Commons Sitting of 28 January 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]. (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question,
  That the promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill brought from the Lords in the last Session;
  That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
  That in the present session the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it passed in the last Session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
  That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Question again proposed.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Wednesday 4 February.

DR. DAVID KELLY
Ordered,
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly CMG.—[Margaret Moran.]

Speaker's Statement
11.34 am
Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make.
Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that Lord Hutton is due to publish his report later this morning on his investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly. I am aware of the considerable interest in Lord Hutton's findings. In those exceptional circumstances, I have agreed that the Prime Minister may make a statement on this matter this afternoon. The statement will take place at a convenient moment after 2 pm.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEPARTMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  DEPARTMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Millennium Development Targets
    David Cairns: What progress is being made with the millennium development target to make available the benefits of information and communications technologies to people in developing countries. [151163]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): Good progress is being made in many developing countries in spreading the benefits of information and communications technology to their people. For example, people in developing countries now own 46 per cent. of all mobile phones, with countries such as Uganda seeing user numbers double each year. By the end of June last year, the number of internet users in China had risen to 68 million. That represents just 5.3 per cent. of the population, so it also demonstrates the considerable challenge that still remains to spread the benefits of ICT throughout developing countries.
    David Cairns: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. A couple of weeks ago, Martin McCluskey, a young constituent, went to Ghana as part of his gap year in order to teach villagers in a very rural part of the country how to use the computers that they had had for some time, but had lacked the experience and training to make them work. Does my hon. Friend agree that computing technology is a vital development tool, but that there is no point in providing people with computers if we do not also provide the training and expertise to make them work? What help and assistance can the Government give to voluntary schemes such as the one Martin is on, and what direct assistance can the Minister's Department provide for training and knowledge-based skills?
    Mr. Thomas: I commend my hon. Friend's constituent for going out to Ghana to work and provide training for people in the village. The House owes a debt of gratitude to the many volunteers who go out from this country to developing countries, and to the work of organisations such as the Voluntary Services Organisation, with which we are working closely in Ghana to provide information on how to use ICT there. We are also working directly with the Ghana education service to help it to use ICT to deliver better access to the curriculum for 30,000 untrained teachers in the country, so that the quality of education in Ghana can improve significantly.
    Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister join me in praising the work of Cisco Systems, which, together with the International Telecommunication Union, is establishing more than 20 internet training centres in developing countries? Will the Minister assure

    295
    the House, however, that, important as it is to try to reduce the digital divide, it will not take away resources from the important fight against HIV/AIDS in developing countries?
    Mr. Thomas: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the work not only of the particular company to which he referred, but to a whole series of private sector companies that are seeing what they can do to invest in ICT across the developing world. We need to play our part in the international community to ensure that the regulatory system is such that companies are keen to invest. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we view ICT as a way of spreading messages to help in the fight against HIV/AIDS, so there is no need for the two to be mutually exclusive.
    Ms Julia Drown: If we are to meet this and all the other development targets, there will need to be a massive increase in overseas aid and assistance. When does my hon. Friend believe that we might reach the target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product on overseas aid? Given that Norway, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands have topped that target for several years, should we not be able to reach it, too?
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend will know that we remain committed to the 0.7 per cent. target. We believe that we will have reached 0.4 per cent. by 2005–06, when the budget for international development will have risen to £4.5 billion. My hon. Friend will also know how much that contrasts with the record of the Conservatives, who saw moneys on international development halved in their 18 years in office.

    Southern Asia (HIV/AIDS)
    James Purnell: If he will make a statement on the growth of HIV/AIDS in southern Asia. [151164]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): HIV/AIDS is a critical development issue for south Asia. At over 4 million, India has the second largest number of HIV infections of any country in the world. If current rates of growth continue, there may be 25 million people infected in that country alone by 2010. Although numbers of people infected with HIV in other south Asian countries remain low, the conditions are in place for a rapid increase in transmission without comprehensive action. The recent "Call for Action on HIV/AIDS", which the Government published on 1 December, recognises the importance of action in south Asia to achieve a more effective global response to this epidemic.
    James Purnell: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. As he says, it is possible that by 2010 India will have more cases than anywhere else in the world. Does he agree that the world needs to focus as much on Asia as on Africa, because a similar potential tragedy is happening in Asia? In particular, what are the Government doing to work with the Indian
    296
    Government to reduce the impact on India, and with neighbouring countries to try to reduce the spread of this disease to Bangladesh and Pakistan?
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend is right: there is a window of opportunity at the moment to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS in south Asia so that it does not reach the levels in sub-Saharan Africa in particular. We are funding the National AIDS Control Organisation of India to the tune of £123 million and are working with it closely on the design of a more effective strategy. We are also working closely with similar AIDS-control organisations in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and shortly will be doing the same in Nepal. South Asian countries themselves are beginning to recognise the importance of further work on HIV/AIDS. We need to see their Governments taking more of a lead in the fight to prevent discrimination and stigma from halting and inhibiting the fight against HIV/AIDS.
    Tom Brake: In 2002, the Prime Minister pledged that Africa would be a priority in his second term of government. With an HIV/AIDS pandemic threatening in southern Asia, and with African populations devastated by HIV/AIDS, it is now time for the Prime Minister to turn his words into more decisive action. Does the Minister agree that making international development a priority of the United Kingdom presidencies of the EU and the G8 would give the international community the impetus it needs to preempt a disaster in southern Asia and make decisive, positive changes in Africa?
    Mr. Thomas: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to congratulate this Government on the fact that there has been a sevenfold increase since 1997 in the amount of money we are spending to tackle the spread of HIV/AIDS. As he knows, we are committed to spending £1 billion in Africa by 2005–06. As for the £320 million that has not yet been allocated, we have said that we shall make HIV/AIDS a priority for that spend. I am sure that there will be further discussions about this during our presidencies of the G8 and the European Union.
    Tony Worthington: What steps are being taken to avoid making the mistakes in south Asia that were made in Africa? I am thinking particularly of mother-to-child transmission. What steps are being taken to ensure that reproductive health services and the AIDS services are brought closer together to stop the tragic transmission of HIV from mothers to children?
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend will be aware that the issue of mother-to-child transmission has been a big problem in the spread of HIV/AIDS in southern Africa. We are working very closely with south Asian Governments in designing effective prevention programmes that will prevent the mistakes that were made in tackling the HIV/AIDS epidemic earlier in Africa from occurring in south Asia.
    Mother-to-child transmission is one of the issues on which we are working with Governments and AIDS-control organisations in southern Asian states. It is an

    297
    issue that we are continuing to talk very closely about with the Governments, because political leadership is at the absolute heart of a strong response in southern Asia.
    Alistair Burt: The Minister will be aware that there have been some claims recently that the number of people affected in Africa is not as great as was once claimed. Bearing in mind the importance of that, the difficulty of ensuring accuracy, and the crucial importance of maintaining confidence in what is happening, is the hon. Gentleman certain that there is a good system in place for measuring accurately the number of people involved, so that we do not get a fuss about claim and counter-claim, which is currently affecting confidence in tackling the disease in Africa?
    Mr. Thomas: It is certainly true that there have been a number of expressions of concern about the statistics. We are confident that the statistics used by UNAIDS—the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS—which we use in order to understand the HIV/AIDS epidemic, are accurate. The continuing worry about the level of the statistics is a matter of concern, but we need to get on with scaling up our response and the response of the international community, instead of worrying about the concerns or a small number of people about the statistics.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on the efforts that his Department is making to improve standards of living in Zimbabwe. [151166]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): The disastrous policies of the Government of Zimbabwe have led to economic collapse and a major humanitarian crisis. Zimbabwe has been suspended from the IMF, and maize production is a fraction of what it was a few years ago. The UK and other donors are trying to relieve the increasing suffering of ordinary Zimbabweans through humanitarian aid. DFID has contributed £62 million for humanitarian assistance since the crisis began in 2001, and provides further funds to help tackle HIV/AIDS.
    Mr. Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but can he assure the House that there is a fair distribution of that aid in Zimbabwe, and that it is not used for political purposes?
    Hilary Benn: I can assure my hon. Friend that the international community, which is providing support to meet the crisis in Zimbabwe—the UK is the second largest contributor of humanitarian aid—is very clear and very firm in not tolerating any political interference in the distribution of food aid. A memorandum of understanding has been agreed with the Government of Zimbabwe. The same cannot be said about the operations of the grain marketing board, which is under the control of the Government of Zimbabwe. If any hon. Members have particular concerns about the operation and distribution of food aid, I ask them to
    298
    draw them to my attention, and I repeat my pledge that I shall investigate them. So far, despite the concerns, the system appears to be operating reasonably well.
    Mr. John Bercow: When inflation in Zimbabwe is running at approximately 600 per cent., 6 million people in that country face the prospect of starvation, and one quarter of all adults there are HIV positive, what assessment has the right hon. Gentleman made of the extent of currency manipulation of aid moneys by ZANU-PF officials and their business allies?
    Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the attention of the House to the scale of the economic catastrophe. I would add to the list that he has just given the fact that GDP has collapsed by 40 per cent. in the last three years. I have not, and the Department has not, made an assessment of the particular issue that the hon. Gentleman raises about currency speculation, because we are rightly devoting our effort and attention to feeding the people who need to be assisted. The latest statistics indicate that the number of those in need this year will be higher than was previously thought, in particular because the assessment from!rural areas indicates that there are now more people in need.
    Mr. Bercow: I respect what the Secretary of State said, but I urge him to conduct an assessment, given that the European Communities Court of Auditors Report for 2002 shows that no less than 89 per cent. of EU aid money is wasted because ZANU-PF spivs buy hard currency at official rates, sell it at black market rates and pocket the exorbitant difference between the two. What plans can the right hon. Gentleman develop to ensure that donor states and the European Union can take control of the conversion of aid moneys into local currency, in the interests in Zimbabwe of the long-suffering people of that beautiful but beleaguered country?
    Hilary Benn: I shall gladly look further into the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. But the most important step that we can take, and that I can take as Secretary of State, is to ensure that the development assistance that we give directly is not used in that way. Most of it goes on humanitarian aid. The other projects relate to health and HIV/AIDS. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have very strong systems in place to make sure that the problem he refers to does not occur in relation to UK aid.
    Mr. Bill Olner: Sadly, the plight of ordinary Zimbabweans has gone off the main agenda globally, but they continue to suffer intensely, particularly on food aid—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask that the House allow the hon. Gentleman to be heard.
    Mr. Olner: Has my right hon. Friend had talks with Zimbabwe's neighbouring countries with a view to their intervening to ensure that food aid is distributed fairly and is not distributed by ZANU-PF people?
    Hilary Benn: As I said in answer to an earlier question, we and the other donors work very hard to

    299
    ensure that the aid that the international community gives is not diverted in the way that my hon. Friend is concerned about. In all of our conversations and discussions with neighbouring countries, we raise the problem of Zimbabwe, because in the end this is a catastrophe for the people of that country. We are doing our bit to assist and to make sure that the people do not suffer any more because they happen to have a rotten Government, but a resolution within Zimbabwe itself is required if the situation is to be brought to an end.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: Will the Secretary of State consider airlifting food aid to opposition areas if it can be proved that the corrupt regime in Zimbabwe is, for political purposes, stopping those people being adequately fed?
    Hilary Benn: As I said earlier, if hon. Members or others have any evidence of interference in the proper distribution of the international food aid, including that which the UK supports, I shall be happy to consider what needs to be done. I can only say that so far the system that we have, and the strong and determined response of the international community in making clear to the Zimbabwean authorities that we will not tolerate such interference, indicates to me that distribution is working reasonably well; but I will continue to consider all measures that are necessary to ensure that the food gets to the people who need it.

    Poverty
    Brian White: If he will make a statement on the steps being taken by the United Nations to increase its effectiveness in fighting poverty. [151167]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): The UN and its institutions play a unique role in promoting development and fighting poverty. The UN's reform programme aims to achieve better co-ordination by the different UN agencies and better support for countries' own poverty reduction plans. The Secretary-General intends to hold an event in 2005 to take stock of progress towards the millennium development goals.
    Brian White: I welcome the Minister's response, and particularly the work of his Department, but he will be aware that many of the economic statistics that are used by international institutions do not fully reflect the work that goes into alleviating poverty and protecting the environment. Will he undertake to consider the proposals of various economists for new statistical measures that will more accurately reflect the work on poverty?
    Hilary Benn: I am always happy to consider the ideas of others for measuring as effectively as possible the progress that we are or are not making internationally on meeting the millennium development goals. The UN monitors progress towards those goals using information drawn from a number of sources, and it covers tangible matters, such as the percentage of the population that has access to clean water, literacy rates, and the percentage of the population that is being lifted
    300
    out of poverty. In the millennium development goals, we have a clear set of indicators against which we and the people of developing countries can judge whether we are making progress.
    Mr. Robert Key: What assessment has the Secretary of State made on the impact of the US Administration's withdrawal of funds to the United Nations Population Fund and its reproductive health policies, which is having a deleterious effect on many poverty reduction programmes around the world?
    Hilary Benn: I agree that that decision is regrettable. It is a matter for the US Administration, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are strong supporters of the UNFPA, because work on reproductive health in particular is fundamental to improving mothers' health and to a better life for children, and it is also fundamental to tackling the HIV/AIDS crisis.
    Ian Stewart: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to consider strengthening the links between training for democracy, citizenship, labour market development and industrial relations when awarding aid?
    Hilary Benn: We will shortly produce a policy document on labour standards, and my hon. Friend draws attention to an important contribution that the Labour movement can make in countries by putting pressure on Governments to increase people's living standards. I shall ensure that I send my hon. Friend a copy, because it deals with one of the ways, along with civil society and a thriving democracy, that Governments can be called to account on the extent to which they tackle poverty and improve health and education. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is very noisy, and it is unfair to the Minister and to the Members who are asking questions.

