What assessment he has made of the impact on families of the new rights proposed in the Fairness at Work White Paper. [65190]

The measures in our proposed legislation will encourage a partnership approach and a fairer workplace environment, which will benefit all employees and their families.

We are introducing nine specific measures, which will help parents and carers to balance work and family life by providing three months' parental leave for mothers, fathers and adoptive parents, by providing domestic time off in emergencies for all employees and by simplifying and improving women's maternity rights.

Our proposals were developed in consultation with the key stakeholders. Four out of five employers who commented on the White Paper's family-friendly employment proposals supported them in some measure. Our proposals to simplify the maternity provisions received almost universal support.

I am sure that many families will welcome the White Paper. Does my hon. Friend agree that employers in both the public and private sectors benefit from the operation of family-friendly policies? Will he influence his Department to spread best practice from both public and private sectors to employers who do not yet operate family-friendly policies?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Our fairness at work proposals have received a great deal of support throughout government, employers' organisations and trade unions, which are working together to improve best practice. The Bill will result in a significant change in culture, with the support of virtually every employer in Britain.

Has the Minister assessed the impact of parental leave provisions on the employment of women in the future, given that his departmental assessment is that those provisions will cost £110 million?

The hon. Gentleman should realise that the parental leave directive was agreed by employers and trade unions, which made joint recommendations. As a consequence, the overwhelming majority of employers support the measures, which will at last give men and women a chance to balance their work responsibilities with their caring responsibilities at home.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many family members work in companies that employ fewer than 20 people and that, in some cases, those are among the worst employers in the country? In view of that, will he give further thought to reducing the number of employees in a company who are excluded from the provisions of the proposed legislation?

The proposals are comprehensive. My hon. Friend is asking about a different issue, which will be dealt with in the fairness at work Bill under recognition issues. There will be no change in those proposals. Employers of whatever size will have opportunities to be represented on issues of discipline and grievance procedures. Application of the proposals will be universal and parental leave has the support of employers' organisations.

May I take this opportunity to welcome the new team, although it is nice to have to deal with one of the old lags first. Will the Minister enlighten the House in two respects? First, will he clarify which is the authorised version of the recognition proposals—the version according to Derby, South or the version according to Hartlepool—that has finally been adopted?

Secondly, on fairness at work more generally, will the Minister explain how he can make statements about universal support and a wide welcome for his family-friendly policies when he seems incapable of producing an overall assessment of the compliance cost to British industry?

From one old lag to a very old lag, I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming my continuing presence at the Department. I may qualify for unfair dismissal under the Bill.

Opposition Members must realise that we have taken into account the effects of the proposals on all workers in Britain. The hon. Gentleman is a little off-beam. He simply cannot accept the changing culture in the workplace, with employers and employees striving for better partnership arrangements, including a partnership that reflects their rights and responsibilities. When we publish the Bill soon, he will see in the round the comprehensive nature of our proposals and the overwhelming support that they will receive from people in the workplace—both employees and sensible employers.

What discussions he has had with his international partners on the prospects for an international agreement on investment; and if he will make a statement. [65191]

Negotiations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of a multilateral agreement on investment are no longer taking place. The United Kingdom and the European Union as a whole have called for investment to be on the agenda of a future round of negotiations in the World Trade Organisation. Decisions on the content of that agenda will be taken at the WTO ministerial meeting later this year. In the meantime, the UK is participating in the analytical work of the WTO trade and investment working group.

Many people in my constituency who expressed concerns about the MAI process will be relieved at its collapse. They urge me to ensure that the future process is less deformed and takes better account of environmental, social and developmental issues in discussions on international investment. Will the Minister reassure me that a framework will be provided for future negotiations?

I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. I came late to this issue, but there was no doubt that, from the outset, the perception arose that this was a multinational conspiracy, and that it was the developed world putting one over on the less-developed world. It does not matter about the accuracy of those perceptions, the fact that they were allowed to run made it extremely difficult to secure the agreement that was being sought.

We should start with a clean sheet of paper and seek to obtain an agreement on investment rules that serves both the developed and the less developed world. We must also make it clear from the outset that it must be done on the basis of consensus, and that it must take full account of environmental and social issues, such as conditions of employment.

If he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policies to assist small firms. [65192]

Small and medium businesses are crucial to a successful enterprise economy, and the Government are firmly committed to stimulating the creation, competitiveness and growth of new and small businesses.

The key principles underlying the Government's approach include fostering an enterprise culture that encourages innovators and risk takers; providing and maintaining a supportive economic environment; identifying and removing barriers to growth and providing high quality business support for firms at all stages of their development. The Government also work within the European Union to help to further these aims throughout Europe.

I welcome the new Minister to his post. Is he aware of the recent national insurance contributions regulations, which can impose huge additional taxation on entrepreneurial businesses, specifically on approved and unapproved pension schemes when companies go to the market to float for money, and on share conversions in management buy-outs where the business is succeeding? If he is aware of that, please could he make appropriate representations to his colleagues at the Department of Social Security for some amelioration of the situation? If he is not fully aware of it, please could he look into in the matter?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words of welcome. The Government are proud of their record on corporate taxation. We have conducted a major reform, and as a result corporation tax is at its lowest level ever—20 per cent. for small firms. That is the lowest level of any major European economy.

I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position, and wish him well at the Dispatch Box. Is he aware of the importance to small firms of proper enforcement of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998? A company in my constituency received a letter from Rentokil saying that it was prepared to continue business only on its own late terms with limited interest. Since I wrote to the Department, Rentokil has withdrawn that letter, and has promised to comply with the Act. What other action is the Department taking to ensure compliance with the Act?

I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words of welcome. I reassure her that the Government are committed to changing the whole culture of payment. The 1998 Act was an important start, but we realise that we must do more. That is why we have established the better payment practice code. The better payment practice group contains representatives from all sides of industry, including large and small firms. It ensures that the spirit as well as the letter of the Act is implemented. I understand that Rentokil has agreed to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the Act.

I welcome the Minister to his new post. Is he aware that, in a survey this month, more than 50 per cent. of small business owners said that they would not consider starting a business because of the burden of legislation they now face? Will he give an assurance that legislation this year will not affect the viability of small businesses?

The Government are committed—[Interruption.] We are, indeed, committed to small firms and to ensuring that as many people as possible start up small firms. I am delighted to tell the House that the latest evidence from Barclays bank and National Westminster is that business start-ups are up in the third quarter of last year compared with the third quarter of 1997. It shows that the Government's policies on small firms are working.

As regards legislation, we are aware of the problems that small firms experience in complying with regulations. That is why we have set up the better regulation task force to ensure that regulations are implemented effectively and sensitively in relation to small firms and, indeed, all businesses.

An important part of the Government's policies to support small firms is help with start-ups—especially in areas such as Rotherham, where the ratio between employers and population is only about half the national average. We welcome the Government's commitment to supporting 10,000 new start-ups in the high-tech sector this year, but what steps is the Department taking to support start-ups in other industries?

We are committed to helping all start-ups. The competitiveness White Paper is particularly dedicated to helping businesses to start up when we think that they have a high growth potential that will create jobs, productivity and growth, but, as I have said, we are committed to helping all start-ups. That is what business links are tasked with, and that is what we shall continue to deliver.

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. Under Labour, only a few people are born to office. Some seek office to live well, and some have office thrust upon them. As the Minister has no salary and does not do red boxes, I assume that he is in the latter category.

