North Yorkshire in circumstances in which it was difficult for them to take a political decision.
I commend the cautious approach of North Yorkshire county council. I have a copy of the order that it issued, which the chief executive has explained to me. The council has made only one exemption. In a letter to me, the chief executive states:
"The order that has been made…means that all public rights of way in the designated area are now open with the exception of those that pass through outdoor pig units where the pigs are not protected by any physical barrier, such as a fence…The power to close public rights of way outside an infected area now lies with the Government and not with Local Authorities."
Thus it is timely that I have the opportunity to request two exceptions against the background that I have described. It is especially appropriate for the Government to reconsider their decision because cases of foot and mouth in North Yorkshire are increasing. As of yesterday, the number stood at 92. The Government's own criteria, which the then Under-Secretary set out in a letter that reached me only on 7 June, are being breached. As I said, it has been difficult to take a political decision.
The first case that I want to raise concerns a footpath in Tockwith. Tockwith parish council was consulted by North Yorkshire county council at the end of May and said categorically that it did not want the right of way to reopen. It wrote to the Prime Minister on 29 June in very strong terms, stating:
"The disease is now a very real threat to North Yorkshire and at the same time we are being ordered"—
I stress the word "ordered"—
"to reopen all footpaths.
The Council contends that the situation 'on the ground' is not what you think or have been led to believe.
The edict to reopen footpaths is seen as totally out of order, especially as the outbreaks get ever nearer by the day… The Parish Council urges you to give immediate thought to the plight of farmers and country people generally and adopt a cautionary principle in the reopening of footpaths throughout the County."
In her letter, the clerk to the council also notes:
"The Council considers that ii is very short sighted to insist on reopening footpaths immediately when the County acted quickly"—
she means at the start of the outbreak—
"to close them for very good reasons. —
I also have a letter from a practitioner. There are 45 veterinary practices in North Yorkshire, but not one was asked to validate the Government's advice. What has happened is a source of great anguish, stress, worry and concern for farmers and those who advise them.
The footpath in Tockwith passes within three miles of an infected area, with livestock—cattle and sheep, albeit not pigs—roaming freely. I requested one farmer whose land is involved to provide a map for today's debate. The pink line shows a bridleway and the blue ones show footpaths and rights of way, which are the subject of the order to reopen, with which the rural taskforce has insisted that North Yorkshire county council comply.
114WH
The fields involved are immediately adjacent to those footpaths or bridleways, and cattle and sheep are loose and exposed to walkers.
Alun Michael: I intervene at this point—although I will explain the matter later—because people might be misled by the hon. Lady's statement. My understanding is that the nearest infected area is 12 miles away, to the west of Harrogate. I think that the hon. Lady is referring to the area of restrictions on the movement of animals, which is not the same thing.
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. Perhaps, the hon. Lady should not refer to maps or diagrams; it will make things extremely difficult for the Hansard reporters.
Miss McIntosh: I appreciate that, Mr. Cummings, which is why I have tried to explain that the fields are adjacent to either rights of way or bridleways. I accept what the Minister said, but the concern is that when the footpaths were closed, there was not one outbreak in North Yorkshire. Now that rights of way have been reopened, we have reached 92 cases and that figure is rising. I have no further diagrams to produce.
In the Secretary of State's opening statement to the House on foot and mouth two weeks ago, she said that animals and humans should not be in contact, to prevent any potential spread of disease.
I have a letter from a veterinary practice that serves one particular farm concerned about the situation. Having not been consulted, it took the opportunity to write to North Yorkshire county council in the following strong terms:
"It is with regret and disappointment that I learn that you may be opening footpaths through agricultural land that will now be heavily stocked with both cattle and sheep. Many of our clients (supported by 10 vets) are near financial collapse as a consequence of Foot and Mouth and they are 'the countryside.' Without them there will be no tourist industry."
He concludes:
"Do not allow a decision that will increase the risk of spread of this disease into otherwise clean areas."
I also have a letter from the Yorkshire Veterinary Society, which represents 115 vets in the county. It says:
"North Yorkshire with large areas of high animal density and an unpredictable pattern of FMD outbreaks has such a high risk of disease and potential for virus transmission that retaining the blanket ban on footpath closures is justified."
It concludes:
"For these reasons I ask that you actively oppose the removal of the closure of the rights of way which directly cross agricultural land or deer parks in North Yorkshire in order that all sectors of the rural community can concentrate on the aim of containing and eliminating the FMD virus which has been responsible for so much economic loss and emotional turmoil to all sectors of the countryside."
Another farm is at Crayke and I am happy to discuss with the Minister where that is found in relation to the nearest infected area. One farmer—whose name I shall not reveal because I do not have his permission—wrote to me saying:
"I am a farmer at the above address. My land goes from the farm onto Stillington-Easingwold Road. We have a right of way Public Footpath running from Stillington Road up our fields and through our farmyard going towards Crayke. With foot and

115WH
mouth ever present the footpath was closed. They have now reopened the footpath but we have 50 cows on the grassfield grazing.
In the farmstead the walkers pass another 30 Heifers which are 6 metres away and also 40 metres away from 300 pigs. We are very worried about this, and we should have been consulted about its reopening. We do not think it should be reopened. We are writing to ask for your help in anyway to try and get it closed again."
That is the purpose of this morning's debate.
I believe that the Government are prepared to listen and, if my understanding of North Yorkshire county council is correct, we are in time to apply for a number of exemptions—in particular for the two footpaths at Tockwith and Crayke. I urge the Government to be sensible. Our priority must be to eradicate the disease and to help businesses that have suffered, whether they are in farming or in tourism. I make an emotional yet practical plea to the Minister to keep those footpaths closed and to make exemptions to the lifting of the blanket closures where appropriate. I specify that they should exclude not just footpaths that pass pigs, but ones that pass cattle and sheep. Let us put all possible Government resources into the eradication of the disease and keep walkers, with or without dogs, away from livestock until the disease is over. Then the walkers will return in comfort and safety, posing no further threat to livestock.
12.44 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I thank the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) for giving me the opportunity to punch home some very important messages on a very important issue. I recognise that she has genuinely held concerns about opening paths in her area, but I believe that those concerns are misplaced and hope that she will be reassured by what I have to say.