    Iraq
    Mr. Richard Bacon: If he will make a statement on the progress of reconstruction in Iraq. [151168]
    The Secretary of State for international Development (Hilary Benn): In spite of the security situation in Iraq, the coalition provisional authority, together with Iraqi ministries, is making significant progress with reconstruction. Large numbers of projects are under way, and finance pledged at the Madrid donors conference last October is now beginning to assist. DFID will publish its interim country assistance plan for Iraq shortly, and we are making good progress with our projects in the south of Iraq, which will significantly improve the provision of essential services to over 5 million people.
    Mr. Bacon: Given the many warnings beforehand of what would happen following the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, why did the National Audit Office

    301
    team visiting Iraq find that plans to co-ordinate the civilian response following the armed intervention were not well developed?
    Hilary Benn: The planning was for the worst possible outcome, and as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the effort and money that DFID committed to that was to ensure that if the worst did come about, we were ready to deal with any humanitarian crisis. Thankfully, that proved not to be the case because the conflict was much less extensive in scale and shorter than people had anticipated, and since then we have rightly turned our attention to the improvement of essential services and infrastructure. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware because he can see the statistics, considerable progress has been made in recent months in improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis, which is fundamental not just to their own future but to the success of the political process in which we are also now engaged.
    Julie Morgan: What can my right hon. Friend do to help my constituent Mr. Merzook's elderly parents from Baghdad, who wept in my office last Friday because they lost all their possessions—their clothes, their home, their car—when three American rockets hit their house, and they have been unable to get any help or compensation since that date?
    Hilary Benn: I am very concerned to hear about the case my hon. Friend raises. If she lets me have the details, I undertake to pass them on to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: The Secretary of State's previous answer just will not wash. After eight calls from this Dispatch Box alone for a comprehensive plan for reconstructing Iraq, on 3 February the Prime Minister told us:
    "We are well aware that we must have a humanitarian plan that is every bit as viable and well worked out as a military plan."—[Official Report, 3 February 2003; Vol.399, c.36.]
    What does the Minister have to say, then, to the report by the National Audit Office that
    "coordinated plans to bridge the gap between what the Armed Forces achieved in the short term and what was required to be done in the … longer term were not … well developed."?
    Thousands of lives and the future of a nation were and are at stake.
    Hilary Benn: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is to be found in what has happened. There are 17,000 reconstruction projects in Iraq as a result of the coalition's work; the food distribution system is working; nearly all the 240 hospitals in Iraq are now functioning; medical supply distribution is working, apart from some shortages; routine vaccination for children has restarted; most of the children are back in school; water and sanitation are improving; and the electricity supply is now above what it was before the conflict. Those achievements are clear evidence of the
    302
    steps that we have taken to improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis because that is what they are entitled to see. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must appeal to the House. We have only two minutes remaining and we must be able to hear hon. Members speak.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: I was pleasantly surprised to hear President Bush advocate the establishment of free trade unions in Iraq as part of the process of reconstruction, but is my right hon. Friend aware that under law 151 passed in 1987 under Saddam Hussein, trade unions are banned in the public sector, which means that, technically, only under privatisation can trade unions exist properly within Iraq? Should it not be made clear that the circumstances in Iraq are such that the free trade unions advocated by President Bush can develop?
    Hilary Benn: I welcome calls from any quarter in support of the principle of free trade unionism, for reasons that my hon. Friend and I well understand. I was aware of the law to which he refers. It is one of a number of things that Saddam Hussein did that led to the enormous suffering that the Iraqi people experienced over 30 years, and it is one of many things that Iraqi self-government will have to put right. In the end, of course, it is for the Iraqis themselves to determine the new structure of law. My hon. Friend is, however, right to say that free trade unions are a fundamental part of a free society, and I, like him, look forward to the day when they can operate in Iraq, because it will be a further indication that that country is recovering from the nightmare that it has experienced over the past 30 years.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    David Burnside: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28th January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before I list my engagements for the day, I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in expressing our deep condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of the British soldier who has been tragically killed in Afghanistan today. Our thoughts are also with those who were wounded in that attack.
    This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    David Burnside: I join the Prime Minister in expressing condolences to the family and friends of that serving member of our armed forces.
    The Prime Minister was probably not aware as we were preparing for the great education debate yesterday that, the day before, the Minister with responsibility for education in the Northern Ireland Office announced

    303
    that academic selection between the primary and secondary sectors in Northern Ireland should end. The Prime Minister should be aware that Northern Ireland has in its secondary sector and grammar schools, such as Antrim grammar school and Ballyclare high school, the highest academic standards—better than all the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a great selling point for Northern Ireland. Will the Prime Minister personally intervene to defend our grammar schools, as something good and positive in Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: I gather that the hon. Gentleman is right, in that that is what the post-primary review body has recommended. I heard what he said, and no doubt there will be strong feelings on both sides of that argument. I simply point out to him that if we were fortunate enough to get devolved institutions back up and running in Northern Ireland, this would be a devolved matter again. Perhaps I can look forward to his help in securing that.
    Mr. Siôn Simon: As we now learn on the anniversary of the miners strike that the enemy within turns out to be the BBC, had we not better privatise it sooner rather than later?
    The Prime Minister: This is a day for diplomacy, at least at this stage.
    Mr. Michael Howard: May I first—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not going to allow shouting. If there is any more shouting, the Members in question will have to be removed from the Chamber.
    Mr. Howard: May I first join the Prime Minister in expressing my sincere sympathy and condolences to the family and friends of the British soldier killed in Afghanistan today?
    Will the Prime Minister give the House a categorical assurance that no one in or around No. 10 Downing street leaked the Hutton report last night?
    The Prime Minister: I most certainly will give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. Nobody, as far as I am aware, has leaked that from the Government or any part of government—I do not believe that to be the case. The chairman of the Conservative party was on television last night saying that the leaking of this document was a despicable act from "a morally bankrupt Government." Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would now produce the evidence for that statement.
    Mr. Howard: Is not the best way of getting the evidence for there to be a proper inquiry entirely independent of Government? Will we have such an inquiry? And, by the way, who does the Prime Minister think benefited from the leak?
    The Prime Minister: As we have already made clear, we are very happy that there should be an inquiry, and that is why we are in touch with Lord Hutton. If he recommends a certain course of action, we will take it.
    304
    Let me go back to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said a moment ago. He said that the inquiry was a way of getting at the evidence. In other words, there was no actual evidence for what the chairman of the Conservative party said. He did not say, "It might be that the leaking of the document is a despicable act from the Government." He said that the leaking was from the Government. What was the evidence for that?
    Mr. Howard: I hope that we get a full inquiry independent of Government, and I advise the Prime Minister, to coin a phrase, not to prejudge that inquiry.
    The background to the Hutton report is what the Government told us about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The head of the Iraq survey group, David Kay, has now said that he does not believe that stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction exist or existed in Iraq. His replacement said that the reason that they have not been found is that they arc probably not there. What does the Prime Minister think?
    The Prime Minister: First let me return to the inquiry, because I do not think that this point should be let go. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he does not want to prejudge the inquiry, but that is precisely what the chairman of the Conservative party has done. I therefore ask him again either to substantiate the claim that the Government leaked the document or to withdraw it, because he is getting rather a reputation for making such allegations when there is no substance to them.
    As for weapons of mass destruction, let me read to the right hon. and learned Gentleman what he said way before the Hutton inquiry:
    "The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses a danger that we ignore at our peril… The threat to world peace from Iraq is acute and we must combat it with all legitimate means at our disposal."
    So do not let him pretend that he has somehow been misled over weapons of mass destruction; it is just another example of his blatant opportunism.
    Mr. Howard: Of course we supported the war; we still support the war, but we also want to get at the truth. The Prime Minister may not understand that it is important to get at the truth, but we do. He may not understand that it is possible both to support the war and to get at the truth, but we do.
    Nearly eight months ago, in May last year, the Prime Minister said that he was waiting to publish "a complete picture" of intelligence, including "what we've actually found". Some material, he said, was not yet public and
    "what we are going to do is assemble that evidence and present it properly".
    When will he publish that material, which he promised nearly eight months ago?
    The Prime Minister: When the Iraq survey group completes its work, which is what we have said right from the very beginning. It is surely right that when we have a group in Iraq looking at the evidence, we wait until that group concludes before we publish it.
    Just so that we are quite clear as to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has accused me of, I tell the House what he said back in August last year:

    305
    "There was and is, in my view, a valid and legitimate case for having gone to war with Iraq. There was no need to lie, there was no need to mislead people in order to make that case. And to mislead the House of Commons and the nation in order to gain support for going to war is a very, very serious matter indeed.
    He also said:
    "What people are increasingly coming to realise is that we have a Prime Minister who is a stranger to the truth".
    I hope that if that allegation is found not to be proven, he will have the decency to apologise for it.
    Mr. Howard: We all know, Mr. Speaker, that a wider inquiry than the one that the Prime Minister has set out is necessary to test that allegation, so there is nothing for me to withdraw.
    Why on earth does the Prime Minister need to wait before publishing the evidence? Eight months ago he said that he was going to publish the material that he had. Just before Christmas he said that there was
    "massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories, workings by scientists"
    and
    "plans to develop long range ballistic missiles."
    What is he waiting for? Why does he not publish that evidence now?
    The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, that evidence has already been published by the Iraq survey group. Let me remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Dr. Kay said that the ISG has found documents and equipment at undeclared laboratories and facilities. Dr. Kay continued:
    "Secondly, they have found substantial evidence of research and design work on longer-range missile delivery systems."
    Regarding biological weapons, he said that there was evidence that
    "the Iraqis continued research and development right up until the end to improve their ability to produce ricin."
    So the evidence is there and has already been published by the Iraq survey group.
    I suggest that the inquiry that we need is into the blatant opportunism of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The truth is that he seeks to conceal the absence of any proper policies for the country by making allegations against the integrity of the Government that he cannot sustain.
    Mr. Howard: Will the Prime Minister place in the Library of the House of Commons today the massive evidence that he says has already seen published of
    "a huge system of clandestine laboratories, workings by scientists, plans to develop long-range ballistic missiles"?
    He says that the evidence has been published; will he put it in the House of Commons Library today so that the whole country can judge whether it supports that allegation?
    The Prime Minister: The evidence is, of course, in the Iraq survey group report. Let me make one other point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman: there is, of course, a legitimate debate about whether the conflict in Iraq was right. That is a legitimate debate in which there can be legitimate disagreements. It is completely unnecessary to have a debate that suggests that
    306
    somehow we deliberately misled the public on that case. The plain fact is that that allegation is particularly absurd coming from him and the Conservative party, as I recall that even before the publication of the famous dossier he and his colleagues were urging me to take action and accusing me of dithering for not having done so. Whoever else can make that claim, frankly it does not lie in his mouth to make it.
    Hon. Members: More!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Some hon. Gentlemen are too near the Chair to start shouting.
    Liz Blackman: If children do not develop competence in core skills in their early years, their expectations of going to university remain extremely low. Does my right hon. Friend agree that further funding and progress in that sector lie at the heart of widening access to university, just as much as the provisions in the Higher Education Bill?
    The Prime Minister: I obviously agree with my hon. Friend. She is right to point out that at the moment university students are funded by the taxpayer to a far more generous extent than pre-school years, primary school pupils or secondary school pupils. Her other point is surely right: 90 per cent. of young people who get two good A-levels go to university, and therefore the biggest determinant of whether people go to university is the quality of the education that they receive prior to university. For that very reason, it is important to continue the investment in pre-school years, in primary schools and in secondary schools.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Moving on from the rather rapid rewriting of history that we have just been entertained by, will the Prime Minister revisit more recent history—the outcome of last night's vote on his policy on top-up fees? Looking back to yesterday evening and the events that led up to the Division, does he think that it was decided by the overwhelming merits of the argument or that his close friend and near neighbour the Chancellor bailed him out at the eleventh hour?
    The Prime Minister: It was, of course, a result of the combined efforts of the Government to present a wonderful case to the public. I would prefer to have a narrow victory trying to do the right thing for the country than to have a narrow defeat trying to do the wrong thing.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Chancellor's face says it all. Will the Prime Minister join me in making representations to you, Mr. Speaker, that—given the considerable public and parliamentary interest—the legislation should be considered on the Floor of the House by a Committee of the whole House? That way, Members representing all parts of the United Kingdom and all parts of the Labour party would be able to contribute.
    The Prime Minister: No, I think that it should be considered in the normal way. What could be considered on the Floor of the House is a return to the debate between us about the Liberal Democrats and

    307
    how they will fund their commitments. I have further information for the House on that one. It will be recalled that I was telling the right hon. Gentleman that he had a whole lot of spending commitments that he could not finance. The Liberal Democrats have recently published a document with a list of their spending commitments, several of which seem—mysteriously—to have vanished. That includes one on transport, on which the document states:
    "Policy: Nearly £2 billion more for the railways…Liberal Democrat response: no longer a commitment due to changed circumstances."
    In relation to public sector staff, it states:
    "Policy: Training places for at least an extra 4,600 doctors and 27,500 nurses…Libdem response: these policies are now 'out of date'".
    I suggest that we should indeed have a debate on the Floor of the House, but that it should be on his spending policies.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the BBC, under its charter, has a right to provide news and current affairs that is independent, objective and balanced? Does he think that the coverage of the leak of the Hutton inquiry report last night measured up to that standard?
    The Prime Minister: It is surely right, especially if there is to be an inquiry into it, that people do not make a judgment until they hear the facts. I can personally tell the House that I want nothing to detract from the Hutton report being heard in an unalloyed and unadulterated way by the British public. I hope that the media today allow that to happen.
    Bob Russell: Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the decision by the Conservative-controlled Essex county council to abolish the school meals service from April? For many children, it is the main meal of the day, and for some children it is the only hot meal of the day. Will the Prime Minister engage ministerial colleagues in seeing what can be done to change that decision? For a start, will he revoke the Government's 1999 order behind which the Tories are hiding for their dastardly deed?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, in the end such decisions are for local authorities, but we believe that the provision of school meals for pupils, especially from the poorest backgrounds, has a beneficial effect on their education. Unfortunately, some of our youngsters go to school without having had a proper meal. It means that they do not learn or pay attention in their lessons as well as they should, and it is for that reason that we are deeply committed to ensuring that the funding is there for local authorities to provide that service. I will look into the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: May I commend my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the time, effort and commitment he spent on freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein? Will he give similar time, effort and commitment to freeing the Palestinian people of the illegal separation wall and
    308
    barbed wire fence that runs through their land and to freeing them from the tyranny and repression of the Israeli occupation of their land?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the strength of feeling on that issue. We have already made it clear—the Foreign Secretary has done so—that we do not agree with the building of the wall on Palestinian land and we have urged the Israeli Government to reroute the fence away from Palestinian land. It is important to emphasise two other points. First, we want to try to get back to negotiation on the road map as soon as possible, as that is the only prospect for long-term peace. Secondly, in the meantime, the immediate priority is to get an initiative together on security that allows the Israelis some confidence that they will not continually have suicide bombers coming into Israel and killing large numbers of innocent people. The Palestinians are suffering in this situation, and the Israelis are suffering. The only way to bridge between where we are and where we need to be—a renegotiation on the basis of the road map—is a proper security initiative that at least gives us the confidence that 100 per cent. effort is being applied on the Palestinian side.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Why are the balance of payments deficits and the fiscal deficits so hopelessly out of control?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept that for an instant. If the hon. Gentleman looks back to the time when I used to shadow him in the House of Commons, back in the late '80s and early '90s, he will find that the deficits on both were a darn sight worse than they are today. What is more, that was without our economic record—the lowest inflation, the lowest interest rates, the lowest unemployment and the highest employment for decades. I would have thought that he would be congratulating us on having got rid of the old boom and bust under the Tories and replacing it with economic stability.
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: I know that the Prime Minister agrees that the aerospace industry is of crucial importance to the United Kingdom economy. I am sure, therefore, that he will share my pleasure at Monday's announcement that the AirTanker Ltd. proposal has been selected by the Ministry of Defence for its future strategic tanker programme. That was welcome news for the workers at Rolls-Royce and Airbus in my constituency. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the complex negotiations needed for that very innovative contract will be completed as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, although obviously there is a long way to go, because the negotiations are, necessarily, detailed. This week, the Government announced that we have begun negotiations with Air Tanker for the MOD's £13 billion pound future strategic tanker aircraft. If successful, the AirTanker bid will obviously be good news for the UK, creating several thousand jobs across the country, including in my hon. Friend's constituency—that comes along with a more optimistic CBI industrial trends survey, issued today. I recognise the tremendous