One of the most important things that the Government can do to assist small firms is to ensure that the law applying to companies is fully and fairly enforced on all of them, so that they can trade on equal terms. The Opposition welcome the institution of a rogue director hot line, which the Government have set up to help small firms in this context. Does the Minister agree that Mr. Derek Draper should be referred to the hot line for his violations of company law at 3C Ltd? Does he agree that new Labour establishment should be referred to it for the failure of Progress Ltd. to submit accounts for that Blairite magazine—and does he think that he should be referred to it for his failure to submit the necessary paperwork relating to one of his companies?

I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might start the new year with a more gracious approach, but he has reassured me nevertheless by continuing in the spirit that he adopted last year.

Of course—

Spit it out!

That is exactly what I am about to do, and the hon. Gentleman will welcome the answer when I give it.

Let me set the record straight in relation to my own affairs. Fellows of All Souls—of which I believe the right hon. Gentleman is one—used to conduct their research in libraries, and they used to employ researchers. It appears that they now conduct their research in The Times diary, in which that story appeared. Unfortunately, those who snout around in the inaccurate and the meretricious come up with the meretricious and the inaccurate, which is what the story was. Every company with which I have been associated has filed its returns in compliance with the deadlines set by Companies house.

As for the other matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, I am sure that the Department will examine them closely, fairly and without doing anyone any undue favours.

What assessment he has made of the strength of the relationship between science spending and UK competitiveness. [65193]

Our ability to compete effectively as a knowledge-driven economy will depend on our commitment to scientific research and its exploitation.

In partnership with the Wellcome Trust, we will spend an extra £1.4 billion on science and engineering over the next three years. That will ensure that we can retain our position as a world-class country in terms of science, reversing the decline in investment for which the last Government were responsible.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new post, and thank him for his answer.

Given what my right hon. Friend has said about the link between science and competitiveness, and given that the Government, through the comprehensive spending review, have already been more generous to public-sector science than most scientists dreamed was possible, will my right hon. Friend tell us what plans he has to stimulate further science and research in the private sector? In particular, will he tell us what thought he has given to fiscal incentives such as tax rebates for companies that reinvest a significant proportion of their income in research?

I thank my hon. Friend for his warm words of welcome. I agree that the £1.4 billion extra is an excellent first start, as is the 20 per cent. increase in the Department's innovation budget, but I regard it just as a start. It is beginning to deliver our commitment as a Government to science, but we can do more.

My hon. Friend has drawn the House's attention to the possibility of tax incentives for the private sector to support research and development. It is true that, with the exception of the pharmaceutical industry, spending in the private sector on research and development has declined dramatically over recent years. We need to do something to remedy that. We will look closely at how we can introduce a financial regime—a tax regime—that will promote and encourage investment in those important sectors.

I also welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his post.

May I make a serious point about the level at which science, information technology and so on is represented within Government? I have long argued that we should have a Minister of State, rather than an Under-Secretary of State, in the Department of Trade and Industry to do that important job, but what signal does it give to the rest of business that the Secretary of State's Department has two unpaid Ministers dealing with science and technology? Surely that is a worthwhile job within Government, not just an add-on that is not even paid. Will he please start fighting for science and technology in his Department?

Whether the Ministers are unpaid or not, they have managed to achieve far more in their period of office than the hon. Gentleman's Government ever did. The fact that we have secured an extra £1.4 billion for the science base shows that we are achieving value for money from our Ministers. I should have thought that he would congratulate the Department on that fact. If it helps him, he will be pleased to know that, as the Cabinet Minister responsible for the Department, I shall take a close personal interest in how we can encourage and exploit the science base and the knowledge that we have.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. In particular, I welcome his comments about the boost to the science and engineering base. Is he aware, however, that, under the Tories, spending on development fell to a paltry 3 per cent. of total civil Government R and D expenditure, perpetuating the problem of Britain being good at R but bad at D, and of commercial ideas that were generated in Britain being exploited elsewhere? Will he talk to his colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment about what can be done to improve the percentage of expenditure that goes on D, so that we can have a joined-up Government approach to tackling the development gap?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have already begun discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about how the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Education and Employment can jointly deal with the many weaknesses that exist because of the situation that we inherited. There is no doubt that it is one of those sectors where we have the potential to be world class. It has been neglected and we now have a Government who are delivering on that important agenda. We intend to move forward and to deliver on our commitment to the science base and to our scientists, so that we can ensure that we are world class in the century ahead.

I too congratulate the Secretary of State on becoming the third Labour holder of that office in under two years. I wish him every success in trying to clear up the dreadful mess that was left behind by his predecessor—a mess both in the Department and in the wider business world. I trust that the plight of British industry will be at the top of the Secretary of State's list of priorities.

Given the Government's enthusiasm for the promotion of genetically modified food, does the Secretary of State see any conflict of interest in Lord Sainsbury, the Minister in the other place with responsibility for technology, being an investor in Sainsbury's, the first supermarket to promote that food; an investor in Diatech and Innotech, two companies that are involved in the technology sector; and having links with the Gatsby Trust, which finances research in the sector—while at the same time controlling policy and grants to the industry? Will the Secretary of State ask his Minister to step aside and find a Minister who has no actual or apparent conflict of interest to do the work?

I shall not be asking that Minister to step aside because steps have been taken to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. On the day on which the House of Lords has produced a significant report on GM foods, I would have expected that, as the principal Opposition spokesman on such matters, the right hon. Gentleman would have addressed the substance of that report. The fact that he has failed to do so says so much more about his priorities than it does about his real desire to move the debate forward in this important area.

I have no doubt that there is no conflict in my Department on these matters. I will ensure that there is an open and transparent public debate about GM foods which will restore public confidence in this important area. I can guarantee that, but it will not be helped if, instead of seeking to rebuild public confidence in our science and scientists, he simply stands on the sidelines sniping continuously. That is no way to conduct a responsible and reasonable debate.

What steps he will take to encourage UK business and industry to use the internet. [65194]

What steps he is taking to encourage the development of electronic commerce in the UK. [65201]

The opportunities offered to businesses large and small by the internet are enormous. That is why the Government placed the use of the internet, and in particular the development of electronic commerce, at the heart of our recently published White Paper. Our goal is an ambitious one: to make the UK the best place in the world for electronic trading. The White Paper set out a wide-ranging agenda of modernisation to achieve this, including an electronic commerce Bill to remove legal barriers, and an extra investment of some £20 million in the information society initiative, to provide practical support and assistance to small firms.

I thank my hon. Friend for that full answer. Given the prediction, which he will acknowledge, that, before the year 2002, there may be a 30-fold increase in the use of electronic commerce throughout the globe, does my hon. Friend agree that that represents a major threat to those who are complacent about its importance as well as some amazing opportunities for those who wish to grasp them? I accept what my hon. Friend said about the legislative background, but does he agree that the Government need to be pro-active so that British companies recognise the opportunities and have access to the skills and finance that they may require?

My hon. Friend is quite right. On checking, I can tell my hon. Friend that e-commerce is currently valued at $12 billion a year world wide and that by the year 2002 it is reckoned that it will be $350 billion to $500 billion a year and we must have a considerable piece of that action. The Government have launched the adviser skills initiative to ensure that businesses advisers can deliver consistent and integrated advice on information technology and best business practice.