The hon. Lady rightly described the anguish of farmers, but she should also be aware of the anguish of many others whose businesses have been devastated and whose problems continue. Indeed, Conservative Members made that case during a debate in this Chamber yesterday, and I believe that the hon. Lady was present for at least part of that debate. They made the point strongly and were right to do so.
I should make it clear that powers were given to local authorities to impose blanket closures initially as a precautionary measure. My colleagues who were taking the decisions at that time moved fast to give local authorities a power which it was hoped and intended they would use effectively and responsibly, and the vast majority have done so.
As the hon. Lady referred to the views of the National Farmers Union and sought to paint the rural task force as some kind of ogre, I should point out that the NFU is represented on the taskforce.
Miss McIntosh: I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that not every farmer in North Yorkshire, or the country, is a member either of the NFU or the Country Landowners Association. The issue that is causing most concern is why the criteria have changed from the letter that I received on 7 June.
Alun Michael: Of course, it is no more true that every farmer is a member of the NFU than it is of any other representative organisation. However, the hon. Lady quoted the NFU in support of her position and I am making the point that the NFU is represented on the rural taskforce. Indeed, our meeting last week was an excellent run-through of the various issues that are affecting the countryside.
For the hon. Lady to suggest that any risk is involved is irresponsible unless she, or those who have written to her, can produce evidence. We are going on the available evidence, and we have given local authorities the opportunity to show cause, on the basis of their particular circumstances, for the blanket ban to remain. It must be for a reason, not for no reason at all.
Let me make it absolutely clear what the Government are not doing or proposing to do. We are not putting pressure on any local authorities—including North Yorkshire county council— to lift restrictions on paths where they are needed as a precautionary measure. I repeat those words: where they are needed as a precautionary measure. I assure the hon. Lady that we have no intention of taking action that would increase the risk of spread of disease. For instance, there is no question of our wanting to lift restrictions around disease hotspots or other areas where there have been recent outbreaks. However, that does not mean that footpaths and other public rights of way that are well away from those areas should remain closed.
Farmers are being issued with a video on biosecurity, which we have been publicising today. I have a copy here, which the hon. Lady may wish to view. We are not giving separate messages; we are conveying two very clear messages. On the one hand, we have to maintain tight biosecurity; on the other hand, we need to get visitors back to the countryside. I make it clear again that our top priority is to beat the disease. To that end, biosecurity is essential, especially on the part of farmers and others who work in close contact with animals, because the vets tell us that that is the main way in which the disease is spread. Farmers need to take stringent precautions because they are far more likely than most people to have been in contact with foot and mouth disease without knowing it.
However, we urgently need to get visitors back to the countryside if many small country hotels, shops and many other businesses are not to go out of business. That means allowing people to walk where it is safe to do so, given that the vets' advice is that the risk that walkers will spread the disease is very small.
In that context, I shall underline the advice that is being given. If one has handled cattle, sheep, goats or pigs in the past seven days, please stay off all other farmland. Do not go near and never touch, handle or feed livestock. If walkers unexpectedly come across livestock, they are advised to move away slowly and, if necessary, retrace their routes. Keep dogs on short leads where there are livestock, do not leave waste or litter, stay on the path, leave all gates as one finds them, use disinfectant where provided and start one's walk or ride with clean equipment, footwear and clothing. If people are walking in the countryside, they should clean their boots in particular and other clothing before they undertake another walk. That is a straightforward piece of advice, which I, as a walker, certainly obey.

117WH
Government guidance to local authorities is clear and the latest veterinary evidence supports it. With the exception of paths on infected premises and on land within a 3 km radius of them, there is generally no reason for keeping paths shut—provided that people follow the sensible precautions that I have just underlined. The veterinary advice makes it clear that the risk of users of rights of way spreading disease is minimal while the continued closure of footpaths is devastating to the rural economy.
In North Yorkshire, 20 per cent. of the path network has been reopened to public access as at 29 June. That is reviewed every week, and we shall have the latest figures on Thursday. When I receive them I shall write to the hon. Lady to tell her what they show. Due to the concentration of foot and mouth disease cases, the figures for reopened footpaths in the Yorkshire dales and North Yorkshire Moors national park are significantly lower, being 1 per cent. and 8 per cent. respectively. She referred to the specific case of a footpath near Tockwith being reopened when it is within three miles of an infected area. My information is that the nearest infected area to Tockwith is some 12 miles, or 19 km, away, to the west of Harrogate. The nearest infected premises are more than 20 miles, or 30 km, away.
The hon. Lady may have in mind the Settle movement control area, the eastern edge of which runs along the Al not far from Tockwith. However, that is concerned with restrictions on the movement of animals, rather than people. Controls on livestock movements are of necessity much stricter than for users of footpaths, as the risk of disease transmission through animals is much higher and they cover wider areas.
Some people ask why the Government are so keen to reopen footpaths. The answer is simple: closed paths have been taken as a signal that the countryside as a whole is closed to visitors and the much-needed custom that they bring to local rural businesses. People feel uncertain about visiting an area if they are told that the footpaths are closed. Equally, if they do visit, they are likely to feel uneasy if they see hundreds of closed signs. We need to ensure that, wherever it is safe to do so, paths are open and that people know that.
Simple communication with the public about what is open is absolutely crucial. That is why I announced on 21 June that I am considering whether all or most of the remaining blanket closures imposed by local authorities at the start of the outbreak can now be lifted. That does not mean that authorities will no longer be able to close footpaths. They will still have powers to close paths on a selective basis where that is justified. That will apply particularly to paths within 3 km of infected premises. That is again a precautionary measure that covers a larger area than is required by the evidence because, as the hon. Lady encouraged us to do, we are taking a precautionary approach.
Miss McIntosh: What concerns me greatly is this letter which came out in the name of the former Under-Secretary of State, but was signed by his private secretary. It stated that footpaths should not be opened where there is a confirmed case of foot and mouth or where a previous infected area has been lifted. Only where there has been no case or where it has been lifted should a footpath be reopened. Is the Minister telling us
118WH
today that that was never Government policy and that the private secretary went off on a frolic of his own, or is he telling us that the policy has changed and where there are rising cases of foot and mouth they are happy to reopen rights of way?
Alun Michael: I am telling the hon. Lady that she is a bit muddled. She has been talking about an infected area that was not an infected area. The advice about what to do in relation to a case or an infected area is clear, and I have just detailed the powers that are available to local authorities.