    309
    importance not just of the jobs in my hon. Friend's constituency but also of the skilled workforce who would benefit from such a bid being successful.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Prime Minister intend to become the last person on the planet to maintain that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction capable of being deployed in 45 minutes?
    The Prime Minister: It is not merely I who have maintained that Saddam Hussein had such weapons; it has been maintained by almost every country that has looked at the issue. That is why, in November 2002, the United Nations unanimously declared the existence of those weapons a threat to the world.
    Chris Ruane: The Prime Minister will be aware of my constituent's son, Joseph Scholes, who committed suicide at Stoke Heath prison at the tender age of 16 years. My constituent, Yvonne Scholes, is calling for a full public inquiry into her son's death—not just an inquest, a full public inquiry—to examine all aspects of his death, including sentencing and the practice of allocating young, vulnerable people to adult prisons. Will the Prime Minister do all that he can to ensure that that inquiry comes about?
    The Prime Minister: I offer my sympathies to the family of Joseph Scholes on his tragic death, which happened, I think, in March 2002 when he was only 16 years old. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the ombudsman for the Prison Service is conducting an investigation into the death, and I understand that a coroner's inquest will also be conducted. I also point out that the Prison Service has implemented the safer custody programme to help prisoners, especially young people and those in prison for the first time. The Youth Justice Board is specifically involved in that programme. I will look into the details of the investigation and write to my hon. Friend to try to give him some idea of what its time lines will be.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If it turns out that Saddam Hussein transferred his weapons of mass destruction to another country in the region, and given the Prime Minister's logic in taking this country to war with Iraq, what Action would he take against that country?
    The Prime Minister: I think that we should wait to see whether those claims are justified. I know that the Iraq survey group is specifically looking at the evidence for any such suggestion. There is one major difference between Saddam Hussein and any other country: Saddam Hussein actually used those weapons, not merely against his own people but against a neighbouring country.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: May I remind my right hon. Friend that next week there will be another important Second Reading? The Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill will be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) with cross-party support. May I urge my right hon. Friend to give Government support for the Bill, which
    310
    will benefit the 9,000 carers in my constituency? If any Ministers are wavering, they can have a private meeting with me in my office and I will persuade them.
    The Prime Minister: On behalf of Ministers, I thank my hon. Friend kindly; I have had a few private meetings with them over the past few days.
    I understand that the private Member's Bill will be responded to carefully and fully in the near future. We are looking closely at its proposals to see whether we can give it backing and I shall talk to Ministers about it. I hope that my hon. Friend understands, however, that the national carers strategy, which we introduced some years ago, has made an enormous difference in that area. The carers grants, introduced in 1999 to support local councils in arranging short-break services for carers, now have investment of more than £300 million. We shall be increasing that amount, and I am told that that will allow extended care and 130,000 further breaks for carers. We shall examine the private Member's Bill carefully and come back to my hon. Friend with a response in due course.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Which will come to light first, the identity of the leaker or the existence of the weapons of mass destruction?
    The Prime Minister: Should not we simply allow any inquiry that Lord Hutton orders to take its course? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is particularly invidious for anybody, including the chairman of the Conservative party, to state that the Government have done something when it is apparent that there is absolutely no evidence to support that.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What help can the Prime Minister promise Liverpool and the rest of the north-west for housing regeneration, to match assistance already given to the south-east? Does he look forward to the prospect of a strong, elected North West regional assembly replacing the regional housing quangos and campaigning for a fair deal for the region?
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely for those reasons that we have given people a vote on the issue of regional assemblies. I think that about £500 million will he going into nine pathfinder areas, to work with regeneration authorities to tackle the position to which my hon. Friend refers. The other tremendously important thing is that we keep money going into regeneration projects, the new deal, Sure Start and dealing with antisocial behaviour. Those are all important parts of rebuilding those communities.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Prime Minister accept that the headlines which followed the publication of his dossier in September 2002 and which we know that his chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, was extremely anxious to orchestrate, were wholly misleading?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept that we misled people in any shape or form. The report that will be published later today will deal with all those issues and the hon. Gentleman should wait for it.
    Claire Ward: Does my right hon. Friend believe that investment in youth

    311
    services is an important part of tackling antisocial behaviour, and if so, what impact does he think that the cuts of £46,000 in the Watford area youth service budget and of £84,000 in play and early years staffing will have when they are implemented, as proposed by Liberal Democrat-controlled Watford borough council?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, for 2003–04, we shall provide about £500 million to the youth service. We think it extremely important that those programmes be maintained, and I am sorry if they are being cut in her area. I am sure that will do nothing either for the young people in her area or to tackle antisocial behaviour. It is not merely spending that is important, but also support for the antisocial behaviour legislation, and I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats voted against it.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What exactly did the Prime Minister mean when he promised the British people that "We will not introduce top-up fees"? Does he understand that many people now find that promise somewhat misleading?
    The Prime Minister: The existing fee structure was the payment of up-front fees, with no maintenance grant for students, and top-up fees were an unrestricted, existing fee top-up. What is now being introduced is not that at
    312
    all. What is being introduced is the abolition of up-front fees, so that no family has to pay those up-front fees, with maintenance grants reintroduced for the poorest students and a far fairer system of repayment for graduates, once they have graduated, plus a cap, set in legislation, until 2010. Surely that is better than the policies—in so far as one can understand them—of the Opposition.
    I have just been doing a little research into the Opposition's policy on university education. The leader of the Conservative party wrote to party members after he was elected leader to say that he was going to scrap all tuition fees. That is one policy. Secondly, earlier in the week, the Conservative spokesman on this issue said that
    "the principle that students contribute is there. We are not saying the whole system is completely tax-payer funded."
    That is the second policy. The third was outlined in The Independent by the chairman of the Conservative party, who said that he was limiting Tory opposition to the Government's present proposals—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: There are at least another five policies, but I have run out of time—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.

Avian Influenza
12.30 pm
Hon. Members: On a point of older, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The point of order comes later. I would ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly.
Andrew George(urgent question): Will the Minister make a statement on the outbreak of avian influenza in Thailand last week?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): When avian influenza was confirmed in Thailand, the European Commission immediately suspended imports into the European Union from Thailand of fresh poultry meat and poultry products indefinitely. We have prepared a risk assessment—available on the Department's website—which concludes that the risk of the disease being transmitted to the UK poultry flock is low. But we must be on our guard, so we have taken the additional precaution of asking ports to be extra vigilant and to prohibit the importation of consignments that do not fully comply with the rules. Waste from commercial plants is already subject to strict controls, but we have reminded the Meat Hygiene Service and local authorities to exercise more vigilance over the disposal of animal by-products to mitigate further any risk. There is already heightened awareness across the industry and the state veterinary service, but I would urge the farming community and the poultry industry to be on their guard and to ensure that their biosecurity arrangements are tight.
The Food Standards Agency has advised that there is no risk of acquiring the avian influenza virus through eating chicken. There has never been a case of humans contracting avian influenza by eating meat. The deaths reported in south-east Asia are the result of close contact with infected birds. There have been no known cases of human-to-human transmission during the current outbreak. The action that we have taken so far is proportionate to the disease risk, but we are closely monitoring the situation in south-east Asia. The situation will be reviewed again next week and we will press the Commission to take any further action that we consider necessary.
Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for his statement. The Government have certainly acted quickly in response to the potential threat to the UK, and to the poultry industry in particular, from the outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza that was reported in south-east Asia last week. As the Minister said, avian influenza is a highly contagious poultry disease that can be transmitted to humans through contact with poultry. The foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001 coincided with a human outbreak of "benefit of hindsight disease", but at least we now have the benefit of foresight, and I hope that robust measures will be put in place to protect the biosecurity of the country and of farmers—in this case, poultry farmers in particular—following the lessons learned from the foot and mouth outbreak.
Will the Minister confirm that EU Commissioner Byrne made a public statement on Monday last week to the effect that there was no outbreak of avian influenza
314
in Thailand, yet by Friday he had changed his opinion and acknowledged that there was an outbreak, which precipitated the EU ban? How confident is the Minister in the competence of the European Commission to monitor the progress of this disease? Although we have been assured that they involved a different strain of avian influenza from the one that we are now concerned about, will the Minister confirm that there were outbreaks of the disease in other EU countries, namely Holland and Italy, last year? What assessment has he made of that situation, and of the ability of other EU nations to establish adequate biosecurity arrangements to deal with the disease if it were to be brought into the EU?
In view of the delay in Thailand's admitting that there had been an outbreak of avian influenza, what reassurance can the Minister give that imports, particularly of frozen poultry, into this country are safe? There is a ban on fresh poultry imports from Thailand, but is it wise to permit the import of heat-treated products? Will the Minister tell us whether there is any truth in the theory that wild migratory birds are carriers of the disease? If so, what implications would that have for such birds? We have been told that the import ban applies only to Thailand and not to any other south-east Asian country, on the basis that no other south-east Asian country exports to the UK. Will the Minister confirm that that is accurate and, if so, that it is adequate? What other measures does he think might be necessary?
What implications does this outbreak have for the Government's efforts to control illegal meat imports? In answer to a recent question, the Secretary of State told me that intelligence in respect of such imports into the UK—they are still coming in—was not all that it could be. If that is the case, is the Minister content that existing measures are sufficiently robust? Now that the ban has been implemented, will the Minister tell us how long it is likely to last, and at what point it will be reviewed?
Will the Minister acknowledge that this is a good opportunity to promote the benefits to consumers of purchasing high-quality British-produced foods? Poultry farmers have established excellent measures in this country, particularly under the farm assurance schemes—characterised by the little red tractor label—which confirm high-quality production, traceability, health, hygiene and biosecurity. Would it not make good sense for consumers in this country and elsewhere to be made fully aware that, when buying British produce, they are buying high-quality goods that have been produced to high livestock production standards?
Mr. Bradshaw: I thank the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) for his kind comments when he said that he was grateful for the way in which the Government had dealt with this matter very quickly. He cited some comments made by Commissioner Byrne. I suspect that they were related to when the Commissioner was first satisfied that the outbreak had been confirmed. There will always be a time lag between reports of the suspicion of an outbreak and their confirmation, but, yes, in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, we do have confidence in Commissioner Byrne and in the work that the permanent veterinary councillor of the European Union does in Thailand. He is there all the time to monitor exactly the kind of risks that we are talking about.

315
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we had a serious outbreak of avian influenza last year in the European Union, centred in Holland. I would suggest that that outbreak posed a much greater risk to the United Kingdom than the outbreak currently taking place in south-east Asia. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the disease is spread by migratory birds. We are very close to the continent, and many birds from the continent move here, particularly at this time of year. He is right about that, and right to say that that outbreak was more serious.
I am satisfied that we reviewed our contingency plans following that outbreak in the Netherlands. As hon. Members will know, we reviewed our overall plans to cope with animal disease following the foot and mouth outbreak. Our contingency plans for an outbreak of avian flu are better than they have ever been. The most recent outbreak in this country—in 1992, on a single property—was dealt with very swiftly, and I am confident that we could do so again if necessary.
On heat treatment, we are advised by the Food Standards Agency, which is responsible for food safety, that it is perfectly safe to consume meat products, especially if they have been treated to 70°.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the danger posed by migratory birds from south-east Asia. My understanding is that this country does not receive birds that have migrated from south-east Asia, but I am happy to send him the map that I pored over this morning showing the migratory habits of birds in that part of the world, which shows that they do not come here.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the ban applies only to Thailand. That is because, as he said, Thailand is the only country in south-east Asia that is allowed to export chicken to this country, and we are not about to allow any other country to do so given the current circumstances.
On illegal imports, I would simply add to my comments about how we have tightened up our system since foot and mouth. I am confident that our monitoring of imports is better than it has ever been. The chicken products that are—or were—imported from Thailand come in big batches from big food manufacturers, not small-time importers, so they are subject to very rigorous controls.
The ban will be indefinite, as I said in my statement.
Finally, I join the hon. Gentleman in taking this opportunity to congratulate the excellent work of the British poultry industry. I urge consumers always to consume British products if they can, especially British poultry. Our poultry is produced to standards that are unmatched anywhere in the world. I always choose British chicken, and I would urge everybody else to do so.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Yesterday, I tabled a number of written questions on the subject of avian flu. Will the Minister let me know when he intends to reply?
The House and the public will be pleased to hear that cooked chicken meat presents no risk to human health. Can the Minister confirm that cooked poultry meat and
316
canned poultry meat may still be imported from Thailand? If so, is there any way of limiting the relevant areas to those where flocks are free of avian flu?
The Minister referred to other Asian countries. To date, Pakistan, Indonesia, Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and Cambodia have reported instances of avian flu. Has he discussed those outbreaks with the authorities in those countries? What measures has he taken to discuss the possibility of travellers from those countries bringing infections into this country?
The Minister mentioned last year's outbreak of avian flu in Holland. Although that was a different strain, many lessons could be learned, as he rightly says. In April 2003, an important conference was held at Garderen, which made specific recommendations, especially on vaccination. Have those been acted upon?
Mr. Bradshaw: In response to the hon. Gentleman's first point, his written questions will be answered as soon as possible. He is inundating our Department with questions at the moment—as is his right, of course. Officials are very busy dealing with the immediate threat posed by this outbreak and other problems that we face, but I assure him that we will answer his questions, numerous as they are, as soon as we possibly can.
On cooked meat, as I said to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), according to the advice of the FSA and its European equivalent, there is no danger from meat that has been heated to 70°, so the import ban does not extend to products that have been thus heated.
Discussions have been held with the Thai Government and with other Governments in the region. The advice to UK travellers there would be to avoid, if at all possible, anywhere where they may come into contact with poultry.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As my hon. Friend will know from his previous incarnation as a Foreign Office Minister, we have good relations with the countries of south-east Asia. However, is it not of paramount importance that there is candour as to what has happened, and that to achieve that we must offer help? One practical piece of help would be to approach the university of Edinburgh and the research organisations centred around Edinburgh, which have internationally famous expertise in tropical diseases and, indeed, in poultry research. Will my hon. Friend approach Professor Ian Maudlin or other heads of department to see whether it is possible that a small group could be sent to help in south-east Asia?
Mr. Bradshaw: I absolutely agree with the Father of the House about our good relations with the countries of south-east Asia. That is particularly true of Thailand, which is very friendly towards the UK. We have used those good relations to avoid some of the danger that might have been posed by the outbreak. I will consult my officials about his kind offer. We are as interested as anybody in exchanging expertise on the matter, and if it was felt that such a visit would be helpful at this stage, we would consider it very positively.
Mr. Michael Jack: Anybody who has heard the BBC's "Farming Today" broadcasts from Thailand will understand the devastating effect that the