We now have an e-commerce resource centre operating on the internet which will provide businesses with the information, advice and the tools necessary to exploit fully the opportunities of e-commerce. We are drawing up an electronic code of conduct for businesses, which will enable traders to have effective redress and access to complaints procedures and to be identified by a digital hallmark so that everybody involved in e-commerce has confidence that business will be delivered securely.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the business link in my constituency of Chester, which runs a large number of innovative and imaginative programmes and courses to help small firms in particular gain further experience and access to business? I believe that people from 200 small firms attended the last training course. How does my hon. Friend think that the forthcoming e-commerce Bill will further extend the opportunities, particularly for small businesses and start-up businesses?

I should certainly like to congratulate the business link in my hon. Friend's constituency. Across the country, there are also other initiatives that are extremely interesting and take the issue seriously—which, from the jibes that I heard coming from the Opposition Benches a moment ago, is more than Conservative Members can do. The electronic commerce Bill will establish trust in electronic trading by introducing a voluntary licensing scheme for organisations providing secure message services. The Bill will modernise the law so that it recognises electronic signatures and will, whenever it makes sense to do so, remove current laws that insist on the use of paper. The Bill will introduce voluntary licensing agreements for bodies providing electronic signature services and confidentiality services. It will also provide new powers and proper authority for law enforcement agencies to gain legal access to encryption keys and other information protecting the secrecy of stored or transmitted data.

Clearly, this is going to be a complex Bill. Will the Minister say when the draft Bill will be published? Is it intended that it shall be introduced in the House or in another place? The Minister will be aware that the Trade and Industry Select Committee is about to conduct an inquiry into e-commerce. Will the Government consider the Committee's work effectively as pre-legislative scrutiny work?

I congratulate the Committee on the interesting and pioneering work that it has done. The Government hope very much to introduce the Bill just after Easter. I have absolutely no doubt that full account will be taken of the Committee's work.

.: May I also welcome the new Front Benchers to their new positions, and welcome their support for e-commerce? I should like to take the Minister a stage further in his remarks on the regulation of access to e-mail transmission codes. He will be aware of the public's great concern about how access to the codes should be controlled—about the "trusted third party" concept. He will be equally well aware of the great concern about whether organisations such as GCHQ should become a so-called trusted third party. If the House is really concerned about controlling criminal activity on the internet, would it not be much better to press for control of pre-paid mobile telephones, which are used by drug dealers, than to try to foist control by a Government agency on electronic commerce?

That is a long and complex question, and I truly hope that it will not be a long and complex answer. I hope also that the hon. Gentleman's question was not a first bid for his party's leadership. Strong encryption is very useful, as it is used to protect the movement of huge amounts of money through cyberspace. We shall be very careful in ensuring that the libertarian and anarchic spirit of the worldwide web is not circumscribed so that growth is prevented. I should not like any Government—ours, the Americans' or any other one—so to circumscribe the internet and e-commerce that growth is prevented. We need growth.

How many regulations affecting business have been revoked by his Department since May 1997. [65197]

Between 1 May 1997 and 31 December 1998, my Department revoked 16 statutory instruments affecting business and also simplified a further 16 statutory instruments affecting business.

That is an appallingly low figure, and the Minister should be suitably ashamed of presenting it to the House. Is he aware that, when in opposition, his colleague—who has recently become a Treasury Minister, because of an unexplained and unexpected vacancy—berated my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when he achieved more than 1,000 deregulations? The Minister now offers an appallingly low figure. Will he now go back to his officials and tell them: "I do not wish the Government to be so humiliated again. Get working on deregulation, so that when that hon. Member asks me that question again in a year—which he will do—I can give a really super answer, helping to take the burdens off the back of small business men and women"?

Before he answers that, I have a further question: how many regulations has his Department put on to the backs of small businesses?

I was going to ask how the hon. Gentleman—whose friendship I greatly value—could say that with a straight face, but he did not. The list of regulations passed by the Conservative Government between 1979 and 1996 reads like "War and Peace". I have not even got past the first chapter. They passed 45,000 regulations during that period. In the three years before they lost power in May 1997, they passed 10,000 new regulations. Since we came to office, we have introduced 2,700 new regulations. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.

I am not one of nature's regulators. I should like regulation to decline significantly in this country, but, by God, we have a mountain to climb to get there, because the Conservatives left an enormous avalanche of legislation for us to tackle.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and welcome him as the representative of the anarchist-libertarian wing of new Labour. Has he noticed that the number of regulations that the Labour Government have repealed corresponds exactly with the 16 Tory Back Benchers who have turned up on this historic day, when Question Time is taking place in the morning? Does that reflect their lack of interest in the subject or the fact that more than 200 of them have second jobs, directorships and consultancies and are out lining their pockets instead of being here doing their parliamentary business?

I can answer only a small part of that. I suspect that there is great confusion among the Conservatives about regulations because, clinically, they are still in denial about them.

The Minister has spoken about the need to simplify regulations. Will he undertake to simplify the working time regulations, which are the most complex and burdensome regulations imposed on British business in a generation? They have been much criticised by the chambers of commerce and are proving difficult to implement. Will he look at them again and come back with simpler regulations? Will he guarantee that, in future, he will always follow the advice of the better regulation task force, which also criticised those regulations? The Government prided themselves on setting up the unit, but was that not just a lot of rhetoric? Is not the reality that the regulations coming from this Government are more burdensome and complex than ever?

I have every confidence that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry will ensure that every regulation introduced by his unit will be good, necessary and relevant.

When the Government intend to publish their White Paper on the future of the Post Office. [65198]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said in his statement to the House on 7 December on the future of the Post Office that a White Paper would be published early in the new year. Work is proceeding with the intention of publishing the White Paper as soon as possible.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new job. The Post Office is a little disappointed that the White Paper has not already been published. The Dutch and German post offices have been gobbling up companies in Europe pretty rapidly. I very much welcome the Post Office's decision to buy into German Parcels. That will greatly assist its future in Europe. To be specific, will the White Paper allow the Post Office the greatest possible commercial freedom? Will the new regulator have sufficient powers to ensure that the Post Office improves on its excellent service to businesses and the community?

I thank my hon. Friend for his words of welcome. The Post Office is not disappointed with the time scale in the White Paper. It is closely involved in discussions about the White Paper and is fully aware of the issues that we wish to address. On 7 December, my predecessor made it very clear that we want a new future for the Post Office. We want to lift the cloud of uncertainty that was created by the previous Government and ensure that it is no longer starved of investment. We are in the process of doing that and the Post Office is already using its new freedoms. For example, it acquired German Parcels at the beginning of this year. The consumer will also benefit from the proposed cut in the price of a second-class stamp—the first cut in many years—which will be welcomed by tens of thousands of people who use second-class mail. This is the future for the Post Office. We are delivering on our promise and supporting the Post Office, instead of neglecting it as the Conservatives did.

I welcome the Secretary of State to his new responsibilities. Will he explain why he thinks that taxpayers should continue to be involuntary risk-bearing shareholders in the Post Office? Will he also explain why he thinks it is in the interests of the Post Office that it should be denied access to the capital markets to allow it to participate in the consolidation of postal services around Europe to which the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) referred?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words of welcome. As a former Treasury Minister, he will know very well that the financial regime under which the Post Office operated under the previous Government was—

Not as good as it could have been.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are now tackling those deficiencies. That is why we have restricted the external financing limits which ensured that the bulk of the profits made by the Post Office went back to the Treasury. We are now allowing the Post Office to keep a far bigger proportion of its profits so that it can invest in the future. Taxpayers have an interest because they are the consumers. We want a Post Office offering high-quality services at affordable prices and we now have a regime to achieve those objectives.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to the Front Bench and congratulate him on his involvement in negotiations regarding the Post Office in his previous role. Can he confirm that the recent acquisition of German Parcels and the circumstances surrounding it necessitated a degree of commercial confidentiality that is consistent with commercial freedom? Opposition Members must realise that the new Post Office will behave in a different way, but, at the same time, there will be processes involving the regulator, which will entail a degree of accountability and transparency consistent with its new freedoms.