Perhaps I should underline the fact that we have written to the chief executives of all local authorities and national park authorities in England, explaining the proposal to revoke remaining blanket closures, because we recognise that for those authorities worst hit by foot and mouth disease, revoking blanket closures could pose serious logistical problems; in some cases it might mean having to close and re-sign some hundreds of footpaths. We have, therefore, invited local authorities to make representations if they wish to retain the blanket closure for some or all of an area. I assure the hon. Lady that I shall consider such requests carefully, and aim to make decisions by 13 July with revocation a week later. The summer holiday period, which will be rushing towards us at that point, is a very important time for tourism and for rural businesses generally.
I am pleased to say that a number of local authorities have already voluntarily revoked their own blanket closures. By 29 June, 68 per cent. of all paths across country areas were open. Lifting the remaining blanket closures, wherever possible, will help to clarify which paths are open and which closed. It is important that people using the footpaths in the countryside know what precautions they should take in order to reduce even further any chance of spreading foot and mouth disease.
I hope that the hon. Lady and other colleagues will send out the clear message that the countryside is open and that walkers should be responsible in the way in which they use they countryside. That is a matter of responsibility and co-operation. I draw to the hon. Lady's attention the fact that the Ramblers Association has been strongly critical of the county councils' statutory duty work on rights of way. Those are local matters, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will examine that particular one with interest.
Our priority is to eradicate the disease. At the same time we must bear in mind the legitimate interests and concerns of the many rural businesses that depend on visitors to the countryside. We must continue to encourage people to enjoy the countryside in all the areas where that can be done with little or no risk of the spread of disease. We endorse the need to keep paths open where the risks justify it. There is no reason why the majority of the countryside should not be well and truly open by the summer holidays.
There is a danger of muddling people, and the hon. Lady might have contributed to the muddle. The position is clear, and it is based on veterinary advice. I hope that she will go from here reassured and a great deal clearer about the twin objectives of ensuring that everything is done to eradicate and defeat foot and mouth disease, and of giving hope and opportunity to rural businesses so that they can re-establish themselves, and their economy can recover.

119WH
There is a risk of giving out the wrong messages, and there is still a great deal of risk to rural businesses, which can be affected by the opening of footpaths. One example is that of a hotel that retained a lot of bookings, despite foot and mouth, because people were going to that area in the knowledge that they would not be able to walk. However, as the opportunity to walk in other areas increased, that already-damaged business experienced cancellations because people were going to places where footpaths were open. We must bear in mind the great difficulties being experienced by many businesses. Some of them are farmers, or involved in agriculture as part of their activity, but some of them are entirely dependent on tourism for their livelihood.
I very much hope that the hon. Lady will join me in getting a balanced message across to everybody concerned, and reassuring farmers about the Government's balanced and responsible approach.

Independent Insurance Company
1 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I remind the Chamber that I am an associate of the Chartered Insurance Institute and I am a chartered insurance practitioner. As such, although I no longer make my living in the financial services industry, I declare an interest in the subject of this debate.
On 14 June this year, Independent Insurance Company Ltd., the main subsidiary of Independent Insurance Group plc, a listed insurer on the London stock exchange, ceased writing new business. Four days later, PricewaterhouseCoopers was appointed as provisional liquidator, and approximately 600,000 policyholders found that their insurer, their line of last resort, had gone belly up.
My hon. Friend the Minister will undoubtedly want to assure the House that the Policyholders Protection Board will provide compensation up to 90 per cent. of the value of their proven claim of those private individuals who insured with Independent. She should point out that PricewaterhouseCoopers, as the provisional liquidator, concluded a deal with Royal and SunAlliance on 23 June, whereby that company would take over the policies of more than 250,000 Independent clients, the overwhelming preponderance of whom are private individuals from Independent's councils and tenants book of business.
Those clients transferred to Royal and SunAlliance will receive 100 per cent. of their proven claims and Royal and SunAlliance will claim that back from the Policyholders Protection Board. Those personal policyholders will continue to make their claims from Independent in the normal way as the liquidators have retained many claims staff. In my discussions yesterday with Mr. Dan Schwarzman of PricewaterhouseCoopers, he assured me that he was looking for other insurance carriers that would take over the policies not covered by the Royal and SunAlliance deal. The Policyholders Protection Board will also pay 100 per cent. of claims by companies where insurance is compulsory; hence third party motor insurance and employers' liability claims will be met in full.
I have sought to establish the above not only because it is of considerable interest to those companies and individuals affected, but as a way of ground clearing. I have long since discovered that the best way of getting a Minister to focus on the points that one wants answered in an Adjournment debate is to mention all those important, but perhaps distracting, issues that civil servants would otherwise use to pad out the Minister's reply. No self-respecting Minister would want to parrot back even the worthiest of points and I trust that, with those issues out of the way, we can move to the critical questions that the industry must have answered about the regulations in the case.
I suggest a note of caution about the Royal and SunAlliance deal concluded by the liquidators and any others that may be in the pipeline. In an interview on the BBC's "Money Box" programme, Blythe Morris, a director of Royal and SunAlliance, claimed:
"We did not pay anything for this business."
If that were the case, we must question why the liquidators, whose sole function is to liquidate the assets of Independent, agreed to the transfer of the policies.

121WH
I raised that point with PricewaterhouseCoopers yesterday, only to be told that, although it was bound by commercial confidence, it was confident that the arrangement was mutually beneficial to Independent's creditors and Royal and SunAlliance.
I come to my questions. First, the Minister will be aware that a provisional liquidator is answerable to the court rather than to a board of creditors. Will she press the liquidator, and Royal and SunAlliance, to agree to complete transparency about the deal so that all creditors may be assured that it is in their interest? Secondly, if the deal entails the transfer of more than 250,000 policies to Royal and SunAlliance, and if part of the benefit to creditors is that the administration and notification of policyholders is effected and paid for by Royal and SunAlliance, will she ensure that no policyholder details are transferred to Royal and SunAlliance in a manner that would breach the Data Protection Act 1998? My intention is not to prevent the Royal and SunAlliance deal from taking effect; I believe that it probably is in the creditors' interest. My point is to ensure that the Treasury highlights such cases to Department of Trade and Industry Ministers to see where the current data protection legislation may act against the public interest.