317
outbreak is having on local communities there. Following the comments of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), what steps are being taken to encourage throughout south-east Asia a regime of openness about outbreaks of this or any other animal disease conditions? For example, there are reports that ducks in China now have the same condition.
What contribution is the UK scientific community making to monitoring the possible development of mutant species of the condition, which may jump species or even affect human beings? Those are the unknowns: what are we doing to address them?
Mr. Bradshaw: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of openness. I, too, have read some of the more alarmist media reports suggesting a cover-up, but we have no evidence of a deliberate cover-up in Thailand. The matter has been handled well by contrast with the way in which China handled the severe acute respiratory syndrome—SARS—outbreak last year. However, one of the lessons that we have learned in Britain and in wider Europe is that when it comes to food safety and animal health, openness is essential if one is to maintain consumer confidence in one's product.
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the House's attention to the dangers of the virus mutating, because that is when it could become really dangerous to human beings. If it mutated into a virus that could be passed from human to human, as happened more recently during the 1952 outbreak, we could face real problems. He will be well aware that the World Health Organisation, as well as UK health authorities, is keeping close watch on the situation.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: The Minister made some nice and accurate comments about the poultry sector, which, as he is aware, receives no Government funding. If he is as satisfied as he says about the biosecurity actions taken by the Government to protect the British poultry sector, will he guarantee to pay compensation if the disease gets to Britain?
Mr. Bradshaw: It is a notifiable disease, so of course compensation is considered in the event of stocks having to be destroyed. The hon. Gcntleman is right to congratulate the poultry industry on being a part of our agriculture sector that does not, in general, rely on subsidy—it would be nice if that practice was more common throughout the sector.
Sir Robert Smith: The Minister highlighted the importance of people recognising the quality of British-produced poultry. Coverage of this incident might have brought home to people who take good animal welfare standards seriously the different standards that are operated by producers in different parts of the world and the importance of backing the British poultry industry. To that end, is it important to get across to them the fact that whenever they buy produce made from chicken, the chances are that it will come from imported chicken?
Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is right. Not just the quality of the product in the UK, which is superior, but our welfare standards are second to none in the world. Consumers should take that into account habitually when making shopping decisions. Labelling, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is the responsibility of the FSA. At present, processed meat in food products is not labelled as clearly as he and others might wish.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The Minister has spoken of the devastating effect of the virus in the far east, but obviously we are worried about any implications for the United Kingdom and our citizens travelling abroad. I understand that the new H5N1 virus is resistant to the old generic flu drugs. Have the Government been able to establish whether the newer drugs, such as Tamiflu and Relenza, would be effective against it? Can the Minister tell us what is the current position in regard to their supply?
Mr. Bradshaw: In vitro work is under way in a number of countries, with the use of the H5N1 virus isolated from humans. The virus is expected to be susceptible to the neuraminidase inhibitors, but preliminary sequence data suggest that the Vietnam strains to date have a mutation in the viral M2 gene that will render the viruses resistant to Amantadine—although experimental confirmation is required. I will ask a ministerial colleague from the Department of Health to write to the hon. Lady comprehensively about vaccines.
Mr. Roger Williams: The Minister will know how dependent this country has become on imports of poultry meat from Thailand. Just before Christmas he wrote to me apologising for not being able to meet a group of poultry producers because of lack of time. They wanted to discuss threats to the poultry industry.
The country will now depend on those producers even more now. It will depend on them to fill the gap left by the lack of imports from Thailand. Will the Minister reconsider his decision?
Has the Minister made any assessment of how the country will fare in terms of its favourite dish, which I take to be chicken tikka masala?
Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right in saying that the UK has become dependent on imports from Thailand. Most of the chicken consumed here is still home-produced. It is true, however, that after Brazil, Thailand is the main source of imports, particularly of chicken for the processing industry.
I am sorry that I had to decline the hon. Gentleman's kind invitation to meet his local poultry producers, but I meet poultry producers fairly regularly. For me, one of the highlights of the run-up to Christmas was presenting the awards at the annual British Poultry Council award ceremony. As the hon. Gentleman says, our poultry industry makes a massive contribution to our rural economy. It is highly successful, very skilled and makes products of great quality. I am sure that the recent scares, which have been exaggerated in some media reports, will not prevent people in this country from enjoying their favourite dish, whatever it may be.
Mr. Simon Thomas: At least the Minister does not look like a turkey over this one. [HON. MEMBERS: "He does."] Well, possibly. Anyway, will he look at the effect of the EU ban on the Thai economy? Producers in Thailand may be tempted to try to get around it, which could increase the difficulties we already face in regard to illegal imports.
We hope that the ban will be lifted when a solution is found. What work will the Minister undertake at EU level to ensure that labelling is better in future, thus improving consumer choice? We may think about that when choosing chicken from the United Kingdom in supermarkets and butchers' shops, but we may not think about it in McDonald's or Wimpy bars. It might useful to consider what we can do at EU level to support homegrown industries that have better environmental and welfare standards.
Mr. Bradshaw: I have no doubt that there will be a serious impact on the Thai economy, because chicken production is very important to Thailand; but Thailand has had a robust economy for a number of years—perhaps the most successful economy in the south-east Asian region. We will do all we can—both Britain and the EU as a whole—to encourage further trade with Thailand, and to help it to recover from any setback that this causes.
I have nothing much to add to what I have already said about labelling. It is the responsibility of the FSA. It has improved significantly under the present Government, although it has still not improved as much as the hon. Gentleman and others might wish. I can only repeat that most fresh chicken, and indeed most meat on the shelves in shops in this country, is labelled, and I recommend that people look for the British label.

Motor Vehicle Insurance Disc
12.54 pm
Andy Burnham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Part 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to require users of motor vehicles to display on the vehicle a disc certifying that a policy of insurance or security in respect of third party risks is in force; and for connected purposes.
Have you ever had the feeling, Madam Deputy Speaker, that all the action may be happening somewhere else? I certainly have. I can assure the House, however, that what my Bill lacks in timing it more than makes up for in the quality of its proposals.
Driving without insurance is an antisocial, selfish and irresponsible act, on a par with drink-driving and carrying a similar social stigma; but the existence of a sobering 1.25 million uninsured cars on our roads shows that it is all too easy to get away with it, and that a worrying number of our fellow citizens are prepared to try. One in 20 of the motorists driving around Britain's towns, cities and villages at this very moment are uninsured. They have the potential to wreak havoc and wreck lives, but they are able to remain anonymous, and the public have no easy means of identifying them. It is a terrible game of Russian roulette, in which the losers are always the law-abiding motorists and innocent civilians.
The high levels of evasion show that the current system is not working. There is a requirement for drivers to produce valid insurance to renew vehicle excise duty, but the policy could run out in days, or could easily be cancelled. We need a simple means of placing public pressure on all drivers to keep their insurance up to date. In addition, police, traffic authorities and, most important, the general public should have an easy and instant means of spotting those who do not. The Bill achieves those twin aims by amending and inserting two basic measures into the Road Traffic Act 1988: a duty for drivers to display a simple disc on their windscreens as proof of valid insurance, and a duty for insurers to issue a standard-form it detachable disc, akin to the tax disc, to people taking out new insurance policies.
While I would claim credit for that idea, I must admit that it was put to me by someone else. In a small way, this is a vindication of our parliamentary system. About two years ago Mrs Doreen Gill of Findlay street, Leigh, visited my advice surgery to express concern about a friend who had been unfortunate enough to have an accident with an uninsured driver. That person had been left out of pocket and out of sorts by the whole experience, and Mrs Gill felt strongly that something should be done. She proposed the introduction of an insurance disc, and having thought about it carefully since then, I have concluded that she is absolutely right. Yes, there are practical questions to be asked, and discs can be forged; but to those who always seek obstacles to any change, I say that if it is good enough for car tax it is good enough for insurance.
Arguments against my Bill are arguments for scrapping the vehicle excise duty disc. The process need not be complicated: it simply means making the insurance policy a public document for windscreen display rather than its being kept in a drawer at home. If discs help to cut tax evasion, they will help to cut uninsured driving. At the risk of annoying the

321
Chancellor of the Exchequer, let me say that it is arguably more important for people to be insured than to be taxed. We cannot forget that there is a much greater financial incentive for the avoidance of insurance than there is for the avoidance of tax, given the relative cost of each.
There are different classes of insurance evader. There is without doubt a hard core who will drive without licences, tax or insurance. They are unlikely to be moved by the need to have an insurance disc, but they would be easier for us all to identify. There is another group of evaders who are prepared to take a risk, perhaps delaying obtaining cover for a month or two. That group could be swayed by the requirement for an insurance disc. They could no longer enjoy the anonymity that the current system affords them: friends and family would notice their failure to display a valid insurance disc. A third group comprises the well-meaning but absent-minded. I dare say that many Members—including me—fall into that category. Such people see the renewal reminders arrive from the insurance company and keep meaning to do something about their policies, but never get around to it. A daily and embarrassing reminder on the windscreen would cut that sort of evasion.
I hope that sceptical voices in the insurance industry will take note of the emphatic public backing for an insurance disc that RAC research revealed this week: 87 per cent. of drivers would support a disc if it could be shown to reduce insurance premiums. I hope that they will also take note of the strong and effective campaign of the Daily Express on the important issue, and its unequivocal backing for the Bill as part of the solution. The editorial in Monday's edition said:
"Rarely has an issue been so straightforward. Make insurance discs compulsory now."
I accept that the Bill is not the only solution to the problem; it should be part of a package of measures to tackle driving without insurance. We need to review the punishments for insurance evasion. It cannot be right that the fine—usually around £150—is a fraction of the cost of insurance. The incentive for people to take a risk is too great. First, we need stiffer penalties, for example, higher fines, instant driving bans And community, even custodial sentences for repeat offenders, such is the gravity of the offence.
Secondly, I would support moves for more integrated use of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database and the new insurance database. I hope that the police can have access to that to identify and target people whom they know to be driving without insurance.
Thirdly, the insurance industry should consider what more it can do to reduce the soaring cost of motor insurance. I represent an area where public transport is poor and job opportunities are limited. Many people are on low incomes and have to travel to work. Some are being priced out of driving a car—that is a form of social exclusion. I heard on the radio this week that a first-time driver was quoted more than £2,000 for insurance. Young men are statistically the most likely to cause accidents, and, as a society, we have a vested interest in their being insured.
322
I urge the industry to consider moves towards a more even pricing structure, perhaps with cross-subsidy between policyholders. There is already a levy on insurance policies to pay for claims against uninsured drivers through the Motor Insurers Bureau. A cross-subsidy pricing scheme could mean that the cost is used to cut evasion rather than to pick up the pieces of uninsured accidents, as happens now.
The Co-operative Insurance Society is taking a lead and I should like more insurers to follow its scheme, whereby new drivers can reduce the cost of their policy by hundreds of pounds through undergoing further training, especially on motorway and night driving.
The Government have initiated a review of the issues under Professor David Greenaway of Nottingham university, which shows that they are aware of the severity of the problem, and he is due to report his findings later this year. I hope that he will seriously consider the measures that I have outlined, listen to the arguments for an insurance disc and come down firmly in favour of it. It would overlay and complement the other measures that are being considered to tackle driving without insurance. I hope that Professor Greenaway will look abroad to France, Italy, Ireland, Australia and, even closer to home, Jersey, where an insurance disc scheme appears to work well and there is less insurance evasion than here.
The costs of failing to act mount year after year. This week, the RAC estimated that we shall all soon pay £60 on our insurance policies to cover the cost of uninsured driving. It also stated that the death, damage and injury that uninsured drivers cause may lead to a £1 billion bill. Of course, prosecuting offenders means huge costs to society in police and court time.
If an insurance disc cut evasion by 10 per cent. or 20 per cent., it would be worth introducing. That makes the Bill a win-win measure. It is good for motorists and insurers, but most important, it is good for the public. The only losers are those who flout the law and expect the law-abiding majority to pick up the bill. Objections about practicalities crumble in the face of the potential benefits.
The Bill is a workable solution to a growing scourge in our society and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Andy Burnham, James Purnell, Jim Knight, Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons, Mr. Eric Joyce, Siobhain McDonagh, Jim Dowd, Mr. Parmjit Dhanda, Mr. Wayne David, Shona McIsaac, Mr. Richard Page and Ms Christine Russell.

MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE DISC
Andy Burnham accordingly presented a Bill to amend Part 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to require users of motor vehicles to display on the vehicle a disc certifying that a policy of insurance or security in respect of third party risks is in force; and for connected purpose: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March, and to be printed [Bill 46].
Orders of the Day

  National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  1.5 pm
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  We have reached the final stages of our deliberations. I am pleased to tell hon. Members that the measure has all-party support. It may not be unprecedented for not a single amendment or new clause to be tabled on a Government programme Bill, but it is unusual. It demonstrates clearly that the provisions are undeniably sensible and useful and therefore rightly welcomed by all interested parties.
  The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said on Second Reading that the Bill was an
  "uncontroversial and constructive Bill." —[Official Report, 6 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 204.]
  He said that he had asked employers' representatives and other tax and national insurance practitioners whether they had any difficulties with the measure, and found that they did not. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) agreed that although the Bill was technical—that was our conclusion, too, when we had finished the Committee proceedings—it included matters that
  "affect every employee and company in the land."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 13 January 2004; c. 42.],
  so it was important. He, too, offered his support.
  We received one representation, which arrived rather late for consideration during our proceedings. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales welcomed the Bill and did not disagree with any of its provisions. However, it wanted to draw my attention as Paymaster General to some additional matters for which further relaxation of the rules about the way in which employers meet their national insurance obligations could be considered.
  Some changes to the provisions for employers' recovery of primary national insurance contributions could be addressed through changes in regulation. Inland Revenue officials will continue to speak to employers' representatives about such details. However, I have concluded that there should be no such changes to regulations and that changes to the Bill at this stage were undesirable. For the benefit of Opposition Members, and for the sake of the completeness of our consideration, however, I thought that it would be helpful to respond to the points made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I, too, think that the Bill is a sensible measure. My right hon. Friend has helpfully included a glossary of abbreviations in the explanatory notes—an extremely helpful document—but to assist lay people such as me, and, I hope, members of the public who have to interpret such things, particularly those in small businesses, will she do her best to explain the meanings of some of those
  324
  terms? For example, ITEPA 2003 keeps cropping up. I have worked out what that means, but I would struggle with many of the other abbreviations—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. That is getting rather lengthy for an intervention.
  Dawn Primarolo: I am happy to try to assist my hon. Friend when I can. He was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I draw his attention to the considerable discussion in Committee of the fact that the Bill is intended to align the treatment and recovery of national insurance with the procedures that currently exist in the income tax regulations and Acts. Of course, as the Committee agreed, that will be of great benefit to employers, because they will have one procedure and one form of operation for the recovery of any outstanding payments of either tax or national insurance. That is particularly welcomed by employers.
  Norman Lamb: The Paymaster General mentioned the representation that she has received. Is she saying that she has decided not to legislate further with regard to that representation at the moment but that she might consider doing so at a later date, or is she rejecting the representation out of hand? Perhaps she can outline on which issues she intends to take further steps.
  Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I thought that, in courtesy to the House, I should explain where the Government stand with regard to each of the proposals made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I hope to make it clear that the Government stand open to representations and further consultation on this matter, as on any other. I shall turn briefly to the issues raised by the institute, and I think that my response will cover the hon. Gentleman's specific inquiry.
  The institute asked for an extension to the provisions in clauses 1 and 2, which provide extra flexibility in the way in which employers can recover primary national insurance paid on behalf of their employees on securities-based earnings. It may help if I explain briefly to hon. Members why we have detailed rules governing the way in which employers meet their national insurance liabilities. That framework exists to achieve three broad aims: first, to provide fairness to employees; secondly, to create administrative simplicity for employers; and, finally, to protect the income of the national insurance fund, which, as hon. Members know, provides the funds for state pensions and other contributory benefits and pays towards the national health service.
  The Government's first duty is to protect the employee. It is important to have a clear set of rules to prevent the employer from making unreasonable deductions from an employee's earnings, which could result in the employee facing economic hardship—a matter that we discussed in Committee. For example, if there were no rules about recovery, an employer could make a mistake and under-deduct from the monthly earnings and then make good his mistake by recovering the whole of the under-deduction in one go, leaving the employee with no cash earnings for that month.