My hon. Friend makes an important point, with which I agree. We need to put in place a proper system of liberalisation and tough regulation for the new Post Office. The White Paper will address those issues, but Opposition Members must acknowledge that, because we are in a new relationship with the Post Office, we shall need to respect commercial confidentiality; otherwise, we shall make the Post Office vulnerable to foreign competition. Opposition Members may want that, but we certainly do not. We want a Post Office that will be a partner in change, not the victim of change. That is what we want and we have now put in place the regime to ensure that it happens.

If he will make a statement on the Government's energy policy. [65199]

The Government are committed to competition, and to an energy policy based on secure, diverse and sustainable energy supplies at competitive prices.

The Secretary of State did not mention that the Government are committed to raising 10 per cent. of energy from renewable resources by 2010. If half that energy were to come from wind, 10,000 to 20,000 turbines would have to be built. The 800 that have been built—in areas such as the Shropshire-Wales border—are an environmental disaster and bitterly resented by locals. Contrary to the Secretary of State's statement, they generate energy at three to five times the cost of other sources. They are extraordinarily unreliable. They have to be closed down in freezing weather, when demand is at its peak—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question; otherwise, I will refer him to an Adjournment debate, as that sounds like a very good subject for such a debate.

Will the Government abandon this foolish policy?

A long question deserves a short reply. A paper on renewables will be published by the Government shortly.

In the review of energy policy, will my right hon. Friend consider the activities of the Coal Authority, particularly in regard to abandoned and disused mine shafts? Is he aware that the Coal Authority's records in this regard are notoriously unreliable? Will he therefore consider urgently what action the Coal Authority should take to make sure that its records are accurate and clearly show not only the siting, but the status and condition of the abandoned mine shafts?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which affects many communities up and down the country. The Government take the matter seriously and, as a matter of urgency, we will be asking the Coal Authority to review its procedures to ensure that accurate information is available, so it can plan accordingly.

In congratulating the Secretary of State on his appointment, may I ask him to confirm that the motto of his Department will from henceforth be, "Let Byers beware"? Why have the Government sought on environmental grounds successively to increase the tax on fuel duty for motor vehicles, while simultaneously reducing the tax on domestic fuel, which pollutes the atmosphere as much as, or even more than, vehicle fuel?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome. As far as fuel is concerned, we know that the Conservative Government sought to dramatically increase the rate of VAT.

Do not split infinitives.

The hon. Gentleman must be careful, otherwise someone will split his infinitives for him. There are many Labour Members who would gladly volunteer to do so. The hon. Gentleman is trying to divert me from the important political point that I was making. The previous Conservative Government put VAT on domestic fuel at 17 per cent. Even in opposition, we managed to defeat that and, in government, we were able to reduce VAT to 5 per cent. That has been welcomed by consumers, and we are looking at how we can ensure that, in terms of a proper, sustainable environmental policy, we can have fuel that is not costly—the right hon. Gentleman would like that—and within a safe and secure environmental policy.

What measures he is planning to help new start-ups in the regions. [65200]

Support for start-ups is seen as making a significant contribution to economic growth, prosperity and competitiveness. The recent competitiveness White Paper set out a commitment for business link partnerships to provide sustained, tailored advice and support to innovative start-ups with real growth potential. Our target is that at least 10,000 businesses a year will receive such support by 2001.

My hon. Friend will be aware that UK science is at the international forefront in biotechnology, but that there is a relatively poor take-up of biotechnology in start-ups of small firms in the UK, compared with the United States. The major advantage in the United States is the ready availability of venture capital for such biotechnology firms. What action are the Government taking to ensure that venture capital is readily available here in every region?

My hon. Friend draws attention to an important matter. It is crucial that start-ups, especially in high technology, get access to the right sort of capital. The competitiveness White Paper set up plans to that end. We are setting up an enterprise fund worth £150 million over three years. There will be a national venture capital fund, which we are currently discussing with leading financial institutions. We also want to set up regional venture capital funds, and we will work with the regional development agencies to develop that proposal.

If he will list the corporate sponsors of the millennium dome. [65225]

Last November, the New Millennium Experience Company announced confirmed sponsorship of £120 million from Tesco, Manpower, BT, BSkyB, Marks and Spencer, Boots the Chemist, McDonald's, British Airways, GEC, British Aerospace, the Corporation of London, British Airports Authority and Camelot. In addition, Thames Water is funding the innovative grey water recycling facility at the dome. That is a fantastic achievement in anyone's books.

I welcome the Minister to this aspect of her responsibilities and thank her for her answer, which already shows an openness that we had come not to expect from her predecessor. May I urge her to go yet further and confirm that, henceforth, the secrecy that we came to expect—in retrospect, we can understand why it existed—will be swept aside, and she will share with the House and the country all aspects of the financing of the dome project, so that we can see that there is nothing hidden, nothing secret and nothing to be ashamed of, and, most importantly, that all the sponsorship is absolutely clean and above board?

We have always been very open about the project. I shall continue to be as open as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who always answered fully any questions raised in the House. The right hon. Gentleman would do his country better service if he would get behind the project and give it the support that it deserves.

I welcome the list of sponsors. What sponsorship was in place when the Government took office in May 1997, and what would have happened to the dome if we had let that legacy stand? More importantly, what progress has been made on the spirit zone, and what sponsorship will be available to ensure that the dome celebrates the millennium in the way that was intended, as a religious festival marking 2,000 years since the birth of Christ?

My hon. Friend has raised an important point. When the Government took over, no sponsorship whatever was in place. More than £120 million of sponsorship has now been committed to the millennium experience and the New Millennium Experience Company is well on the way to reaching its £150 million target. Good progress has also been made on the spirit zone, both in design and construction and in raising the necessary sponsorship.

I hope that you will forgive me, Madam Speaker, for remarking that this is an odd occasion: here we are at the butt end of Trade and Industry questions, and it is rather like an end-of-run panto in which the demon king, consumed in a puff of his own sulphur, has left the show for good.

I warmly and sincerely welcome the Minister to her new role as fairy godmother to the project. I wish her well in answering questions on it, even though she is not responsible for the project. She obviously is not a former flatmate of the Prime Minister, as one has to be a crony to get a top job. Will she make a new start and undertake to be open, frank and honest in all her dealings concerning the project, and to give it to us warts and all? Will she begin by telling us how many of the zones still have to be fully sponsored?

I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I said to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), that I wish that Conservative Members would get behind this unique national project. This country is rapidly becoming recognised internationally as the country of the millennium. Raising £150 million of private sector sponsorship is a considerable challenge, but no one has ever before decided to stage such a unique national event. I remind the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that, when this Government took office, the previous Government had not raised one penny of private sector sponsorship for the project.