Since 1 January 1999, the Treasury's regulatory functions under the Insurance Companies Act 1982 have been contracted to the Financial Services Authority. It falls to the Minister to determine the exact date of N2, as it is known, when the full powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 devolve to the FSA. However, her predecessor stated on the record that that would be no later than November. Although this is clearly a time of transition in the regulation of the market, I know my hon. Friend too well and trust her integrity too much to think that she would seek to hide behind the cloak of that changing relationship with the FSA.
If the FSA failed in its regulatory function as a result of internal incompetence, the Treasury has a responsibility to discipline—and perhaps also to replace—those responsible for that incompetence. If the FSA failed through structural incapacity, the Treasury, as the author of that structure, must accept its responsibility to examine how best it might change that structure to ensure that regulatory failings do not happen again.
It will not have escaped the Minister's attention that that argument is based on a condition. If the FSA failed, it did so either through incompetence or through structural weakness. That leads to my third question: does the Minister consider that the FSA failed in the exercise of its regulatory function in relation to Independent? If she answers yes, my fourth question is: what corrective measures does she propose to take? If she does not know, my fifth question becomes clear: will she agree to establish an investigation to ascertain whether the Financial Services Authority failed in its regulatory function in that respect? I must warn the Treasury that it will not do to say that it cannot undertake such an investigation for fear of prejudicing the investigations conducted by the Serious Fraud Office or the FSA. It is clear that the Treasury would not undertake such an investigation into the Independent Insurance Company. I, on the other hand, urge the Minister to consider an investigation into the ESA itself.
122WH
The Minister could answer no and proclaim her satisfaction with the way in which the FSA discharged its regulatory role in relation to Independent. If she did so, she would find herself in the company of Peter Casey, John Whitlock and John Tiner—the new managing director—from the Financial Services Authority, with whom I spent two hours in dialogue over coffee on Monday. They agreed to meet me at short notice, and I am grateful to them for their courtesy and patience in answering what must have seemed a barrage of irksome and unwelcome questions. They were keen to impress on me that the FSA was not beset by any structural incapacity. Mr. Tiner confirmed:
"We broadly do have the powers we need to regulate the market properly."
He may not have realised that that only propelled me more surely to the first alternative conclusion—there must have been internal incompetence in the FSA. Mr. Tiner and his colleagues explained that they were contracted by the Treasury to
"monitor solvency"
and to make an
"assessment of fit and proper persons".
I asked the FSA people how they monitored solvency. The answer was staggering. Mr. Casey told me:
"We rely on information provided by management regarding solvency."
At that point, I asked him to speak slowly, so that I could be sure not to misunderstand or misrepresent him. I wrote down his words:
"We have relied on auditors as far as the veracity of underlying data is concerned
Do we really pay £232 million each year to run the Financial Services Authority, so that it can rely on auditors appointed and paid by the company that the FSA is supposed to be monitoring? The Minister should note that that was not my sixth question, but a purely rhetorical question designed to express my frustration at the FSA's complacency. Clearly the cautionary words, "When in a hole, stop digging", were unfamiliar to Mr. Casey, as he continued to answer my specific inquiries by confirming that the FSA relied on the auditors on matters such as
"that claims are properly booked and that the directors have appropriately reserved both for booked and as yet unquantified claims.".
At that point, I wanted to ask Mr. Casey whether he had ever heard of a company called Independent Insurance at which £62 million of claims had not been booked and at which the comfort level reported by external actuaries had declined markedly over three years. I refrained. I felt that irony might not be Mr. Casey's strongest suit.
I hope that the Minister will join me in welcoming the decision by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales to undertake its own investigation into the involvement of its members in the demise of Independent Insurance. Will she undertake to examine the results of that investigation carefully with a view to ending the over-close relationships that certain accountancy firms enjoy with the companies that they audit?
An audit does not usually go into sufficient detail to uncover mismanagement. Materiality considerations lead to audits missing anything but the biggest gaping

123WH
holes. Problems are explained away or seen as an opportunity to sell a consultancy project. Auditors do not usually see themselves as individuals whose role is to maintain a statutory regulatory framework set down by law. In reality, auditors face a huge conflict of interest. Audit is a loss-making business, and in order to earn money from a client, auditors need to sell consulting work. Highlighting accounting problems does not ingratiate an auditor to management, and that is an obvious conflict of interest.
Auditors uphold the law and are required to be independent. Solutions may involve the building of legally required Chinese walls and restrictions on internal communication, as with investment banks. When the ICAEW report is eventually produced, will the Minister consider putting in place a framework that ensures that there is a far less cosy relationship between auditors and their clients?
The Minister will be aware that KPMG is reported to have received £1,567,000 from Independent Insurance for its auditing and consultancy work this year. In March, it reported that the company had
"adequate resources to continue its operations for the foreseeable future."
By June, Independent had no foreseeable future. It was in liquidation. The Minister may share my view that the first call on that £1,567,000 might be for KPMG to get its corporate eyes tested. The Minister will also be aware that the last set of audited accounts showed that the group had £1.4 billion of gross liabilities against assets of £1.7 billion. Within two months of that assessment, the external actuaries, Watson Wyatt, had discovered that the company faced unquantifiable losses and the total scale of its gross liabilities could not be quantified.
My seventh question to the Minister is: will she join me in calling on the Institute of Actuaries to conduct its own investigation into the role of its members in the collapse of Independent Insurance?
I have been sidetracked from the FSA. Monitoring solvency is only one of the two functions of the regulator. We need to look at the FSA's role in the assessment of fit and proper persons. Schedule 2A to the Insurance Companies Act 1982 lays out the criteria that the regulator must use to ensure than an insurance company is managed in a sound and prudent manner. The criteria include that each manager and director
"is a fit and proper person"
and that there are
"a sufficient number of persons who are fit and proper persons"
to manage the company. How does the FSA decide whether someone is a fit and proper person? At this point in my questioning of the trinity from the FSA, I made a cardinal mistake—I tried humour. I joked that, at least in assessing whether someone was a fit and proper person, it was not possible to rely only on the information provided by the management. Deadpan, Mr. Casey replied:
"We would normally only procure external information if we already had some reason to doubt the fitness or properness of a person."
When a person has a guard dog, it is good to know that it has teeth. However, it is equally important to establish whether it has a sense of smell, some eyes and
124WH
some ears. The FSA claims to have the power and controls that it requires. However, if it is totally incapable of undertaking a proactive inquiry, the wonder is not that the Independent Insurance Company collapsed, but that we do not have many more such failures on our hands.