  325
  Pursuing that principle, I do not think it reasonable to amend the rules governing the recovery of primary national insurance contributions to allow recovery from all employees—not just ex-employees—in the following year, whatever the form of earnings, as the institute requested. However, to pick up the hon. Gentleman's point about the Government's view, if I do not agree with the proposals now, I accept that in some specific circumstances, the normal recovery framework may present employers with difficulties. We are keen to invite employers and their representatives to provide examples of particular issues that are creating difficulty. I am aware that new financial products are continually being developed. As with previous legislation, the Bill has been drafted to provide the flexibility to deal with those changes, when we agree with those who make the representations that it would be appropriate to do so.
  Many changes could be dealt with by regulations. Again, we discussed that in Committee. For example, the recovery period for specific types of earnings could be extended in that way. So we have responded to specific difficulties, and we would seek to do so in the future. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that last year, we introduced regulations extending recovery time where payments of earnings are made by intermediaries or in the form of shares. We are planning regulatory changes before April 2004, when payments are made to workers seconded abroad and the primary national insurance liability is allowed to be paid later than at the end of the tax year, and where an employer has made an error in good faith and under-deducted the primary national insurance that is due.
  Obviously, I cannot guarantee that we will always agree with the points made in representations in future. The Government do not wish to encourage employers to seek ways to pay earnings that are designed simply to reduce tax or national insurance liability, and have no further commercial value. For example, the Institute of Chartered Accountants also requested that the changes that the Bill and its regulations will make to the recovery rules for securities-based earnings should be extended to all non-monetary earnings. However, unlike shares, earnings paid in other non-monetary forms do not necessarily provide employees with a real stake in the company that they work for and are not therefore a form of earnings the Government want to encourage through special provisions.
  I am trying to strike the correct balance, and to recognise that changes could be made to the future nature of those encouragements that would provide a stake in a company, that representations should be made and that the flexibility in the regulations will allow us to respond—but all that is underpinned by the crucial point that the stake in the company has to be an encouragement to the employee, and not intended to reduce tax or national insurance payments.
  Mr. Mark Prisk: The Paymaster General anticipates me in looking into parts of the representation, and it is excellent that we are getting those on to the record, but may I draw her back to our discussion in Committee, where we considered the definition of non-monetary earnings in clauses 1 and 2? That definition obviously goes wider than security-based earnings. She has responded to the first part of the institute's representation, but will she respond to its
  326
  comment that, notwithstanding her earlier comments, it would be simpler for businesses if there were one rule for all situations concerning all non-monetary earnings?
  Dawn Primarolo: I have tried to explain that, unlike shares, earnings paid in other non-monetary forms do not necessarily provide employees with a real stake in the company that they work for and are not therefore a form of earnings that the Government want to encourage through special provisions, because of the dangers—this does occur—of payments being designed to reduce tax and national insurance liability. Of course, the national insurance fund, and therefore all of us, would lose out in those circumstances.
  I am trying to steer a delicate path through recognising a possible change in environment and putting in place a method to respond by regulation, while explaining clearly that we will need to judge whether the forms of payment provide employees with a real stake. Therefore, a general sweep through all non-monetary forms of reward would be a step too far.
  It may help the House if I move on to the series of points that the Institute of Chartered Accountants made on clauses 3 and 4. It also wanted us to go further in those clauses, which extend provisions for joint elections and agreements to transfer secondary national insurance liability to employees when gains arise on restricted and convertible shares. It asked for the measure to be extended to other forms of securities-based earnings, such as restricted stock units.
  The Government argue that the tax and national insurance treatment of earnings from restricted stock units will depend on the nature of the award. In some cases, therefore, such earnings might already fall within the scope of the legislation and thus allow the transfer of employers' class 1 national insurance to the employee. In others cases, that would not be appropriate because there is no unpredictable liability—that is the test—which is what the measure is designed to address. I am trying to respond by recognising that if something is not in the Bill, it does not satisfy the unpredictable liability test.
  Secondly, the institute wanted the clauses to extend to national insurance liabilities that arise on the discharge of an amount treated as a notional loan, which is a form of earnings that arises when someone who is not ordinarily resident is granted an employment-related share option. As the hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford and for North Norfolk are probably aware, officials in the Treasury and Inland Revenue are currently conducting an extensive review of the tax rules surrounding residence and domicile. They are aware of, and are continuing to examine, problems with securities-based payments for internationally mobile workers, and they will examine that issue as part of the review. I think that that is a more appropriate way to consider such issues, because of the difficulty of the challenges.
  Mr. Prisk: Will the Paymaster General confirm, therefore, that it is the intention of the Treasury. and the Government in general, to have as broad an input from business and industry as possible in that review? The

  327
  professional impact of the measures will have a significant impact on the mobility of workers, which is a crucial part of this country's competitiveness.
  Dawn Primarolo: I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that such a broad view and access to wider consultation are at the heart of the consideration of residence and domicile. It is important for the system to be fair and for the rules to be clear. The system should not undermine our competitiveness, yet we must ensure that the rules of the United Kingdom are not used in ways that would be detrimental to the vast majority of taxpayers in this country. The regulations can deal with such points.
  I have outlined the principles underpinning how we would assess representations about suggestions made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. We would welcome it if employers or their representative groups contacted the Inland Revenue if they had specific difficulties that arose from the Bill. The overall support for the Bill demonstrates that the Inland Revenue is working well with employers' representatives and others to identify real areas of concern and find sensible ways of addressing them, while keeping the rules clear, easy to operate and fair to all taxpayers.
  On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) referred to working with business representatives, which relates to the point recently made by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford. That is relevant not only to the Bill, but, frankly, throughout the Inland Revenue's areas of interest. I shall again spell out the routes available. On employer-related matters, the Inland Revenue meets representatives from the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry and payroll practitioners, among others. That umbrella group provides a forum for the discussion of, and consultation on, policy changes and their operational impact on the taxation of employment income and related matters that might impact directly or indirectly on employers. It acts as a confidential sounding board for proposed policy initiatives and as an avenue for the discussion of representatives' concerns and proposals for change. That clearly provides a route through which discussions on the Bill may be taken forward, should they be required after it has become operational.
  The Inland Revenue has an excellent working relationship with many share scheme interest groups, such as ProShare and the share scheme lawyers group. There are regular discussions between the Inland Revenue and groups interested in the promotion of employee share ownership, to ensure that concerns about the administration and technical interpretation of share scheme legislation are brought to the Government's attention. Regular dialogue not only allows areas of difficulty to be properly understood, but helps officials to develop clear and helpful guidance about the operation of share scheme legislation. When it came to putting together the measures in the Bill, the Inland Revenue was already in a good position to
  328
  understand what employers wanted. Every measure was drawn up with an eye to representations or other forms of consultation.
  Mr. John McFall: I thank the Paymaster General for referring to a point that I made on Second Reading. She will know that income tax officials have come to the Treasury Sub-Committee to help with our inquiry on the administrative cost of tax compliance. I must say, in support of what she is saying, that they have acquitted themselves well. Lessons have been learned from the past and officials are communicating with business. Given the criticism that they have received in the past, it is only fair to put that on record.
  Dawn Primarolo: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous comments. Everyone in the House understands that we require tax inspectors and tax officials to pursue a dual role on behalf not only of the House, but of all our communities. We require them to operate a tax system that is fair to all and ensures that everyone pays their rightful amount, and to design and develop a tax system in consultation with all interested parties so that employers and employees can understand legislation, and so that it is operational. The delivery of that set of principles is difficult, but the Inland Revenue acquits itself extremely well.
  I have said that the Bill was not contentious. No amendments were tabled, and there was broad support both inside and outside the House for the measures that it contains. However, that is not to say our debates in the House and Committee were without rigour. Indeed, the discussion of the clauses in Committee entailed a thorough scrutiny of their details, and relevant details that are to be set out in the regulations. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for North Norfolk and for Hertford and Stortford for the positive way in which they conducted their discussions in Committee to ensure not only that the Bill received proper scrutiny, but that the record showed clear indications about how the Government wish to proceed.
  I am pleased to be able to conclude that the Bill has received thorough scrutiny, both in the House and as a result of extensive preparation with interested parties outside. As I said, I have been helped greatly by constructive contributions from Members of all parties who were involved in discussions on the Bill, for which I thank them. Finally. I reiterate that the purpose of the Bill is to fulfil our commitment that the Inland Revenue will work with employers' representatives and others to reduce technical differences in the administration of tax and national insurance. It extends employers' options for meeting their national insurance liabilities when paying earnings in the form of shares or other securities. It also helps to protect employees' rights to statutory sick and maternity pay by improving measures to tackle the very few employers who fail to meet their obligations. It is a technical Bill, but a useful one, and I commend it to the House.
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Prisk: I thank the Paymaster General for her opening remarks, particularly her detailed and thorough exposition of the submission by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.

  329
  As the Paymaster General said, the Bill is a technical measure, and is therefore complex both in form and purpose. I suspect, however, that on this occasion that is not the reason why we do not have the full attention of the House. The Paymaster General, other hon. Members and I are performing what may best be described as the parliamentary equivalent of an intermission. We may be unwatched and unseen, but nevertheless we are providing a convenient filling-in moment between two exciting instalments of a political drama. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.
  The Bill and the measures that it contains are important because they affect both employers and employees, and a number of clauses are directly relevant to people's working situation. For example, clauses 1 to 4 will help to remove a potential barrier to widening share ownership. Some people may say that other aspects of the Bill are inconsequential. For example, clauses 5 and 6 apply to only about 4 per cent. of the national insurance fund, and some people will argue that that is of little consequence. That may be true, but for tens of thousands of self-employed people it represents 100 per cent. of their contributions. Given the fact that the self-employed are usually treated poorly by the Government, the change deserves our attention and, on this occasion, our support.
  Following our various debates on the Bill, it is clear that it consists of two distinct parts. First, it seeks to amend the way in which employers administer national insurance contributions for securities-based earnings. We have touched on the question of non-monetary earnings and how broad that definition is, but the Bill deals specifically with securities-based earnings. That follows the Chancellor's ill-considered decision to impose an additional 1 per cent. on employees' primary contributions over the upper earnings limit. The second part of the Bill, as we learned in Committee, is intended to align the administration of statutory payments for maternity and sickness pay with that for national insurance contributions. The changes seek to tidy up previous incomplete legislation dating back, in some cases, more than five years. The two principal features of the Bill therefore arise from past errors and oversights by the Government. It is a refreshing change for the Government to accept their past failings. On behalf of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, I have no hesitation in welcoming that admission of failure and the improvements introduced by the legislation. I only hope that that governmental contrition will set the tone for rest of the day, although I suspect that we shall be disappointed.
  My party has, throughout the passage of the Bill, sought to provide constructive scrutiny. Where we have differences with the Government we shall express them, and I am sure that the Paymaster General will understand that I shall continue to do so firmly and persistently. However, in this case the measure is corrective and largely beneficial, so we shall not oppose it for the sake of partisanship. However, our ability to fulfil our important parliamentary role has been hampered by the fact that the regulations underpinning much of the Bill were not made available to the House until the morning of the day on which the Committee sat. For the benefit of Members who did not serve on the Committee, the regulations are extensive. They are 22
  330
  pages long—five pages longer than the Bill itself—and affect six of the 10 principal clauses. Following the Minister's promise that the draft orders would be ready in time for the Committee stage, I accept that there was an administrative error by officials, which resulted in the draft orders arriving on the day of the Committee's deliberations. Indeed, I received my copy as I arrived at Standing Committee D. I accept that the Paymaster General intended to try to get the orders to us, and I know that she will share my disappointment at the error that resulted in their delay.
  I should like to challenge something else that has arisen in our debates, particularly in Committee. Significant measures in the Bill will be brought into effect based on details in the 22 pages of statutory instruments. The Bill is a framework, and it lacks detail about the exact way in which the rules will operate. The Paymaster General commented in response to an intervention that, as the Bill was a technical measure, the omission of the details was less important. In fact, the reverse is true. In a technical Bill, the detail is the most important part of the legislation. The broad policy is not in question—it is the practicalities and minutiae that matter. I suspect that most hon. Members would share that view and I hope that on reflection so will the Minister.
  We have learned much during the passage of the Bill. It has emerged, for example, that the roots of the changes set out in clauses 5 and 6 go back as far as the 1998 Budget and the accompanying Taylor report. Indeed, the Government denounced the dual systems of income tax and national insurance as unduly onerous for the 1 million or so employers who had to operate them simultaneously. On 8 February 1999, the then Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), spoke of the two sets of rules and the two Departments with which businesses had to deal and concluded that the case for change was "overwhelming". Nearly five years later, the Government are seeking to complete the task. I fully accept that it took up to two years for the original changes to bed down, systems to be established and training to be completed. However, a delay of five years is deeply disappointing. I know that the wheels of Whitehall grind slow, but to take five years is to progress at less than a snail's pace.
  In Committee and on Second Reading, I raised the many concerns of business and professionals about the poor administration of national insurance. The Paymaster General, true to form, rose to the challenge and proudly declared that things were improving. If that is the case, that is welcome. However, she did not answer my basic question, although I trust that she will in reply to this debate. Are the standards of performance better now than they were before the merger, as promised by the Chancellor? I am not asking whether they are better than they were in 2002, when the Institute of Chartered Accountants complained, but better than the pre-merger performance. That was the promise made by the Chancellor—has it been kept?
  During our deliberations, we learned of the unintended impact of the Chancellor's decision to impose an additional 1 per cent. of the national insurance charge on employees' earnings over the upper earnings limit. When an employer makes a securities-

  331
  based payment of earnings, there is no national insurance liability until those payments are realised—for example, when options are exercised to acquire shares. At that point, the employer is liable to pay both primary and secondary national insurance contributions due on the employee's gain. Until 5 April last year, most employees would already have paid their contributions up to the upper earnings limit through the usual PAYE system. However, from 6 April 2003, there has been an additional 1 per cent. due on earnings that exceed that limit, so employers now face serious difficulties in recovering those additional primary contributions payable by employees.
  As the Paymaster General mentioned today and in Committee, the Bill is designed to enable employers to recover those contributions through new agreements or through joint elections. We touched on the suggestion that these might be amended in the future, subject to the comments from the Institute of Chartered Accountants. The decision to enable employers to recover these contributions is generally welcomed by employers and outside organisations.
  Our debates have also revealed a welcome Damascene conversion by the Labour party on share ownership. Gone are the old days of Bennite adherence to state ownership. Instead, we have the Blairite passion for share ownership. We will have to see whether that survives any future leadership change. The amendments in clauses 1 to 4 will remove a potentially serious barrier to employee share ownership. Now, promoting wider share ownership is a Conservative value. Indeed, more employees bought and owned shares under the last Conservative Government than ever before. That is why we on the Opposition Benches welcome the correction, as do those in business—including ProShare, the independent organisation whose purpose is to widen share ownership.
  The Bill seeks to correct the omissions and errors of the Government's previous actions. As such, and rare as that is, it is to be welcomed. During our debates we heard of the five-year failure to align correctly the administration of national insurance contributions and statutory payments, and the burden that that delay has placed in particular on the self-employed. We have learned about the worsening administrative burden since the Government legislated in 1999, despite the Chancellor's original promises. We have heard how the decision by the Chancellor to increase employees' primary contributions over the upper earnings limit has had serious unintended consequences for promoting wider share ownership, which are corrected in the Bill.
  Consideration of the Bill, although constrained by the absence of the details in secondary form, has nevertheless been constructive and purposeful. Given the benefit of the various measures that the Bill seeks to implement, I can confirm that it has our support and that it is not our intention to oppose it in the Lobbies at the end of the debate.
  1.43 pm
  Norman Lamb: As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) suggested, this event is akin to an intermission. I suspect
  332
  the full Public Gallery has little to do with our current consideration of this exciting Bill. It is surprising that the public are not out getting their ice creams.
  As has been observed, the Bill is technical and uncontroversial. I congratulate the Paymaster General on keeping going and speaking about it for the third time for the best part of half an hour—a remarkable achievement. I thank her also for the way she has conducted herself during our deliberations on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. In her speech she dealt with the one representation received, from the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Never before, I imagine, has one submission from a professional organisation received such detailed consideration by a Minister on the Floor of the House. Her constructive comments and response to those points were welcome.
  On Second Reading there was one Back-Bench speech and a few valiant interventions from a Labour Member—the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). In Committee, as we heard, no amendments were tabled by the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats or the Government, and it was all over in one and a half sittings. There is little of substance to add today. In a moment, I shall mention one or two questions I have on the draft regulations.
  To summarise, the Bill is largely a tidying-up measure that increases the ease with which employers and employees can deal with national insurance. First, for instance, it makes it easier for employers to recover national insurance contributions by agreement from employees and ex-employees in respect of securities-based earnings. Secondly, it allows employers and employees by agreement to transfer the liability for employers' national insurance to the employee in respect of restricted and convertible shares, extending the facility that is already available in respect of earnings from share options.
  We accept that that reduces a current disincentive to employers, who may be put off rewarding employees in this way because of uncertainty about the extent of national insurance liability when what is known as a post-acquisition chargeable event occurs. The employer cannot predict what the share value will be and therefore what the national insurance liability will be. To remove that unpredictability seems entirely sensible. Like the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, we support the idea of improving and increasing employee share ownership.
  The Bill deals with a number of miscellaneous issues, aligning periods of notice required for distraint action between tax and national insurance. It unifies powers with regard to tax and national insurance and to the gathering of information for tax and national insurance purposes, and it removes overbearing powers in relation to national insurance. That is to be welcomed. Finally, the Bill removes criminal penalties with regard to non-compliance for statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay, with the introduction of civil penalties. The Government clearly recognise that criminal penalties are
  "wholly disproportionate to the compliance risk."
  On the draft secondary legislation, the point was made on Second Reading that measures in the Bill were overdue. In part, those measures result from a consultation process that was completed two and a half