What plans he has for the Millennium Experience to celebrate the human capacity to think. [65226]

The mind zone, one of fourteen exhibits in the millennium experience dome, will celebrate the unique creativity of the human brain by exploring the nature of our senses and perceptions through traditional art and advanced technology.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and express my pleasure in welcoming her to her new duties. I am a member of the National Committee for Philosophy, a post which naturally carries no remuneration. Those functions that require recognition, such as the contribution that philosophers have made to our culture in the past thousand years, may be left out because some bodies are unable to get the high levels of sponsorship that will be needed to obtain space in the dome. Will my hon. Friend be receptive to representations from professions such as philosophers and others to ensure that the contribution made by such people to our culture is given full expression in the dome, and that the dome is not a dumb dome, as some have suggested that it might be?

I reassure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of his expertise in this area and proud to have him as a colleague. We are always willing to meet anyone who has an interest in the dome. The mind zone will show how medical imaging technology allows us to follow the response of our brains to sensory input. Visitors will interact with advanced, intelligent robots in the robot zoo and enjoy a specially commissioned film showing images that challenge the very limits of our senses.

Is the hon. Lady aware that so much of the thought of the past millennium, and the creativity and achievements of people around the world, has been inspired by the Christian faith? In spite of her earlier and welcome answer, is she aware that many people feel that the millennium dome has been hijacked by new Labour to act as a party political launch pad, including much of the language and imagery? It is essential, when she advises her noble Friend who has taken responsibility for the millennium experience, that she tells him that the dome is not a party political launch pad but a celebration of the achievements of our nation in the past millennium while looking forward to the future.

I assure the right hon. Lady that we have never attempted to make the dome a party political launch pad. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, at a well-attended event held yesterday to explain what we are doing for the millennium, made it plain that the project was started by the Conservatives. If the right hon. Lady wishes to make cheap political points, I remind her that her right hon. Friend, Michael Heseltine—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I mean the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). He has been involved in the project from the start. I hope that the right hon. Lady will get behind this unique national project, which is recognised internationally as a symbol of the millennium. She should give it her full support.

What is the estimated annual cost of maintaining the fabric and structure of the dome. [65227]

The New Millennium Experience company estimates that the cost of necessary maintenance inspection work on the dome fabric and structure during 2000 to be about £30,000. Such regular inspections will help keep maintenance costs to a minimum.

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on taking up her new and challenging responsibilities. May I remind her that, although it seems like only yesterday, it was two months ago that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) told us the dome would be with us for a quarter of a century?

Well, he wasn't!

I was not responsible for scripting that.

My hon. Friend has told us that £30,000 will be spent on the upkeep of the dome during 2000. Would it not be a good idea to spend a little more on the extra bit of paint that might extend the design life of the dome beyond 25 years, taking, perhaps, the Eiffel tower as an inspiration for what can be done?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for taking the issue seriously, unlike Opposition Members. The lifetime of the dome's roof is estimated at 25 years, which is one reason why there is that cut-off. However, as the Prime Minister has said, the dome is too good to pull down, and we want to find a fitting use for it beyond 2000. The Deputy Prime Minister's Department is responsible for English Partnerships, and he has asked officials to work out proposals for the best mechanism by which to encourage and assess expressions of interest, including a timetable and criteria against which bids may be judged.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

In previous debates on the Bill, we have heard the Government boast of the abolition of the emergency treatment fee as it applies to hospitals. The Liberal Democrats strongly support that on the basis that the fee was bureaucratic and on the basis of the Government's further justifications for the move, which are that it is offensive to patients arriving in hospital to be asked to pay a fee and that the amount raised does not compensate for the bureaucratic nightmare of collecting it.

The Bill, in its current form, is inadequate because it does not remove the emergency treatment fee as chargeable by general practitioners. Liberal Democrats see hardly any difference between the bureaucracy involved in collecting the general practitioner emergency treatment fee and that involved in collecting the hospital emergency treatment fee. There is also very little difference between the difficulties of approaching people who may have been injured in an accident, albeit always the driver in the case of the GP fee, and patients arriving in hospital for treatment following a road traffic accident. There is certainly no difference in the lack of information about whether it is worth while for the fee to be collected by front-line health service staff.

I wonder whether the Government, even at this late stage, will consider accepting the new clause on the basis that it fits in with the rationale of their original motives in the Bill.

As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is seeking to remove the right of independent contractors—GPs—to claim the emergency treatment fee. Has the hon. Gentleman sought the views of the British Medical Association on this matter and what opinion has it expressed to him?

I intend to deal with those points during my presentation of the rationale behind this new clause.

Two questions need to be answered by those proposing the new clause. First, should GPs receive a fee for the treatment given and, secondly, if they do, should that come direct from an individual patient? General practitioners receive a fee for giving contraceptive advice. That fee comes not from the person to whom they have given the advice but from the health authority and it is in addition to their capitation fee. They are also rewarded for meeting screening targets. The normal way for GPs to be reimbursed, other than through their capitation fee, is through an item-of-service claim.

General practitioners are used to claiming from health authorities for specific items of service. Those proposing this new clause are not suggesting that GPs should not be reimbursed for their time, but that the current method is discriminatory because, in the first instance, GPs must approach a patient or even a third party for the fee. That does not fit in with the current arrangements for GP reimbursement. I can assure the Minister that, if an alternative mechanism of claiming for a GP's time and effort in a roadside attendance can be arranged through regulation, no GP need be out of pocket.

In case the Minister is not aware of this, I shall remind him of the difficulties that GPs face currently when collecting the fee. I asked the BMA for its view on the collectability of the fee and, in the first instance, it could not find any GP who regularly made an effort to collect it. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), who is a practising GP, although on a part-time basis because of his onerous parliamentary duties, said that during his time as a GP, he has never found it worth the effort to collect the fee. He said that he does know some people who do put in the effort, but they question whether it is worth while.

If I explain the procedure that GPs have to follow to collect the fee, the House will begin to see why it is not worth retaining, even if there were not strong arguments for the principle being wrong. The BMA has produced a guidance sheet for GP members on the Road Traffic Act 1988 emergency treatment fee. Section 158 of that Act applies and that is what the new clause would abolish. The guidance says:

"Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 doctors may generally claim a fee for providing emergency medical or surgical treatment to a person suffering bodily and/or fatal injury arising out of the use of a motor vehicle on a public highway.

A fee of £21.30 may be claimed for rendering treatment to an individual involved in a road traffic accident; and a fee of 41p may be claimed for each complete mile and additional part of a mile for any distance in excess of two miles which a practitioner must travel in order to provide the emergency treatment.

The payment may be claimed by any doctor whenever he or she is the first person to provide treatment.

The person who is using the vehicle at the time the event occurred out of which the bodily injury arose is the person responsible for the payment of the practitioner's fee."

We therefore have a situation in which GPs are approaching drivers of vehicles who may or may not have been injured—presumably they have survived—to ask for 41p per mile, perhaps after quickly hammering out the figures on a calculator. Such a situation is highly inappropriate, as the Government have recognised elsewhere in the Bill by abolishing the hospital emergency treatment fee.

The hon. Gentleman is making a mountain out of a molehill. As a personal injury solicitor, I have had to deal with cases on behalf of accident victims many times, and it was a straightforward matter. If a claim is made, the docket is passed to a solicitor, who will either pass it to the driver's insurers or claim it back from the other insurance company. It is a very straightforward process that is easily administered. Sometimes, the victim will pay out the fee and collect it back. I do not see what all the fuss is about.