I pressed the FSA further on that, as I seemed to be mining an extremely productive vein. I asked what might constitute a reason to doubt the fitness or properness of a person, which triggers the decision to procure external information. I was told that an example might be if the person had previously been associated with a failing company. I asked how the FSA might know if a person had previously been associated with such a company. I was told—without a hint of embarrassment—that the FSA would know that if the person had filled in its form correctly.
I am sure, Mr. Cummings, that you will find it as comforting as I do to know that the regulatory body for the insurance industry will procure external information if a director has been associated with a failed company in the past and that such information would determine the fitness and properness of that person. The FSA would primarily establish that by looking at its form, which the person filled in, assuming that he or she had filled it in correctly.
The argument is not just circuitous, but circular. I asked Mr. Casey whether he had heard of Lombard Continental Insurance Company, which was once run by Mr. Michael Bright, Independent's chief executive. I asked him whether he was aware of the insurance solvency international report, which found that Lombard was non-viable because of under-resourcing. He responded by saying that the ISI report was published after the flotation of Independent. I pointed out to him that the report was undertaken in 1983, some 10 years previously, and had been shared with the chairman and one other director of Independent as early as 1985. Mr. Casey did not know that.
Section 45(1) of the 1982 Act gives the FSA powers to limit premium income, to address poor internal controls and, primarily, to obtain information about such matters as internal controls. I asked Mr. Casey whether he had ever exercised those powers in full, on the grounds that it would appear that the criteria of sound and proper management of a company had not been observed. He replied that he did not know, and that he would do that only if other powers proved inappropriate.
The FSA made it clear that it did not feel that that was appropriate. I believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Only by ensuring that it is common knowledge that such powers are exercised—some of them regularly—can the market draw conclusions on whether their use is a routine matter or whether it betokens something more serious. Mr. Casey told me that, if such instances were publicised, market confidence would be undermined. It would be undermined a good deal less than it was by the collapse of the Independent Insurance Company.
1.20 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on securing the debate. The

125WH
Government understand the concerns that he has raised. We appreciate the anxiety of former employees of Independent who have lost their jobs and of policyholders who are waiting for claims to be paid.
Glenda Jackson: Some of my constituents were clients of the Independent Insurance Company. They suffered a severe fire in their home and were assured that, up to and including 15 June, claims for the restitution of their home would be met in full and their hotel accommodation costs would be paid. They then discovered that, because their policy was classed as commercial, they were at the bottom of the pay-out hierarchy.
Those who look out for policyholders in that situation could not offer them any joy. PricewaterhouseCoopers has said that it can do nothing. Since such commercial policies were the core business of Independent—they sold block pensions to residents of private blocks of flats, which are mainly conversions—some pressure should be put on them to bring my constituents' claims higher up the hierarchical list.
Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will investigate the issue and write to her on that subject.
I would like to set out some background. Independent Insurance Company Ltd. was formed from a buy-out of Allstate Insurance Company Ltd. from its previous owners in 1987. It is the main subsidiary of Independent Insurance Group plc, a listed insurer on the London stock exchange. Independent wrote general insurance and re-insurance business, mainly covering liability, property, motor and other insurance for the commercial and personal lines sector.
On 8 February this year, Independent Insurance Group warned that last year's profits would be about £20 million below the market expectations of about £70 million. The main reasons cited were poor results in the French operation and a need to increase further reinsurance cover on the London market and provincial liability accounts. That news caused Independent's share price to fall 23 per cent. As a result, it was announced at the annual general meeting in April that Michael Bright had resigned as chief executive.
The group company's shares were suspended on 11 June. A subsequent announcement stated that a planned rights issue had been abandoned, and the shares remained suspended. Following further work, on 17 June, the directors of the company took the advice to appoint provisional liquidators.
The Serious Fraud Office announced that it would investigate events at the company, following a referral by the FSA on 18 June. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the affairs of Independent while there is an investigation in progress. I believe that it is important to protect both the investigation and those who are being investigated. We cannot prejudge the outcome, and it would be unfair to do so.
The Financial Services Authority, which regulates insurance companies, had been in close touch with the company during the period leading up to the announcement in June. The FSA is now keeping in close touch with the provisional liquidator, the Serious Fraud
126WH
Office and the Policyholders Protection Board and is monitoring the situation carefully. The FSA is considering, with the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry, whether any further investigations are necessary.
I shall attempt to cover some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North. In particular, he raised the issue of the transfer of policies to Royal and SunAlliance. No payment was involved in the transfer and Royal and SunAlliance will take responsibility for the paying and administering of reporting outstanding claims. As I understand it, the proposal will mean that the policyholders who are transferred to RSA will have seamless cover. All claims will be paid in full, even when the Policyholders Protection Board will provide compensation only to 90 per cent. Clearly, that is a good outcome for policyholders. Given that there was no payment involved, my hon. Friend asked in particular about the confidentiality of arrangements between Royal and SunAlliance and the provisional liquidator. Unfortunately, I must tell him that I am not in a position to press for further transparency on the details of the claim, as it is up to the courts to determine whether to provide that information. The provisional liquidator takes his authority from the court, and not from the FSA, and is entitled to keep the details of the arrangements confidential.
My hon. Friend is also concerned about the confidentiality of personal details relating to policyholders and whether the transfer might breach the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. As I understand it, when policyholders give their consent for the deal to take place, they are also giving their consent for their policy details to be transferred. No breach of the Data Protection Act would occur under those circumstances.
My hon. Friend questioned the reliance of the FSA on auditors for basic facts. Without a major increase in resources, which would allow the FSA to duplicate the efforts of auditors who are currently in place, it would be impossible for it to take on that work.
Mr. Gardiner: I am aware that it would be impossible for the FSA to duplicate the function of auditors. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that other regulatory systems, such as those in America, give the regulator the capacity to send in teams of auditors when it feels that such external independent work is needed. Will she consider incorporating that in the powers of the FSA?
Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. However, the United States has 10,000 insurance regulators, and is therefore in a different position from that of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend also raised the point about asking the Institute of Actuaries to investigate the actuaries involved in the case. That is a matter for the professional body itself. The actuaries received specific confirmation from the independent management that they were given full and accurate data.