  333
  years ago. Two and a half years of deliberation later, the Bill emerged, but it depends substantially on secondary legislation to implement the detail. It is bizarre that a Bill can be introduced without the accompanying regulations that were produced at the same time, and that the Bill can reach Committee stage without members of the Committee having had sight of the draft regulations. That is not the best way to scrutinise legislation, and the Government must ensure that draft regulations are available before the Standing Committee considers such a Bill in detail.
  Since then, I have been through the draft regulations. I assume that that is the sum total of draft regulations; I should be grateful if the Minister confirmed that. Can she also confirm the time scale for implementation? In the draft Social Security Contributions (Amendment) Regulations—the first set of drift regulations— paragraph 2(2)(a) refers to "non-monetary earnings". However, paragraph 2(2)(b) refers instead to "relevant securities-based earnings". That relates to former employees. Is there a reason for the different terminology, or does the drafting need to be reviewed?
  In the same regulation there is an obligation on the employer to account to the employee or former employee for the proceeds of sale of the securities that were not required to discharge the liability for national insurance—in other words, if there is an amount over and above that required for discharging liability, it needs to go back to the employee. Should there be an additional obligation to provide a statement to the employee confirming the sale proceeds and how much of it was required to discharge national insurance liability? That may have been covered elsewhere already, but I would again be grateful if the Paymaster General dealt with it.
  Reference is made to the fact that the draft regulations impose no extra cost on business, but the proposed regulations relating to Northern Ireland would impose a cost in limited circumstances. That is entirely justifiable, but should not the explanatory notes make it clear? Further, is any regulatory impact assessment anticipated with regard to those regulations, or is the Paymaster General relying on the regulatory impact assessment that accompanied the Bill? I am not sure what the guidance on regulatory impact assessments says about that.
  I want briefly to mention the proposed statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay regulations. The explanatory notes say that no regulatory impact assessment has been prepared because the regulations do not impose any new costs on business, but the civil penalties may impose new costs, so is it accurate to say that no costs will be incurred? Will the Paymaster General deal with that?
  There is also a statement that the draft Social Security Contributions (Amendment) Regulations, which deal with elections in relation to restricted and convertible shares, do not in themselves impose any new costs on business, but there are costs associated with the regulations. There is provision, for example, for the transfer of cost from the employer to the employee with regard to secondary class 1 contributions. The regulatory impact assessment refers to the cost of£3,000 in respect of professional advice on preparing a form of election and obtaining Inland Revenue approval. Will
  334
  the Paymaster General deal with that? Surely it is right that the explanatory notes to the regulations should be clear.
  Those are specific concerns about the draft regulations. I would be grateful if the Paymaster General dealt with them, either now or in a letter. These are important matters with regard to the detail of the regulations, but I can confirm that the Liberal Democrats support the thrust of the Bill.
  1.52 pm
  Dawn Primarolo: With the leave of the House, I should respond, perhaps briefly, to this afternoon's debate and the points raised by hon. Members. I sense that the House is gearing up to move on to other business, or perhaps those Members who were watching the monitor in their offices suddenly developed an undying interest in the Bill.
  As I said in opening the debate, the Bill reduces the technical differences between the administration of tax and national insurance. It makes important improvements in the system and helps to protect employees' rights. We had a useful if not brief—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will Members who have recently come into the Chamber please have some respect for the Paymaster General, who is on her feet concluding the debate?
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) referred to an intermission. When I was a child, the intermission was taken up by fish swimming around on television, which shows how old I am. I have a feeling that this intermission is quickly coming to an end.
  This afternoon's debate has ensured that all Members and both sides of the House have agreed that we have undertaken detailed scrutiny of the measures before us. I hope that I have made it clear that we have been willing to respond to representations made to us. I should say to the Institute of Chartered Accountants that I was replying to its representation out of courtesy, as it was the only one we received. I sincerely hope, however, that hon. Members will accept that I am not setting a precedent here. None the less, everyone accepts that the main principles in the Bill are correct and recognises the importance of what we propose. A number of specific points have been made.
  Ann McKechin: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern over the former penalty for failure to pay statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay, which involved a criminal sanction and which had not been used for many years? Can she confirm that the new civil measures will be used to impose appropriate sanctions, particularly given that the Equal Opportunities Commission has already started a major investigation into discrimination at work involving women in the workplace?
  Dawn Primarolo: I regret that my hon. Friend was unable to join in this afternoon's debate, but I can

  335
  confirm that, in moving from the old procedures under the social security legislation, the Government are seeking to—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I once again ask all hon. Members to reduce the level of conversation while the Paymaster General is responding to the debate?
  Dawn Primarolo: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The procedures for civil action against employers are proportionate to the small number who seek not to fulfil their obligations under the legislation—[HON.MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Substantial penalties, none the less, can be imposed, although I am not sure whether my hon. Friends were cheering that. The point is to remove inappropriate criminal penalties that have not been working successfully and, by the use of civil penalties, to try to ensure that all employers comply with the legislation from the start.
  The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) again made a point about why things have taken so long. In the year since transfer, a great deal has been done to align the rules on tax and national insurance. Much has been achieved. The Revenue now operates joint employer compliance reviews covering tax and national insurance; new teams have been introduced for the joint handling of expatriates' tax and national insurance affairs; and we have made changes to regulations—for example, to align the national insurance treatment of foreign travel and foreign travel expenses for overseas employees with that of tax.
  The Bill brings those changes together. That required primary legislation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, all Governments have to prioritise the measures that go into their legislative programme. We have been able to deliver those legislative changes at this point.
  The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb)—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, may I make a plea to hon. Members to reduce the level of conversation in the Chamber while the Paymaster General is replying to an important debate?
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford and for North Norfolk raised various
  336
  queries about the regulations. If the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford looks again at the regulations, he will see that four sets regarding statutory payment inspection powers are identical, as is required to cover the various jurisdictions. The hon. Member for North Norfolk—
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Dawn Primarolo: I sense that the House would like me to conclude. Therefore, I say to the hon. Member for North Norfolk that I will reply in writing on the points that he has raised about the regulations and ensure that the letter is placed in the Library—those Members who are interested will be able to scrutinise it.
  The Bill takes forward the Government's commitments. It makes useful improvements to the administration of national insurance contributions; takes forward the Chancellor's commitment that the Inland Revenue would work with employers' representatives and others on reducing technical differences between the administration of tax and national insurance; builds on the Government's work to promote productivity by encouraging employers to give their employees a financial stake in the company through extending employers' options for meeting national insurance liabilities when paying earnings in the form of shares; and helps to protect employees' rights to statutory sick and maternity pay by improving and tackling employers who fail to meet their obligations.
  Clauses 1 and 2 give employers flexibility as to how they recoup employee national insurance liability when employers must pay that liability on behalf of their employees. Clauses 3 and 4 extend the range of securities-based earnings for which employers and employees can agree to transfer unpredictable employer national insurance liability to employees. On both those measures, the Bill contributes to the Government's drive to increase employee share ownership by removing disincentives. Clauses 5 and 6 align the procedures for the collection of national insurance debt owed by the self-employed with those on tax. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Lord Hutton's Report
  2.1 pm
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement following Lord Hutton's report into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly.
  I am immensely grateful to Lord Hutton, his team and inquiry staff for the work that they have carried out. The report itself is an extraordinarily thorough, detailed and clear document. It leaves no room for doubt or interpretation. We accept it in full.
  Lord Hutton has just finished reading the summary of his findings. Before coming to those, I want to echo one thing that Lord Hutton said about Dr. Kelly himself. Lord Hutton makes his findings about Dr. Kelly's conduct in respect of the matters at issue here, but as he says, nothing should detract from Dr. Kelly's fine record of public service to this country. He was respected here and abroad. I am sorry that as a result of the gravity of the allegations made it was necessary to have this inquiry and that the Kelly family have had to go through reliving this tragedy over the past months. I hope now that it is over, they will be allowed to grieve in peace.
  Lord Hutton has given a most comprehensive account of the facts. It is unnecessary for me to repeat them. But let me emphasise why I believed it right to establish such an inquiry. Over the past six or more months, allegations have been made that go to the heart of the integrity of government, our intelligence services and me personally as Prime Minister. There are issues, of course, as to how the case of Dr. Kelly was handled in personnel terms, and I shall come to those.
  But those have not sustained the media, public and parliamentary interest over all this time. What has sustained and fuelled that interest has been, to put it bluntly, a claim of lying, of deceit, of duplicity on my part personally and that of the Government. That claim consists of two allegations: first, that I lied over the intelligence that formed part of the Government's case in respect of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction published on 24 September 2002; and secondly, that I lied or was duplicitous in respect of the naming of Dr. Kelly, leaking his name to the press when it should have remained confidential.
  In summary, Lord Hutton finds the following. First, contrary to the claim by the BBC that intelligence was put in the dossier against the wishes of the intelligence services, the dossier of 24 September was published with the full approval of the Joint Intelligence Committee, including intelligence about Saddam's readiness to use some weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to do so. Secondly, the allegation by the BBC that the Government deliberately inserted this 45-minute claim probably knowing that it was wrong was, to quote Lord Hutton, "unfounded". Thirdly, the allegation by the BBC that the reason for it not being in the original draft of the dossier was that the intelligence agencies did not believe it to be true was also, to quote Lord Hutton, "unfounded". Fourthly, no one, either in the JIC or Downing street, acted improperly in relation to the dossier. Fifthly, the BBC claim that it was "sexed up" in the sense of being embellished with intelligence known or believed to be false was also, to quote Lord Hutton, "unfounded".
  338
  Sixthly, Mr. Gilligan's key allegations repeated by the BBC were never in fact said, even by Dr. Kelly himself. Seventhly, there was
  "no dishonourable or underhand or duplicitous strategy by the Government covertly to leak Dr Kelly's name to the media."
  Eighthly, on the contrary, it was reasonable for the Government to conclude that there was no practical possibility of keeping his name secret and that the Government behaved properly in relation to naming him. Ninthly, the suggestion that either I or Sir Kevin Tebbit in our evidence were in conflict with each other or that one of us was lying was, to quote Lord Hutton,
  "incorrect and is not supported by the evidence."
  Tenthly, and for good measure, he also dismisses the allegations surrounding what I said on a plane to journalists in these terms:
  "Some commentators have referred to answers by the Prime Minister to questions from members of the press travelling with him on an aeroplane to Hong Kong on 22 July and I have read the transcript of that press briefing. As I have stated, I am satisfied that there was not a dishonourable or underhand or duplicitous strategy on the part of the Prime Minister and officials to leak Dr Kelly's name covertly, and I am further satisfied that the decision which was taken by the Prime Minister and his officials in 10 Downing Street on 8 July was confined to issuing a statement that an unnamed civil servant had come forward and that the Question and Answer material was prepared and approved in the MoD and not in 10 Downing Street."
  Let me now return to the two central allegations. On 29 May 2003, following the end of the conflict in Iraq, the BBC "Today" programme broadcast a story by its defence correspondent, Andrew Gilligan. It dominated the morning bulletins and reverberates to this day. It alleged that part of the September 2002 dossier—that Saddam could use weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to do so—had been inserted into the dossier by Downing Street, contrary to the wishes of the intelligence services, and that moreover we
  "probably knew it was wrong even before we decided to put it in".
  There could not be a more serious charge. The source for this extraordinary allegation was said by the BBC to be
  "a senior official in charge of drawing up that dossier"
  and an "intelligence service source", implying a member of the JIC or assessments staff who would be in a position to know. If true, it would have meant that I had indeed misled the House on 24 September and the country, that I had done so deliberately, and that I had behaved wholly improperly in respect of the intelligence services.
  From that day, 29 May, onwards, that story in one form or another has been replayed many times in the UK, and around the world. It dominated my press conference the next day in Poland, and Prime Minister's questions when I returned. It led that week to the Foreign Affairs Committee deciding to conduct an inquiry into the issue. In particular, on the Sunday following the story, Mr. Gilligan wrote an article in The Mail on Sunday, not merely standing by the story but naming Alistair Campbell as the person responsible in Downing street. The headline read:
  "I asked my intelligence source why Blair misled us all over Saddam's weapons. His reply? One word…CAMPBELL".
  That, again, was completely untrue, and not merely stood up but further inflamed the original allegation of deceit.