Lawyers involved in processes in which they are paid always claim that the process is smooth and easy. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall explain the advice that the BMA gives to its doctors on how to claim the fee, with or without the services of the legal profession. I should say that I know of no solicitor who would charge a lower fee. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is particularly generous—which is why he is no longer practicing—in being prepared to do such work for less than the £21.30 plus 41p per complete mile in excess of two miles, assuming that a doctor is the first person to reach an accident. Another invidious principle is the requirement to work out who is the first doctor on the scene, and therefore who can claim the fee. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I shall explain the process as GPs see it.

The BMA advice continues:

"Practitioners should take the following steps to recover their fees:

(i) An oral request may be made to the person who was using the vehicle at the time of the occurrence which led to the provision of the emergency treatment."

That presumes that the person is alive, conscious and able to hear such an oral request. I suspect that any GP who pauses at the scene of an accident to make such a request is being forced by the current regulations—if he or she is obeying them—to put secondary considerations before his or her duty of care to patients.

The advice goes on to say that, if an oral request is not made,

"A written request must be made to the above-defined person. This request must be served upon that person within seven days from when emergency treatment was given. It must be signed by the claimant, stating his name and address, the circumstances in which the emergency treatment was effected, and that the claimant was the first person to provide such emergency treatment. The request may be served by delivering it to the person who was using the vehicle, or by sending it by recorded delivery addressed to him/her at his/her usual or last-known address."

The amount of administration that such a process involves for a GP, or for his or her staff, makes it not worth while to collect the fee. A greater consideration is the offence that might be caused to a person in hospital who receives such a request within seven days of an accident. Nothing could be better calculated to damage doctor-patient relationships.

rose—

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will offer more legal advice.

It is all very well hearing about such situations in theory, but, in practice, such situations do not occur. A docket is sent in, and it is paid. What is all the fuss about? The BMA may have established a long and complicated procedure, but such situations are dealt with very differently in reality.

I question that. I have asked the BMA what action GPs must take to collect the fee. I should prefer to believe the BMA and former colleagues of mine about the advice given by the BMA than to believe the advice of a solicitor who may or may not be involved in the case. It depends on whether GP practices have a contract with a local firm of solicitors.

On many occasions, I have heard the Secretary of State call for less NHS time and money to be spent on legal fees and more on patient care. The interventions of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) suggest that he would like that reversed and thinks that every GP should have a contract with a local firm of solicitors to maximise their income. That may be good for solicitors, but it is not good for general practitioners and it certainly is not good for patients, who, directly or indirectly, are on the receiving end of the demands for payment.

The guidance given to doctors under existing legislation suggests that they must approach an accident victim within seven days of an accident to ask for the money. The £21.30 fee has not been raised since the introduction of the provision in 1988, but it is still a significant sum. The measure is highly regressive because it is a charge made to patients. It is offensive to them in principle and because of the time scale.

The GP may well not know who the driver was. It is not the first question that a doctor at the scene of an accident asks and it may not even be the last. The guidance helpfully goes on to explain:

"When a practitioner experiences difficulty in ascertaining the name and address of the person who was using the vehicle, s/he should make application to the appropriate chief constable."

That is astonishing advice to give busy front-line staff. It continues:

"In these circumstances this official is required by the Act to supply the practitioner with any information at his/her disposal as to the identification marks of any motor vehicle which the practitioner alleges to be a vehicle out of the use of which the bodily injury arose, and as to the identity and address of the person who was using it at that time."

That is overly bureaucratic. It is a waste of time and energy for the front-line staff in the health service. Chief constables and their officers have better things to do than to chase £21.30 fees across counties, across police authorities and across the country to reimburse GPs for roadside advice given. I believe that in their heart of hearts, the Minister and the other Labour Member present—Labour Members, I should say, because I see the Whip as well—know that it is nonsense. It would be easier and more logical for them to accept the new clause. We should be happy to support them if they did. I hope to hear specific reasons from the Minister why that cannot be done.

The BMA advice goes on:

"The fees payable under the Act are recoverable by court proceedings as if they were a simple contract debt due from the person who was using the vehicle to the practitioner rendering service."

That may be why lawyers are so interested in the retention of the measure. If no money comes forward, there is more work for solicitors.

rose—

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall let him make his comments when I have finished this point.

The guidance goes on:

"However, in the event of a doctor being unable to obtain this fee, s/he may claim an ordinary 'Emergency Treatment Fee' from the relevant health authority (as covered by paragraph 33.8 of the Statement of fees and allowances)."

That means that after the general practitioner has gone through all those hoops without making progress and all that time and money has been wasted, there is provision to claim an ordinary fee for treatment from the health authority, just as a GP would for a patient who was not on his list but needed urgent and necessary treatment. Surely the Government can accept the new clause and recognise that the usual way to provide for such a fee is for doctors to be able to claim it back from the health authority without going through such hoops.

The hon. Gentleman is not reflecting reality. He has had a few pot-shots at lawyers. No lawyer will ever get rich on this fee. In 20 years in practice, I have never known a GP sue a victim to get the money back. It is just an extra line to add to the column of calculations. I have never charged anyone for it and I do not know anyone who has.

That adds to the force of my argument. No one benefits from the regulations. I was being charitable to the Government, who want to retain the charge, by supposing that there might be some group of professionals lobbying for the retention of the system. I do not blame GPs for wanting to retain the income, but they can do that through item-of-service claims from the health authority. If lawyers are not getting rich on it, patients find it offensive, GPs find it hardly worth the trouble and health authorities eventually have to pick up the tab, that is the definition of a bad law. Bad laws are repealed when a suitable legislative opportunity arises and the Minister must accept that this is such an opportunity. I am simply asking the Government to accept new clause 1, either here or in another place.

Can my hon. Friend tell the House what percentage of the total revenue value is collected under present arrangements? Another argument in support of his proposition that a bad law is one that practically nobody uses is the fact that most people do not avail themselves of the legislation.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Indeed, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who cannot be here today, asked that question in Committee. The Minister replied that he did not know how much money was collected and said that the

"information.… is not collected centrally"

and acknowledged that that was a familiar refrain. Many of us consider it to be a euphemism for saying that the information is not collected deliberately.

If the Government were able to ascertain by means of a simple survey of a random sample the sum of money that was collected by GPs, I expect that they would find that it was precious little. I am sure that health authorities have accounts of how much they dole out under the emergency treatment provision, although the road traffic cases would have to be separated from the rest.

I accept that the information is impossible to obtain, except by means of survey, but all the evidence so far suggests that it is hardly collected. Even if the fee were to raise a substantial sum, the Liberal Democrats would still consider it inappropriate. The fact that it offends patients and is a direct charge on drivers who may be patients for NHS care is sufficient reason for that charge to be abolished, just as the Government propose to abolish the hospital emergency treatment fee.

The Minister said in Committee:

"we are removing the right of NHS hospitals to collect the emergency treatment fee. It is right that we do that because it is a nightmare to collect. Front-line NHS staff are involved in recovering charges, which is not appropriate; the fee is set at a level that calls into question its worth; and we sympathise with the plight of some drivers who are faced with a bill for treatment."

—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 January 1999; c. 65-6.]

There is no difference between the GP emergency treatment fee and the hospital one. Indeed, hospitals could arrange for solicitors to act on their behalf. I did not notice the hon. Member for Hendon proposing on Second Reading or in Committee that hospitals could employ solicitors. What applies to GPs should also apply to hospitals. As the Minister pointed out, the only difference is that GPs are independent contractors. I accept that, but there is still a provision for those independent contractors to receive the fees to which they are entitled.