Mr. Howard Flight: More generally, when this matter occurred, the director of enforcement of the FSA had recently moved to another job and no one was even in charge of the unit

127WH
that is supposed to monitor potential collapse and fraud. Does the Economic Secretary agree that the FSA might usefully increase its focus on and prioritisation of this territory?
Ruth Kelly: Clearly, the FSA will be considering its response to this area. However, the current priority is the Serious Fraud Office investigation. That must be got right before we determine what other reviews may be necessary.
My hon. Friend asked me to consider whether the FSA had failed in regulating the Independent Insurance Company. I re-emphasise the fact that we must ensure that the fraud investigation is conducted first. We shall keep in close contact with the FSA to ascertain what else needs to be done.
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate and I am grateful for the opportunity to answer at least some of the points that he raised.

Secondary Education (Bradley Stoke)
1.30 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: It is tempting to begin by observing that a debate on secondary education in Bradley Stoke might set a world record for brevity among Adjournment debates, because there is no secondary education in Bradley Stoke. That will be the thrust of my argument today.
Bradley Stoke is one of the largest—some say the largest—housing estate in Europe. It has 9,000 houses and more are still being built, as anyone driving through the estate will see. A lay person viewing the development would wonder how it was possible that, after 10 years, such an area could have not only no secondary school, but no prospect of securing one for several years to come. As we move through the inevitable technicalities, I hope that we shall not lose sight of the lack of common sense involved in building so many houses with no sign of a secondary school.
Bradley Stoke crosses parliamentary boundaries; it is represented by me and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith), who will be trying to catch your eye to make a brief contribution, Mr. Cummings. I am grateful to South Gloucestershire council for the brief supplied to us and to the Minister. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well in his new job.
I shall start by answering my own question about how a huge housing development could have been built without a secondary school. The dreadful term "surplus places" lurks over much of the period. In crude terms, local authorities are not permitted to build new schools while empty places are available in existing schools. The real position is slightly more complicated, but that is the gist of the problem. Although it has been painfully apparent for many years that Bradley Stoke would need a secondary school, surplus places in other secondary schools prevented the local authority from proceeding with the construction of a new one.
Those surplus places have now gone. For 2002, the local authority predicts a shortfall of 283 places, and for 2003, a shortfall of 459. Thus the argument about surplus places no longer applies. In any case, the notion of surplus places is problematic. It has always been apparent that Bradley Stoke would need a secondary school. The fact that places were available in schools outside the immediate area—I stress that I make no criticism of such schools—could not disguise the obvious need for a new secondary school. It would have been better if work had started on the new school some years ago; it might then have been up and running when places were needed. Instead, there is a lag and a crisis. We realise that there is a problem, and only then do we set about redressing it. I hope that the rules about surplus places can be changed, perhaps for other fast-growing areas, so that these problems do not arise again.
What are the problems in South Gloucestershire and Bradley Stoke as we look ahead to providing a secondary school in the area? The first is that the authority faces a huge backlog in school maintenance and repair. The authority estimates the figure to be £94 million. The figures are inevitably speculative, but the backlog is huge.

129WH
South Gloucestershire came into being in 1995 and started to set about tackling the backlog, but it is an uphill struggle and trade-offs have to be faced. A large capital investment in one big new secondary school could pre-empt much-needed spending on the maintenance of other secondary and primary schools and, indeed, spending on the authority's other capital projects. South Gloucestershire could raise capital and blow it all on a school for Bradley Stoke; many of us would like to see that, but it would pre-empt many of the authority's other urgent capital needs.
The second problem is the lack of capital from developers. The developers made lots of money from building all the houses, so why do they have no cash to put towards the school? The answer is that the predecessor local authority that gave permission for the houses secured sites in the area for schools but no capital contributions for them. In recent years, South Gloucestershire council has been far more effective at obtaining capital contributions, and some money has been found. However, it inherited a legacy of not receiving capital from developers, which is a genuine problem.
The third key problem is that, on revenue, South Gloucestershire council is grossly underfunded. People might wonder about the connection between revenue underfunding and capital expenditure, but it is intimate. I often hear debates in this Chamber in which hon. Members say that their authority is the worst funded. They usually mean the worst-funded county council. South Gloucestershire is the worst-funded local education authority.
As I have said previously, someone has to be at the bottom of the pile. I am not suggesting that we should be at the top of the pile, but the relative ranking of authorities must be fair, and the discrepancy between the amount that South Gloucestershire council receives and the amount that many other authorities receive is huge and unjustifiable. It is made much worse by the population growth that the area has faced. As the Minister may be aware, the statistics used to calculate school numbers are terribly out of date by, on average, about 18 months. I have challenged Ministers on the matter previously, and they have said how difficult it is to acquire up-to-date information. I have offered to type the numbers in myself if it would help the process. In the age of the internet and technology, it should not be difficult to count the number of children in schools at present rather than use out-of-date data. As a result, the authority not only receives less per head per child but does not even receive money for every child in the school. In south Gloucestershire, the difference between the number of children in our schools and the number that the Government use for funding is the equivalent of an entire primary school, whom we educate not for below average but for nil. We receive no money for those children, because the figures are so out of date and the population is rising rapidly. That system must be changed.
Why does it matter that we have a secondary school? There are currently 129 year 6 children in Bradley Stoke's five primary schools, with a sixth primary school coming on stream. This autumn, those 129 children will all go to schools outside their community. There are 140 year 5 children for 2002. As there is no chance of
130WH
a school by then, they will all have to go out of the area. There are 174 children in year 4 for 2003. Almost certainly, all will have to go outside the area.
Bradley Stoke is already a car community, with huge dependence on the private car and a great deal of traffic and congestion. For that reason alone, a secondary school in Bradley Stoke would improve quality of life, reduce congestion and slightly reduce dependence on the car. Far more than that, a secondary school would give much more of a sense of community to Bradley Stoke. Bradley Stoke is trying to build a sense of community, but it has limited facilities that have taken a long time to come, and a secondary school could cement the community like nothing else.
Will we get one? How could we pay for a secondary school in Bradley Stoke? The Government could allow the council to borrow the money, but they would allow it to borrow only about half the cost of a secondary school. The council estimates that it would be allowed to borrow about £6 million towards the cost of about £12 million of a new secondary school. The balance would have to be found from capital resources, which would have to come from wiping out all other capital expenditure in the authority in terms of using capital receipts. It is difficult to envisage how that could be achieved. I endorse one of the authority's pleas: I ask the Government not to give the council money, but merely to allow it to borrow a realistic amount towards the cost of building a school.