  339
  The BBC has never clearly and visibly withdrawn this allegation. This has allowed others to say repeatedly that I lied and misled Parliament over the 24 September dossier. Let me make one thing plain: it is absolutely right that people can question whether the intelligence received was right, and why we have not yet found weapons of mass destruction. There is an entirely legitimate argument about the wisdom of the conflict. I happen to believe now, as I did in March, that removing Saddam has made the world a safer and better place. But others are entirely entitled to disagree.
  However, all of this is of a completely different order from a charge of deception, of duplicity, of deceit—a charge that I or anyone else deliberately falsified intelligence. The truth about that charge is now found. No intelligence was inserted into the dossier by Downing street; nothing was put in it against the wishes of the intelligence services; no one, either in Downing street or in the Joint Intelligence Committee, put any intelligence into it,
  "probably knowing it was wrong";
  and no such claim to the BBC was made by anyone
  "in charge of drawing up the dossier".
  Indeed, Lord Hutton's findings go further. He finds that the claim was not even made by Dr. Kelly himself.
  The allegation that I or anyone else lied to this House or deliberately misled the country by falsifying intelligence on WMD is itself the real lie. I simply ask that those who have made it and repeated it over all these months now withdraw it fully, openly and clearly. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Prime Minister speak.
  The Prime Minister: Furthermore, Lord Hutton deals with the issue of the 45 minutes claim. Instead of this, as has been claimed, being disputed by the intelligence services and inserted in the dossier at the behest of Alastair Campbell or Downing street, the true position was that a concern about it and how it was phrased in the dossier was raised by Dr. Jones in the defence intelligence staff, was rejected by the head of defence intelligence and never actually came to the attention of the chairman of the JIC, let alone anyone in Downing street.
  In any event, Dr. Jones—again contrary to reports—did not say it should have been omitted from the dossier. On the contrary, Dr. Jones thought it should be included as it was "important intelligence". Dr. Jones told the inquiry that Dr. Kelly thought the dossier was, and I quote, "good" and Mr. A, from the counter-proliferation arms control department, said of himself and Dr. Kelly:
  "Both of us believed that if you took the dossier as a whole it was a reasonable and accurate reflection of the intelligence that we had available to us at that time."
  Lord Hutton does fairly comment:
  "However I consider that the possibility cannot be completely ruled out that the desire of the Prime Minister to have a dossier which, whilst consistent with the available intelligence, was as strong as possible in relation to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's WMD, may have sub-consciously influenced Mr
  340
  Scarlett and other members of the JIC to make the wording of the dossier somewhat stronger than it would have been if it had been contained in a normal JIC assessment".
  However, he then goes on to say:
  "Although this possibility cannot be completely ruled out, I am satisfied that Mr Scarlett, the other members of the JIC, and the members of the assessment staff engaged in the drafting of the dossier were concerned to ensure that the contents of the dossier were consistent with the intelligence available to the JIC."
  Lord Hutton also says, in terms, that John Scarlett
  "only accepted those suggestions which were consistent with the intelligence known to the JIC and he rejected those suggestions which were not consistent with such intelligence."
  I hope that from now on the wholly unjustified attacks on the chairman of the JIC, John Scarlett, and the JIC will cease. Those people are people dedicated to this country and its well-being. The publication of intelligence by the Government—which we did, let me remind the House, because of the clamour for it—was a unique exercise never done before, and difficult for all our agencies. But in the interests of openly sharing intelligence with people, they worked hard in good faith to release it properly.
  Let me also remind the House that when this dossier was published, it was routinely described at the time as "low key" and by Mr. Gilligan, no less, on 24 September 2002 as "sensibly cautious and measured"; and actually moved public opinion hardly at all. Only in retrospect has it been elevated into the single thing that conclusively persuaded a reluctant country to war.
  The dossier itself reflected independent reports such as that of the International Institute of Strategic Studies published on 9 September. It reflected precisely that evidence which led the UN Security Council unanimously in November 2002 to agree Saddam and his weapons posed a threat to the world. The 45 minutes claim, for the record, was in fact mentioned once by me in my statement in this House on 24 September and not mentioned by me again in any debate, not even in the debate on 18 March or indeed by anyone else in that debate. Again, only in retrospect has history been rewritten to establish it as the one crucial claim that marched the nation into conflict. Lord Hutton establishes clearly why the 45 minutes was put in the dossier, what its provenance wasߞand whether or not subsequently it turned out to be correct. It finds it was put into the dossier entirely in good faith by the JIC. So much for the first charge of dishonesty over the dossier.
  The second charge was over the naming of Dr. Kelly. Again, throughout these past six months, the context in which this has been debated has largely been that Dr. Kelly's name should not have been revealed, it should have remained confidential and therefore anyone, including myself, who discussed or acted upon the issue was acting improperly.
  In hindsight, of course, the name of Dr. Kelly and his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee has taken on a different and altogether more tragic aspect. Rightly, Lord Hutton puts it back into its proper contemporary context. The truth is that, by early July, the FAC was actively engaged in examining the truth of the Gilligan allegations and due to report on 7 July. The Intelligence and Security Committee was about to begin its

  341
  deliberations the same week. The Government had already given evidence to the FAC and all of us, myself included, were due to give evidence to the ISC, beginning with the chairman of the JIC on 9 July.
  Suddenly in late June, Dr. Kelly came forward and said to his managers that he believed he might have been at least part of the source for the Gilligan story. That information was given to me personally on 3 July. By Monday 7 July, it was apparent that in all likelihood he was indeed the source of the Gilligan story. The dilemma we were in, therefore, as Lord Hutton accepts, was how we could possibly keep that information secret not just from the FAC, which had just taken evidence on that very point, but also from the ISC, who were about to interview us all about the intelligence relating to Iraq, with the first session on the morning of 9 July.
  The evidence, very frankly given, of both my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the FAC, and at least one of the Committee's members, was that if they had been told that the MOD knew the source and had interviewed him, the FAC would have wanted to do the same—as, of course, they did. Indeed, they told the Hutton inquiry that they would have liked to have been told sooner.
  The context therefore for the meetings on 7 and 8 July, which I chaired, was how to act properly in relation to those two Committees when we were in possession of information plainly relevant to their inquiries and when one Committee was on the point of publication and another was about to begin proceedings.
  The evidence of Sir David Omand to Lord Hutton was that it would be "improper" to keep this information secret and that moreover we were under a duty to reveal it to Parliament. So, as Lord Hutton accepts, the whole basis of the claim that somehow Dr. Kelly should never have been named or that his name was leaked in breach of a duty of confidentiality is based on a false premise. On the contrary, our duty was to disclose his name to the Committees and to allow them to interview him if they so wished; and Lord Hutton finds expressly that our concern at being accused of misleading those Committees was "well-founded".
  In any event, again as Lord Hutton finds, no one in fact "leaked" his name—not myself, not the Secretary of State, not the officials. As Lord Hutton finds, the decision by the Ministry of Defence to confirm Dr. Kelly's name, if the correct name was put to it by a journalist, was based on the view that in a matter of such intense public and media interest it would not be sensible to try to conceal it.
  So, there was no dishonourable or underhand or duplicitous strategy to name Dr. Kelly. He was named for the reason we gave. And again I ask that those who have repeatedly claimed that I lied over this issue or that Sir Kevin Tebbit lied, now withdraw that allegation also—unequivocally and in full.
  Lord Hutton does, however, find that the Ministry of Defence was at fault in not telling Dr. Kelly clearly and immediately that his name would be confirmed to the press if it were put to the MOD. The MOD accepts these findings. However, Lord Hutton goes on to say:
  "However these criticisms are subject to the mitigating circumstances that (1) Dr Kelly's exposure to press attention and intrusion, whilst obviously very stressful, was only one of the factors placing him under greater stress; (2) individual officials in the MOD did try to help and support him in the ways which I have
  342
  described in paragraphs 430 and 431; and (3) because of his intensely private nature, Dr Kelly was not an easy man to help or to whom to give advice."
  I believe that the civil servants concerned were acting in good faith, doing their best in difficult and unusual circumstances. Lord Hutton indeed has not criticised any individuals in the MOD. Some have been subject to trenchant media criticisms far beyond anything that they should ever have had to bear. So has Sir Kevin Tebbit and so has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Both are cleared of any allegations of impropriety. My right hon. Friend in particular has been subject to a constant barrage of such claims as parts of the media have alternated between wanting his scalp or mine. I hope that these attacks on him also over this issue now cease.
  I come to the final issue: the cause of Dr. Kelly's death; in effect, why he took his own life, since it is now beyond doubt that he did.
  Lord Hutton finds that no one could have foreseen that Dr. Kelly would commit suicide. He finds further that, in all probability, he did not decide to do so until the day of his death. He finds that the reason he did so was not for any reason of conspiracy or dark motives. The truth is that Dr. Kelly did speak to Mr Gilligan, and, whatever the distortion, it was an unauthorised meeting, as was his conversation with Susan Watts, the "Newsnight" journalist; and he was surprised to be asked about this at the Foreign Affairs Committee. Lord Hutton finds that the existence of a note of that conversation must have weighed heavily on his mind. Finally, on the day of his death he received notice of a series of parliamentary questions about his contacts, which he was going to have to answer.
  Dr. Kelly was a decent man, whose very decency made him feel wretched about the situation in which he found himself.
  No one wished this tragedy to happen. All of us felt, and feel still, desperately sorry for Mrs. Kelly and her family. None of us could have foreseen it, because none of us, at that time, knew what Dr. Kelly knew.
  Lord Hutton puts it in this way at paragraph 15 of his report:
  "I also consider it to be important to state in this early part of the report that I am satisfied that none of the persons whose decisions and actions I later describe ever contemplated that Dr Kelly might take his own life. I am further satisfied that none of those persons was at fault in not contemplating that Dr Kelly might take his own life. Whatever pressures and strains Dr Kelly was subjected to by the decisions and actions taken in the weeks before his death, I am satisfied that no one realised or should have realised that those pressures and strains might drive him to take his own life or contribute to his decision to do so."
  In conclusion, I repeat what Lord Hutton said in his summary, at page 322 of his report:
  "The communication by the media of information (including information obtained by investigative reporters) on matters of public interest and importance is a vital part of life in a democratic society. However the right to communicate such information is subject to the qualification (which itself exists for the benefit of a democratic society) that false accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others, including politicians, should not be made by the media."
  That is how this began: with an accusation that was false then and is false now.

  343
  We can have the debate about the war, about weapons of mass destruction, and about intelligence. But we do not need to conduct it by accusations of lies and deceit. We can respect each other's motives and integrity, even when in disagreement.
  Let me repeat the words of Lord Hutton:
  "false accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others…should not be made".
  Let those who made them now withdraw them.
  Mr. Michael Howard rose—
  Hon. Members: Withdraw!
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Howard: David Kelly was a fine public servant, who did an immense amount of public good for this country, and I am sure would have done so again in the future. I pay tribute to his memory. I pay tribute, too, to Mrs. Kelly and her family, who have behaved with great dignity throughout the events of the last six months.
  I also thank Lord Hutton for his report. We accept his conclusions. The report is about the chain of events which started with the publication of a dossier, led to a feud between the Government and the BBC, and then finally to the death of a distinguished scientist in the Oxfordshire countryside.
  The report's findings about the BBC speak for themselves. We have long argued that the board of governors cannot both run and regulate the BBC. Does the Prime Minister agree that the case for independent regulation of the BBC has never been stronger?
  At the beginning of his report Lord Hutton refers to the controversy and debate about weapons of mass destruction—whether they exist, and what the Government told the country in the run-up to the war. Lord Hutton is quite clear that these issues are beyond his remit. Will the Prime Minister therefore now undertake to establish—
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister was heard. It is only right and proper that the Leader of the Opposition be heard.
  Mr. Howard rose—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not tolerate anyone shouting, including Ministers.
  Mr. Howard: Will the Prime Minister now undertake to establish an independent inquiry into these wider questions? That kind of inquiry took place after the Falklands War. Is not the case for holding such an inquiry now overwhelming?
  Lord Hutton finds, in paragraph 228(8) of his report, that on one level the September dossier was indeed sexed up. In paragraph 228(7) he says that he cannot rule out the possibility that the Prime Minister's attitude
  344
  "may have subconsciously influenced Mr. Scarlett"—[Interruption.]
  That is what he says:
  "and the other members of the JIC to make the wording of the dossier somewhat stronger than it would have been if it had been contained in a normal JIC assessment."
  Is that not a very serious finding indeed? Does it not go to the heart of the reliance which can be placed on any published intelligence material in future—at least while the right hon. Gentleman remains Prime Minister? And does the right hon. Gentleman now agree with the evidence of the head of the Secret Intelligence Service that, with the benefit of hindsight, the 45-minute claim was given undue prominence in the September dossier?
  Lord Hutton chooses his words very carefully—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I say again that I will not allow shouting. If I see an hon. Member shouting, I will ask that person to leave the Chamber. The leader of the Opposition must be heard.
  Mr. Howard: Lord Hutton expressly finds, at paragraphs 402 and 403 of his report, that there was no conflict between what Sir Kevin Tebitt said to the inquiry and what the Prime Minister said to the inquiry. As the Prime Minister well knows, the questions I have put to him are about what he said on the plane to Hong Kong and eventually repeated in this House. On that, Lord Hutton merely says, in very carefully worded language, at paragraph 411:
  "the answers given by the Prime Minister to members of the press in the aeroplane cast no light on the issues about which I have heard a large volume of evidence."
  Of course they do not. Lord Hutton never heard evidence about what was said on the aeroplane. The Prime Minister never sent him a transcript of what he said on the aeroplane. If he had not been sent it by one of my right hon. Friends, Lord Hutton might never have even seen that transcript. Lord Hutton says, at paragraph 416 of his report,
  "I am satisfied that the decision to issue the statement which said that a civil servant. who was not named, had come forward was taken by the Prime Minister at a meeting in 10 Downing Street on 8 July".
  So the Prime Minister chaired the meeting that decided to issue that press release. That press release led inevitably to the naming of David Kelly. David Kelly knew that, and it says so in the report, at paragraph 439. The Ministry of Defence knew that. It says so in the report, at paragraph 409. Alastair Campbell knew that. That is why he wrote in his diary, "That meant do it as a press release." Anyone with any sense would know that if one issues a press release like that, the name will come out. That is why the press got David Kelly's name the very next day.
  Is the Prime Minister the only person who thought that issuing that press release would not lead to the naming of David Kelly? Is that what he is asking us to believe? Is he really that naive? Is it not clear to everyone that the release of the statement, authorised by the Prime Minister, led inevitably to the naming of David Kelly? Is the Prime Minister really telling the House that he had no idea that that would happen?