Will the Minister consider accepting the new clause? Ultimately its implementation will cost nothing as the fee can be collected by health authorities. The new clause would fulfil what I believe to be the intentions of those who drafted the Bill and avoid offending drivers and patients who are asked to pay directly that small but significant fee to the NHS.

The Opposition support the new clause, as it is identical to the one tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who sadly is unable to be here today. He sends his apologies, as he is attending the funeral of His Grace the Duke of Rutland.

The issue was debated extensively in Committee, but was not voted on owing to some confusion over the interrelationship between new clause 1 and clause 18 of the Bill. I understand that it has now been established that new clause 1 stands alone, and can be considered alone today.

As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said, all parties to the discussion recognise that the emergency treatment fee has caused disproportionate costs to those collecting it and distress to those from whom it is collected. The previous Government made it clear that it was their intention to abolish the emergency treatment fee as soon as a convenient legislative opportunity arose. It was not a burning issue—more of a tidying—up exercise. This Bill is such an opportunity.

The Minister's immediate predecessor—now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—referred to the charge as a "sick tax" and a "tax on accidents". Fortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, fate intervened to prevent the Committee from hearing his explanation of the retention of what my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton has described as a "fag-end" of a charge.

The Minister has indicated in Committee that his motivation for retaining the charge is essentially permissive, and that he seeks to leave it to individual GPs to decide whether or not it is worth collecting the charge. That runs the risk of different practices being adopted in different places, and of public confusion being generated. The Minister will agree that concern about different treatment of similar cases is one of the consistent themes of the debate about the NHS.

At £21.30, the charge is probably irrelevant to most GPs, but it is also insulting. Either they are expected to attend accidents as part of their contracted NHS work—and should, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said, be suitably rewarded by the NHS for that work—or, if that work is viewed as independent and outside the NHS GP contract, they should be able to levy a charge that reflects the real contribution that they make at the incident. We should bear it in mind that, for the most part, the patients are not the GP's own patients but passing strangers, and that the GP has happened to be the first person available at the scene.

The Minister and the House may recall a case that was widely reported in the press a few months ago, in which a doctor on an American Airlines flight rendered life-saving assistance to another passenger, and sent the airline a bill for £240 which the airline refused to pay. The doctor, in a much-publicised case, sued the airline in London for payment of his bill. The public attitude at the time was that the airline's compensation to the doctor—a bottle of champagne, which probably had about the value of the £21.30 charge that we are talking about—was wholly inappropriate and insulting in the circumstances of a life-saving intervention. It was widely thought to be a mean recompense for the work that he had done.

The Minister has presented the retention of the emergency treatment fee as an opportunity for GPs—as essentially a permissive measure, allowing GPs to charge the fee. However, is it not in fact essentially restrictive in its operation? Does not the emergency treatment fee define the amount that a GP—a private contractor—is able to charge for attending a road accident, and set that amount at an artificially low level?

If the levying of a charge by a GP at the scene of an accident is to be seen as an act of private medicine—something that the GP carries out outside the terms of his NHS contract—the charge is limiting, and too low. If, on the other hand, it is to be seen as part of a GP's NHS duties, it is very important that the application of the emergency treatment fee, and the charging of it to patients, should be universal, because it will rightly lead to public discontent if people in the same situation are treated in different ways on different occasions.

The emergency treatment charge, and the cost and distress caused by its collection, can no longer be justified by the same logic that the Government have used to argue for the abolition of the charge in hospitals. It is a fag-end of a charge and no longer has any constructive use in the context of the rest of the Bill.

We discussed this aspect of the Bill extensively in Committee. Most of the arguments that we have heard today were substantially rehearsed then. I made it clear in Committee that I had some sympathy with the arguments but, for the reasons that I gave then, and which I will briefly rehearse again today, I will invite the House to reject the new clause if the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) forces a Division.

I must correct one or two misunderstandings that have arisen today. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon implied that the emergency treatment fee was last increased in 1988; that is not the case—I am sure that it was merely a slip on his part—as it was last increased in 1995 by the previous Government. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said that they intended to abolish it—unfortunately, they never got round to doing it, although they had 18 years in which to have a fist at it—but I understand that, far from the position being as the hon. Gentleman said, Ministers in the previous Administration decided ultimately not to abolish it. That might be food for thought for the hon. Gentleman when he considers whether his hon. Friends should support the new clause.

I want to re-emphasise the fact that we have received no representations at all from the medical profession asking us to remove the right to claim the emergency treatment fee. The failure of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon to tell the House the result of his consultation with the medical profession was conspicuous. I asked him whether it had expressed a view to him about whether the emergency treatment fee should be abolished. I understand its position to be that it wants the right to claim the fee to be retained in the legislation.

As a general principle of how we legislate, I am not sure that it is a terribly good idea to introduce changes at this stage of a Bill's progress without consulting the relevant people—in this case, the medical profession—in the way that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon implied that he had.

I made it clear at the beginning of my speech that we were seeking to abolish not the right of general practitioners to claim the fee but the provision whereby they have to approach the patient, whether directly or through a solicitor. That is crucial. The general practitioners to whom I spoke—at least one of whom is present in the House—would welcome the opportunity to claim the fee through the health authority, in the normal way, and not directly from the patient.

I will come to that point in a minute, but we should be quite clear that the hon. Gentleman and his supporters, without having first sought the views of the medical profession, are proposing to remove from general practitioners the right to claim the fee. As I understand it, the profession's views are clear: it wants to retain the option to claim an emergency treatment fee. He is proposing a change in the law that does not command the support of the medical profession, to whose views he has turned only very late in the day. That is not a scientific or appropriate way in which to progress the argument.

The Minister appears to be allowing the medical profession to dictate the legislative agenda. I will be very interested to see whether that deference continues when we consider the NHS Bill later in the Session.

The hon. Gentleman is perhaps reading more into my remarks than he should. I am saying that the Liberal Democrats are proposing a change in the law that they have not trailed in advance with the medical profession and on which they have not sought its views. The point I am making is that it is appropriate, when the law is being changed, to consult properly those parties who will be affected by the change. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has not done that on this occasion and that is another reason why I will urge my hon. Friends to reject the new clause.

The Minister is trying to use an answer that is not the substantive answer as a defence to the proposition made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). My hon. Friend's case has two elements, the most important of which is that it is inappropriate for somebody to seek the fee from the victim at the roadside, or later through solicitors. What would be the Minister's view if the proposition were simply that a different method of collecting the money for the service were used? For example, the health authority could be asked for payment rather than the person affected directly.

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, that is a possible option. It was raised by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon and I shall try to deal with the points that he raised in a minute. We have considered the issue carefully and the Department has received approaches from various representative bodies. We know that general practitioners continue to want the right to collect the fee as independent contractors, if they consider collection worthwhile in terms of effort and the effect on those from whom the fee is claimed. We are not minded to remove a right that has belonged to GPs since 1934.

It was suggested in Committee that if collecting the emergency treatment fee were a problem for hospitals, that must also be true for GPs and independent doctors. We have checked that point. We also received no representations from independent doctors on the emergency treatment fee, other than ones wishing to see it remain. Indeed, some representations suggested that it should be increased. We have not received any representations from the profession asking us to abolish the right to claim the emergency treatment fee.

Can the Minister say how many independent contractors have made those representations? I am not surprised that we have not seen massive numbers of GPs calling for the abolition of the charge, because most GPs do not claim it or even carry the paperwork to claim it. It is against the ethos of most people working in primary care in the health service.