People will say, "Well, perhaps they thought that the Government gave the council money to build the school. Well, all right, they can borrow it, but why not let the council borrow a realistic amount, rather than merely half the cost of the school, especially when capital is so tight because of the failure of previous councils to get capital contributions from developers?" A decent amount of borrowed money and, perhaps, some additional capital expenditure by the council could mean that a school could be built relatively quickly, but at the moment that does not seem realistic.
The only other obvious route is the private finance initiative, which would probably involve not only Bradley Stoke but all secondary schools in the authority's area, and possibly some primary schools, too. It means tendering across the European Union and yet more delay.
The critical point about the private finance initiative is that the amount that the Government will let the authority pay the private contractor may not be what the private contractor will charge the council; there may be a shortfall. A well—funded authority could cover some of that shortfall from a generous standard spending assessment settlement, but one that was already spending way above the SSA—it may be crippled by having the worst SSA settlement in the country—could not countenance going into a long-term commitment in which it had to make up a shortfall year in, year out. That is where revenue funding and capital funding come together.
Bradley Stoke has urgently needed a secondary school for some years. We could all see the problem coming, yet for various reasons—rules about surplus places and about capital funding—it will be years before we get that school. During the general election, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West and I were approached

131WH
by parents in Bradley Stoke who said, "I have a 10-yearold. Surely he and my nine-year-old will have a school in our community." I had to say, "If you are lucky, your eight-year-old might, but by then your 11-year-old will have been sent out of the community to school, so you will be taking your children to two different schools." I did not feel comfortable giving that answer. That is why I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue early in the new Parliament.
I look forward to a constructive response from the Minister. I hope that he will appreciate the commonsense problem. Parents are likely to have to send their children to school out of the area for years to come, largely because arcane rules made under this and previous Governments have resulted in an extraordinary situation.
I hope that the Minister will be willing to receive a delegation led by the two local Members of Parliament, including local councillors and representatives of the local education authority, to express anxieties about the area in more detail. I hope that we shall be able to work together to achieve something that is long overdue and that will benefit everyone in Bradley Stoke: a good secondary school and a sense of community.
1.41 pm
Dr. Doug Naysmith: I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing this timely and appropriate debate and my gratitude to him for allowing me to contribute to it. I support the hon. Gentleman's request to the Government to treat the issue of a new secondary school for Bradley Stoke as a special case.
Bradley Stoke is a large, private housing development that has grown remarkably in recent years, and continues to grow. Unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman said, some planning decisions taken by South Gloucestershire's predecessor local authorities, Northavon and Avon county councils, were less than inspired. More and more houses have been built in the area, but the provision of essential services has lagged behind. It is relevant to the debate that, when agreements were reached with developers, the former Avon local education authority secured sites for schools but no capital contribution towards building costs.
There is a clear case now for building a secondary school in Bradley Stoke. Projections show that it will be needed in the next two or three years. The only matter that troubles me, apart from securing finance to build it, is its possible effect on surrounding schools, especially on Filton high school, which has high standards and has recently been the recipient of capital investment. It is important to build on and protect that investment and I know that South Gloucestershire council will phase in the new school sensitively.
I make no comment on the general use of PFI, but in this instance it is clear that developing a satisfactory PFI scheme to include the Bradley Stoke school will take far too long. I look forward to hearing any advice that my hon. Friend the Minister has to offer, while somewhat belatedly congratulating him on his recent appointment.
1.44 pm
The Minister for Schools (Mr. Stephen Timms): I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing the debate and on his result in the general election, which no doubt reflects his diligence in promoting the interests of the residents of Bradley Stoke and other parts of his constituency. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) for taking the trouble to raise his concerns with me.
Let me set out some of our ambitions for secondary education in Bradley Stoke and throughout the country. We are committed to raising the standard of secondary education for all pupils. In South Gloucestershire, as elsewhere, we are taking action to drive up standards and support initiatives that will achieve that. The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend referred to the need for additional school places in Bradley Stoke. We have substantially increased capital investment in schools and put in place a new capital strategy based on the development of asset management plans, which will help effective local decision making. I shall outline how that will work in a moment.
We have made a clear commitment to raising standards. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 gave us a framework within which we could accelerate our drive to raise standards. Since then, we have been taking consistent and effective action at all stages of the education system. We need to ensure that all children, wherever they live, have the opportunity to reach their full potential. We now want to build on what has already been achieved.
The education Bill to be published in the autumn will be a key step towards achieving our ambition of raising standards throughout the system, particularly by facilitating the creation of a more diverse secondary education system, in which every school has a distinct ethos and character and every pupil can take pride in his or her school.
We are supporting unprecedented levels of investment in schools. Over the next three years, we shall allocate about £8.5 billion. That capital investment is needed to create the right environment for children to learn and to ensure that high-quality education is available to all. Capital investment has risen from £683 million in the financial year to 1997 and will reach an annual rate of £3.5 billion by 2003–04—a more than fivefold increase. That reflects our great commitment to improving education. Since 1997, South Gloucestershire district council has received total capital allocations of £43.9 million for investment in its schools. That covers the period from 1997–98 to 2000–01. The allocation for the current year is more than £9 million.
Hon. Members have made important points about the availability of school places in Bradley Stoke, and I am aware that concerns have been raised about whether there are sufficient places to meet demand, given the scale of development in the area. To meet the need, the local education authority plans to build a community secondary school in Bradley Stoke, providing, I think, about 900 places for children aged 11 to 16. LEAs have a duty to provide a sufficient number of school places for their area. Decisions about the organisation and supply of places are best taken locally by the main partners in education provision.

133WH
The 1998 Act introduced a new framework for local decision making in school-place planning. LEAs must prepare a school organisation plan covering a five-year rolling period that sets out how they propose to deal with surpluses and deficits of school provision and what provision they intend to make for pupils with special educational needs. The plan sets the context for proposals to change school organisation in the area, including, for example, proposals to enlarge existing schools or establish new ones.
Parents have the right to express a preference for the school at which they wish their child to be educated, but of course we cannot guarantee every parent a place for their child in the school at the top of their list. If a school has more applications than places, it cannot admit every applicant. In such circumstances, places must be allocated to applicants according to published criteria.
A school organisation committee—SOC—has been established for each local education authority area. The role of SOCs is to consider the plan and to take decisions about statutory proposals affecting the local organisation of school places. SOCs are independent statutory bodies answerable to their local communities. If the SOC cannot reach a unanimous decision on the plan or any statutory proposals, they are passed to independent schools adjudicators for decision. The SOC will of course need to be assured that funding is available to enable the implementation of a proposal. Should an authority be able to demonstrate an overall projected deficit in actual, compared with forecast, numbers of school places—looking about three years ahead—it can apply for funding under the category of basic need in the annual capital round, just as South Gloucestershire has done, with conspicuous success.
Where there is a basic need for extra school places, allocations are made with reference to a comparison of the projected demand with the assessed capacity of all schools within a growing area, normally within a radius of three miles for secondary schools. Where an authority demonstrates that it has basic need, the Government provide funding for the required number of school places. Since 1998, we have made available a total allocation of more than £9.7 million to provide additional school places in South Gloucestershire as a whole, including 854 secondary places in the Bradley Stoke area.
Basic need cost factors are based on the averaged cost, taking account of conditions in the area concerned, of providing a school place in a new school or of extending or adapting an existing one. The values are used as the basis for calculating the basic need element of each LEA's annual capital guidelines. We have made an unprecedented overall increase in the level of capital funding for schools, and LEAs will need to consider how best to fund schemes from the various funding sources available to them—including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West said, capital receipts and contributions from developers, as well as Government funding sources.
I know that South Gloucestershire is considering proposals to provide a new school in Bradley Stoke through a partnership with the private sector. Officials from my Department have met the LEA to discuss the potential for a PFI scheme to build a new secondary school. Guidance to all authorities will be issued shortly in which it is proposed to invite bids by LEAs for the
134WH
funding of PFI schemes. Bids are expected to be received during September. The total capital investment in PFI schemes nationally includes more than 800 new or refurbished schools that are operational or have been given the green light to proceed using PFI. Those projects, valued at over £2 billion, will have the additional benefit of fully maintained buildings as part of the contract and high standard services for the lifetime of the contract. It is important not to discount the significant advantages of the PFI route for such developments, although it is not the only route available.
Mr. Webb: I am sure that many Bradley Stoke parents will read the record of our debate. I am sure that the parents of an eight-year-old or a nine-year-old in Bradley Stoke would want me to say that much of what the Minister said is true. Of course the Government have spent money on education for children in Bradley Stoke: they have to, because there is no school there. They have to find places for them somewhere else. That is not a source of particular credit. The Minister said that there were 854 places in the Bradley Stoke area, but none of them is in Bradley Stoke; that means that 854 more children are sent out of the area. I am not sure that the Minister has said anything that will make parents in Bradley Stoke feel that he has understood that we are still years away from having the secondary school that that community badly needs. Will he say anything that will encourage them to believe that they do not face years of negotiations, contracts and tendering? Must we wait for three more years?
Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman will need to await the conclusion of my remarks to find out exactly what I am going to say. I think that he has slightly misunderstood the issue. The 854 secondary places for which an allocation has been provided are specifically for children in Bradley Stoke. It is for the local authority to decide how it uses the funding allocation and where it chooses to provide the places. However, the allocation has been made to the local authority specifically to meet the secondary school needs of the population of Bradley Stoke.
I want to set out the system in full so that hon. Members can understand the context in which our discussion is taking place. We have introduced a new strategy for capital investment in schools, which is based on the development of asset management plans. Those form the basis for the allocation of capital funding to tackle identified needs and provide a transparent local framework within which schools and local education authorities can develop schemes to utilise the capital funds that are made available by the Government and other sources. Under asset management plans, a large proportion of funding will be allocated to LEAs and directly to schools under formulae that are based on relative need. LEAs and schools will be helped by three-year certainty about the allocation of the bulk of the funding.
A key part of the capital strategy is that authorities and schools should identify their priorities using clear criteria. They should address a wide range of needs from within their overall capital budgets and join up separate sources of funding locally to modernise a school's estate. As part of that process, we have committed a substantial

135WH
amount of capital funding on a three-year basis, which gives LEAs greater certainty for their planning purposes. South Gloucestershire has already been given an allocation of £13 million for its schools over three years, including new deal for schools condition support and new deal for schools devolved formula capital. In December, we shall announce allocations to all LEAs, and South Gloucestershire will again feature. There will be more than £500 million of new deal for schools modernisation funding for 2002–03 and 2003–04.
As part of the implementation of effective asset management plans, we recently issued guidance on the sufficiency of school buildings and gave details of a new measure of overall capacity in schools. Detailed guidance on that capacity method is expected to be published later this year. To ease the burden on authorities and to ensure that new capacity is measured in time for assessments to be completed by June 2002, independent surveyors who work directly with the Department will collate a schedule of accommodation for all maintained schools. The new measure is intended to be used to inform policy development on the way in which funding for extra places can be made available.
South Gloucestershire is considering options for the best way forward in meetings its needs in terms of both the sufficiency of places in Bradley Stoke and the condition and suitability of the rest of its building stock—a point to which the hon. Member for Northavon drew attention. In taking forward its plans, the authority will need to consider how schemes can best be delivered with the resources that are available.
136WH
South Gloucestershire has been well supported through capital allocations, which recognise the projected deficit of school places in three years' time.
Dr. Naysmith: Will the Minister receive a delegation including myself, the hon. Member for Northavon and the local authority?
Mr. Timms: I shall come to that in a moment, if I may.
The authority has been well supported. Capital allocations recognise the projected deficit of school places, which will be about 500 places in three years' time. In addition, the authority has its own capital receipts and can explore the scope for using PFI. I recognise that there are calls on the council's resources elsewhere in its estate. However, given the information that I have received and which has been presented in this debate, I see no reason why the authority cannot draw on the variety of resources available to it to meet both those demands and that for new secondary provision.
If there is a difficulty that has not yet become apparent, I shall be happy in the first instance, to ask officials from the Department to meet representatives of South Gloucestershire to consider the LEA's options and plans for meeting its needs. If that is not satisfactory, I shall meet the hon. Members concerned to discuss whether additional action needs to be taken.
Given those measures and others that we are taking, I hope that we have laid the foundations for improvements in secondary education for the residents of Bradley Stoke. We are, of course, committed to transforming secondary education across the country.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.