I wish to correct one misunderstanding held by the hon. Gentleman. The right to collect the emergency treatment fee is not limited to GPs in the national health service but is, in theory, available to any legally qualified medical practitioner, whether he has a contract with the national health service or not. I said earlier that I had some sympathy with the arguments made by the Liberal Democrats, but the profession has not made representations to the Government for such a change.

Answer the question.

I have answered the question. I have repeatedly made it clear to the House that no representations have been made asking Ministers to abolish the emergency treatment fee. Those members of the profession whom we have consulted want to retain the right as an option.

The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon also raised the issue of the impact of the change on the national health service's budget. Although we are able to recover the loss of income in the hospital sector through the new tariff, if the emergency treatment fee were scrapped for GPs, health authorities would have to meet the costs in every case. There is no method to recoup the lost income in that situation. The new clause would impose an additional, unquantifiable financial burden on the national health service, and the Liberal Democrats have not told us where the additional resources to pay for that would come from. I have some sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, but for the reasons that I have advanced, today and in Committee, I shall urge my hon. Friends to reject the new clause.

That answer is wholly unsatisfactory for a series of reasons, and I have to press the Minister further. Although these points were discussed in Committee, the extra information that the Minister has given has been much less satisfactory than that given in Committee.

It is not the job of an Opposition party to consult on legislative opportunities. If we were to be given some civil service time, we could do a poll within a few days, and certainly well before the Bill completes its proceedings here and in the other place. Our question would not be the Minister's, which is, "Do general practitioners want to retain the right to receive income for this item of service?" We would ask, "Do GPs wish to retain the right to receive income from individual patients rather than claiming it back from the health authority?"

Ministers confuse the situation further by saying that they want to keep the option. They may not want to use the option, but they want to keep it. Out-patients lying in the street will not know as a general practitioner approaches whether or not that GP plans to use the option. There will be random charges on people depending on who is their GP.

That is an important point. In the last part of what the Minister said, he stated that switching the claim from patient to health authority would increase costs on health authorities. If he says that that cost would be unquantifiable, he must accept that there is currently an unquantifiable direct cost on patients. The difference between the situation that he envisages and the current situation is that patients pay the difference. The unquantifiable cost is put directly on patients.

In making his point, the Minister concedes my other point: doctors do not mind where the income comes from. In fact, doctors would largely object, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, to claiming the money directly, or through a solicitor, from the patient.

There is some confusion about emergency treatment and fees for road accidents. There is a perfectly respectable way in which to pay GPs for providing emergency treatment to people other than their own patients. Most GPs accept that they have an obligation to patients on their own list and on the lists of their partnership. The national health service is there to provide all necessary treatment.

When the need arises for a doctor to give emergency help to someone else's patients, the GP can, under every circumstance except that of a road traffic accident, make a perfectly proper claim to the NHS through his or her health authority. We urge the Minister to remove the limitation on emergency treatment—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech rather than an intervention.

I understood my hon. Friend's point although it was curtailed. If he feels that I did not, I should be happy to hear him make a speech.

At present, the retention of the provision allowing general practitioners to claim a fee directly from the patient makes a difference only to those patients already on the relevant GP's list. If the patient is not on the GP's list, the general trend is to claim an emergency treatment fee from the health authority. The law forces the GP to make an extra claim only on those patients who have a relationship with that doctor. Nothing is so calculated to damage the doctor-patient relationship as people on a GP's list being asked by their doctor for an additional treatment fee for treatment outside the surgery in a car crash.

The Minister has not said how many doctors have written, of their own volition, to say that they want to retain the option to reclaim the fee. The question should be whether doctors want to retain the fee from the patient, not the health authority. Will the Minister quantify the representations that he has had, and, if possible, will he place them in the Library before the Bill goes to the other place?

It is the Government's duty to ask questions of the profession. The key question is whether GPs think it appropriate to have the power to collect the money directly from the patient.

The Liberal Democrats believe that progress can be made on health service provision even in the face of opposition from doctors. The Minister put a most un-Bevanite concept to the House when he said that if an unquantified number of doctors object to the way in which they are paid, no legislative progress can be made. We Liberal Democrats do not accept that concept. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) hinted, this Government have a tradition of caving in to general practitioner vested interests, for example, on the composition of primary care groups and a number of other issues.

If the question were put in the way that I suggested, I do not believe that the medical profession would object or, even if it did, that the Government should not legislate. After all, hospitals were not consulted on whether their emergency treatment fees should be abolished and they are so strapped for cash that I am sure that they would want to claim that extra income if they thought it worth while.

I shall hone down my questions for the Minister. How many responses to the consultation were received? Will he place them in the Library, so that we can see them? Will he ask the question correctly before the Bill ends its progress in another place? Does he agree that, regardless of the view of the medical profession, if the policy is deemed to be right and in the patient's interests, he should follow it?

Finally, what is the view of patients? That question remains unanswered, I suspect because it was not asked. It is a simple matter for the Minister to ask the Patients Association whether patients should be liable to pay a general practitioner for NHS treatment within seven days in an emergency situation.

I regret that the Minister's reply did not satisfy me. He placed the burden of legislation on the Liberal Democrats, which we would be more than willing to accept if the Government were prepared to ask us for legislative ideas outside the House. The Government are capable of undertaking those consultations, finding the answers and considering the principle of the charging mechanism. I urge the Minister to come back with more encouraging comments.

We want to bring this matter to an early conclusion. I hoped that the Minister would respond positively to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. I shall add one point and, if we still receive no response from the Minister, I think both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats will have to press the matter, because we should have had a concession.

The Minister is new to his post, but he gave some of the weakest arguments in defence of the Government's position that I have ever heard during debates on health service legislation. He does not have the figures and he did not say that the change would bring in a large amount of revenue for the health service. Nor did he say that it would be in the patients' interests. All he said was that the provision gives an option, which virtually no one uses, to collect some money, which is probably not very much. That is no way to run the health service. If we were talking about the Government forgoing billions of pounds, I could understand it, but we are not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), who has regular experience of these matters, pointed out how general practitioners in the health service reclaim fees for work that they do that is over and above work for their patients and their practice. In a rationed, streamlined and intelligent health service for the next century, what on earth is the argument for having one system to reclaim money for all sorts of activities, and a different system—which most GPs do not want to use because they consider it embarrassing and unethical—to reclaim money for one small category of people for one sort of work that GPs do? There is no logic to such a system. If we are trying to reduce the burden of bureaucracy on my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, his wife and other practitioners in the health service, for heaven's sake let us have one system, which will allow one piece of paperwork whereby one collects money in one way at one time and reduces the charges to the rest of the system.

Unless the Minister gives the House some comfort, we will not only force the new clause to a vote now, but we will be obliged to oppose the Bill on Third Reading because the Government's position has no logic. Also, we will ask our colleagues in the other place, where the Government do not yet have a majority, to ensure that common sense prevails. If we cannot get common sense from Ministers in this House perhaps, before the consistutional changes up the Corridor, there will have to be another Government defeat in the Lords, in the interests of the patients of the British national health service.

I should like to sum up because there are now more Labour Members in the Chamber than before. I wish to make it clear to the Government that it is because of their motives and words that we shall press the new clause to a Division. As the Minister said in Committee, the money is a nightmare to collect. Front-line staff are involved in recovering charges. If Government policy is dictated by what is acceptable to GPs, today's announcement by the General Medical Services Committee on the Government's outrageous rationing decisions will give the Government serious pause for thought. On that note, I commend new clause 1 to the House.