  345
  Listen to what Lord Hutton said at paragraph 407. He said:
  "The issuing of the statement authorised by the Prime Minister did give rise to the questions by the press as to the identity of the civil servant and these questions led on to the MoD confirming Dr Kelly's name".
  It is no wonder that Lord Hutton says that there was no plan or strategy to do this covertly. There did not need to be. It was all going to happen anyway, as night follows day, all because of the decision made by the Prime Minister. The best that can be said about the answer that the Prime Minister gave on the plane, and repeated in this House, is that it is at odds with what Lord Hutton concludes.
  When all is said and done, I suspect that what will remain in people's minds is the blinding light that this inquiry has shed on the innermost workings of the Prime Minister and his Government. Is not the picture painted in that evidence an extraordinarily vivid one? Vital meetings are unminuted, crucial telephone calls are unrecorded. In Lord Hutton's words in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the notes made by private secretaries were
  "very sparse and of no relevance."
  Whatever happened to the recommendations made by the Hammond inquiry into the Hinduja passports affair? [Interruption.] Oh, yes—just listen. That report, given to the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Howard: That report, given to the Prime Minister five years ago, recommended that proper records were taken of meetings and telephone conversations between Ministers and their advisers. Why has nothing been done to implement those recommendations? What a picture the evidence to the Hutton inquiry portrayed of the state of mind of the Prime Minister's closest advisers and confidantes.
  Alastair Campbell wrote in his diary:
  "The biggest thing needed was the source out."
  And what was the reason for this? The reason, as he agreed with the Secretary of State for Defence, was that that would stuff Gilligan. "Stuff", of course, was not the word that he used. I cannot repeat in the House the language used by the man hand-picked by the Prime Minister to be his director of communications.
  The Secretary of State for Defence said that he had made great efforts to ensure Dr. Kelly's anonymity, yet he agreed to a course of action that he knew would lead to the naming of Dr. Kelly, he did not bother to tell David Kelly what he was going to do, he did not tell David Kelly that he would be named, and he did not give David Kelly the support that he needed as he was thrown into the media frenzy. Is not the Hutton report quite clear on this point? Paragraph 432 says:
  "the MoD was at fault in the procedure which it adopted in relation to Dr Kelly after the decision had been taken to release the statement."
  The Secretary of State for Defence then went to great lengths to deny what he had done. He denied it on television immediately afterwards and he denied it to the inquiry. He said that he had made great efforts to ensure Dr. Kelly's anonymity.
  346
  Is not there the starkest contrast between David Kelly, the dedicated scientist and weapons inspector who had done so much for our country, and the cabal of Ministers and advisers, including the Prime Minister himself, which was so obsessed with its war with the BBC that it gave scant attention to his welfare? Is not there the starkest contrast between the hours and days that it spent working out different ways of releasing his name to the media, and the two and half minutes that it spent informing him of the consequences of its actions?
  No one in Government can look back on this episode with pride. The nation will in due course deliver its verdict. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If this conduct continues, there is a danger that I will have to suspend the House, and I do not want to have to do that. Nor do I want hissing throughout the Chamber. I can tell some hon. Ladies that they are close to being asked to withdraw from the Chamber. The behaviour of this gathering is important, particularly to the Kelly family.
  The Prime Minister: Let me first deal with one or two points of detail. First, as the right hon. and learned Member knows, there will be a thorough review of the BBC's charter and all these issues should be considered in the course of that.
  Secondly, I have nothing to add to what I said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman earlier in the day on the inquiry, other than to say also that the Iraq survey group should be able to complete its work.
  Thirdly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the subconscious of the chairman of the JIC, which was mentioned in paragraph 228(8). The report goes on to say that Lord Hutton finds specifically that there was no improper interference, nor was any intelligence put in the dossier that should not have been.
  As for the 45-minute claim, Lord Hutton finds specifically, as he was bound to do from the evidence, that any doubt that occurred in one part of the Defence Intelligence Staff was never actually put to the JIC chairman, never mind to myself as Prime Minister.
  In relation to the plane and the naming of Dr. Kelly, let me read the rather fuller version of what Lord Hutton says. On page 323, he says:
  "On the issue whether the Government behaved in a way which was dishonourable or underhand or duplicitous in revealing Dr Kelly's name to the media my conclusions are as follows:
  (i) There was no dishonourable or underhand or duplicitous strategy by the Government covertly to leak Dr Kelly's name to the media."
  If the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he agrees with the report's conclusions, how on earth could he make the allegations that he does?
  Lord Hutton goes on to say:
  "I consider that in the midst of a major controversy relating to Mr Gilligan's broadcasts which had contained very grave allegations against the integrity of the Government and fearing that Dr Kelly's name as the source for those broadcasts would be disclosed by the media at any time, the Government's main concern was that it would be charged with a serious cover up if it did not reveal that a civil servant had come forward."
  He concludes by saying:
  "It was reasonable for the Government to take the view that, even if it sought to keep confidential the fact that Dr Kelly had come forward, the controversy surrounding Mr. Gilligan's

  347
  broadcasts was so great and the level of media interest was so intense that Dr. Kelly's name as Mr Gilligan's source was bound to become known to the public and that it was not a practical possibility to keep his name secret."
  I was going to say that I expected, but actually I did not expect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman to respond to this in a measured and sensible way. It is a severe lack of judgment that he did not. As he knows perfectly well, the allegations of impropriety or dishonesty have been found not to be true. That is absolutely clear from Lord Hutton's findings. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might therefore have had the decency to come to the Dispatch Box and withdraw the allegation about lying to the House over weapons of mass destruction which he made last August, and his statement that I or Sir Kevin Tebbit lied, which he made when he questioned me in the House a few weeks ago.
  If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had really wanted to respond to this in a sensible way, he would have done so. I simply say to him that yesterday was test of policy for him, and he failed it, and today is a test of character, and he has failed that too. What he should understand is that being nasty is not the same as being effective, and opportunism is not the same as leadership.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: We express our gratitude to Lord Hutton and his colleagues for their very thorough work, and we extend our sympathy to the family of the late Dr. David Kelly.
  The Prime Minister has acknowledged that several constructive lessons emerge from the inquiry's completion, and it is surely sensible, therefore, to reflect on the need for the actions that need to flow from those lessons. Lord Hutton's report, without doubt, sheds considerable light on the key workings at the top of this Government. Lord Hutton acknowledges in paragraph 9 the tightness of the remit set for him by the Government which excludes, for example, specific consideration of matters ranging from the reliability of the intelligence material to the 45-minute assertion. Lord Hutton is therefore explicit, at the beginning of the report, about the fact that it necessarily leaves unanswered the most fundamental question of all, which is of course the basis on which this country went to that war in Iraq.
  Incidentally, listening to what has just been said, I have to reflect and remark on the fact that, if I may put this in the terms used by Lord Hutton in a different context, the leader of the Conservative party almost seems to have subconsciously forgotten the support that he expressed for that war at the time.
  The question for the House, surely, is whether there was adequate justification for the Government to seek the endorsement of the House of Commons on the basis that they did for our forces to go to war in Iraq without the express approval of the United Nations. In the absence of the discovery of weapons of mass destruction, surely as things stand today the decision and judgment on that question would have to be no. The Prime Minister, as he himself said in his statement, cannot therefore dodge or escape profound questions about the basis on which his judgment was made.
  348
  The Prime Minister referred to the relationship between the intelligence services and Downing street, and he read those carefully crafted words of Lord Hutton about that. Surely the way in which business has been done on this issue between the intelligence services and No. 10 will have to lead to some reassessment as a result of what has been learned through the inquiry. A prime lesson in the middle of all this has to be that the independence of the Joint Intelligence Committee has to remain sacrosanct and must not be seen to be compromised, and the JIC must not become embroiled in the presentation of a policy of the Government of the day, as opposed to informing the intelligence basis on which that policy is arrived at. That is a most important principle.
  There are also big questions over the way in which Downing street is now seen to operate, as a result of what has come out. In the report, the role of the Cabinet Secretary as all these vital decisions are arrived at seems almost to have been supplanted by the role of Alastair Campbell. Is that something that the House can be sanguine about? Is that something that should ever be allowed to happen again?
  The Prime Minister has acknowledged the fair criticisms of the role of the Ministry of Defence in paragraph 432 of the report. He used the word "mitigation" of the description of the MOD's role. Let us remind ourselves specifically of what Lord Hutton said. He said three things. First, it would have been better to name Dr. Kelly with his consent. Secondly, it would have been better to tell him to his face that it was the intention of the MOD and the Government generally to do so. Thirdly, that decision, having been conveyed to Dr. Kelly, should have been delayed for 24 hours to give time to advise him about the intense press interest that was likely to arise, and to allow to him to consider whether he wished to move house or wanted a press officer sent to his home. Does the Prime Minister really think that sufficient duty of care was extended to Dr. Kelly on that basis?
  On the position of the BBC, Lord Hutton confirms serious management failures at senior levels within the corporation. The BBC is a globally respected organisation, and many of us would argue, deservedly so. However, trust must be an essential element of its trade, and on this issue it is clear that senior personnel failed in that respect. Does the Prime Minister therefore agree that as a result of the report we require reassurance that BBC management are putting in place mechanisms to ensure that the editorial shortcomings to which the report refers are not repeated? In the light of what he said a moment ago, can he also reassure all of us who value the integrity of the BBC that this matter should not be used by those who seek to undermine the integrity or independence of the BBC when it comes to licence fee renewal and its independence of funding and function?
  At the time of the publication of the dossier that gave rise to the high-profile recall of Parliament, the Prime Minister wrote in his introduction to that dossier about the
  "current and serious threat to the UK national interest"
  posed by Saddam and his possession of weapons of mass destruction. For those of us who were less than convinced at that point—that does not include either the

  349
  previous or the current leadership of the Conservative party—the key questions remain outstanding. Why was the decision to go to war at that point taken on the available information? Should not the United Nations weapons inspectorate have been given more time? Does not the case for an independent inquiry remain paramount?
  On 18 March 2003, this House debated an all-party amendment to which my party put all our names. It stated that the House
  "believes that the case for war…has not yet been established",—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 779.]
  The sad truth of the outcome of the Hutton inquiry is that as of today—nearly one year later—nothing fundamental has changed.
  The Prime Minister: To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, he has not made allegations of lying against me personally throughout the past few months. Because of the position that he took on the war, he is obviously in a stronger position to ask some of those questions than the Leader of the Opposition.
  Nobody was actually in any doubt about the threat that Saddam posed, and I shall quote the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore):
  "Saddam must be disarmed and his evil regime with it. Nobody disputes that."—[Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 288.]
  I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman's view was that the matter should have been dealt with differently, but we should not rewrite history by saying that it was only this side, or even only this and that side, who said that Saddam Hussein posed a threat—everybody accepted that he posed a threat.
  Of course, we will reflect very carefully on the lessons that the report outlines for us, and that is absolutely right. Incidentally, the term "mitigation" in relation to the Ministry of Defence personnel who handled Dr. Kelly is Lord Hutton's term.
  On the Joint Intelligence Committee, I agree that its independence should be fully upheld, but I point out that Lord Hutton's report makes it clear that that independence was not compromised by the Government and that no intelligence was inserted in the dossier against the committee's wishes.
  I want to draw attention to this issue: the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that at one point the report—Alastair Campbell accepted this in his evidence—states that in hindsight it might well have been better to name Dr. Kelly in the statement or 24 hours later. However, the crucial point is that the whole of the allegation about the naming of Dr. Kelly has proceeded on the basis that his name should have been kept confidential. The important finding that Lord Hutton makes is that his name should not have been kept confidential. That puts the issue in an entirely different context.
  Finally, I am sure that the BBC will make its own response. I want to make it clear that I have never questioned and would never question the independence of the BBC, but it is not inconsistent with its independence also to exercise proper editorial control over serious allegations.
  Donald Anderson: Was it not a sad sight to see the Leader of the Opposition scratching around for minor qualifications in a report that on any objective analysis exonerates my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and undermines those who, for many months, have sought to impugn his integrity? Would it not now be more constructive for press, public and Parliament to concentrate on reconciliation and reconstruction in Iraq, with a new focus that could transform that country from being a danger to its neighbours, the world and its own people into a model for its region?
  The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend says. I would add only that we should once again state the House's pride in the work that British troops and civilians are doing in Iraq alongside troops and civilians from some 30 different countries to rebuild that country, giving its people every day an increasingly better chance of prosperity and stability in the future.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: While the Prime Minister is correct in saying that the words were carefully chosen and there were mitigating factors, does he not genuinely think that somebody should accept some responsibility for the clear accusation on page 324 of the report that
  "the MoD was at fault and is to be criticised for not informing Dr Kelly that its press office would confirm his name"?
  It also says that that
  "must have been a great shock and very upsetting for him".
  Surely the right thing is for the Prime Minister to say clearly and precisely that the Ministry of Defence was wrong and made a mistake, and that somebody should accept some responsibility.
  The Prime Minister: We accept entirely those findings, and the Ministry of Defence has made that clear and is obviously sorry for the distress that was caused to Dr. Kelly as a result. What is important, however, is also to draw attention to what Lord Hutton says are the three mitigating circumstances, and it is therefore right that the Ministry of Defence accepts full responsibility—as indeed do the Government—but that we recognise the mitigating circumstances. Lord Hutton expressly found that it was not wrong, but was actually right that the name came out.
  Ann Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of Members of Parliament are grateful for the thorough work that Lord Hutton has done and that the public will set more store by his judgments than the wriggling comments from the Leader of the Opposition? Does my right hon. Friend accept that that the findings of Lord Hutton parallel closely the findings of the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and will he confirm that the Government will be able to produce their response to that report in advance of the debate next Wednesday, because it is clearly relevant? Will he also recommend to

  351
  the House that all Members who consider themselves informed on the matter should read the report by the Intelligence and Security Committee, which confirms what Lord Hutton said—that the dossier was not sexed up by anyone and that there was no political pressure whatever on the Joint Intelligence Committee?
  The Prime Minister: I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that she does as Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I hope and believe that we will produce our response to her report prior to the debate next week. Of course she is right to draw attention to the fact that Lord Hutton's report confirms the findings of her Committee, which is no doubt why those findings received publicity for other reasons on the day that they were published. It is right that everybody who has considered the issue has concluded, as they were bound to do from the evidence, that the original claim made against the Government was false.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Lord Hutton deserves all our thanks for the incisive conclusions that he has reached, which I hope will achieve closure on the matter, not least for my constituents, the Kelly family, to whom all our hearts go out. On the question of the cause or causes of Dr. Kelly's death, which do not in my view include the disclosure of his name—which he knew to be inevitable and inescapable—the BBC has admitted that Mr. Gilligan's broadcast was wrong, and Lord Hutton has concluded that the BBC did not exercise proper editorial control. Does the Prime Minister agree that if Mr. Gilligan had not felt encouraged to make the gravest allegations as a matter of routine, my constituent Dr. Kelly would still be alive today?
  The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman said about Mrs. Kelly and the Kelly family. I also agree with what he said at the conclusion of his question. It is important that there be reflection on how such allegations come to be routinely made, as there is absolutely no need for that. As I said earlier, a perfectly sensible debate can be had; it is one to which I think the public would respond with rather greater enjoyment and depth, if it was conducted on the basis that there can be two views about Iraq and the justification for the conflict. I have never disrespected anyone who took a different view, and I certainly do not disrespect those people who ask searching and proper questions about what has happened to weapons of mass destruction. I entirely accept that, but it has always been a completely different issue from suggesting that I, the intelligence services, or anyone else in government deliberately set out to mislead people. It simply is not necessary for the debate to be conducted in those terms. Frankly, if I may put it like this: the contrast between the journalism exemplified by Mr. Gilligan and that exemplified by Susan Watts tells its own tale.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Does my right hon. Friend share the concern, at least on the Labour Benches, that the Leader of the Opposition did not find it within himself today to come to the House and apologise—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should put a question on the report. This is not a time to attack any Member of the House. He must put a question regarding the report.
  Mr. Ross: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following the publication of the report, it is time to stop arguing about whether a document was right or wrong? The responsibility of the House is to help to rebuild Iraq.
  The Prime Minister: I agree. Whatever the questions, I hope that at least the major part of our focus is on the reconstruction of Iraq and I thank my hon. Friend for his support.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: As Lord Hutton makes clear on pages 2 and 3, he was asked to investigate the circumstances of a personal tragedy, not the issue of weapons of mass destruction, so when the Prime Minister's chief of staff wrote to John Scarlett on 17 September 2002 that
  "We will need to make it clear in launching the document that we do not claim that we have evidence that he"—
  Saddam Hussein—
  "is an imminent threat",
  does the Prime Minister feel that, in the words he chose when speaking to the House about the foreword one week later, he followed that sensible advice?
  The Prime Minister: I do believe that I followed entirely the right and proper course in the statement that I made to the House. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in relation not just to the dossier itself but also to its foreword, Lord Hutton specifically finds that no improper pressure was put on the Joint Intelligence Committee and that it was satisfied not only with the document but also that the foreword properly reflected the intelligence evidence it had received. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that Lord Hutton found the accusations of lack of integrity not to be true.
  Mr. George Howarth: Now that my right hon. Friend has been exonerated from any allegation of impropriety, untruth or dishonour, does he not believe—along with me—that the public will draw a stark contrast between his measured response in the Chamber today and the response of those who have made such allegations in this place, who have tried today to wriggle and squirm around the report, have lifted sections of it out of context and have shown that they—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want the Prime Minister to respond to that. The Prime Minister has made a statement and the questions should be on that statement.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the Prime Minister agree that Lord Hutton, in his

  353
  long statement earlier today and in his report, makes two things abundantly plain? The first is that the death of Dr. Kelly was a great personal tragedy, but not a great public scandal. The other is that those who have charge of our public service broadcasting should really consider their position.
  The Prime Minister: I want to add only this to what the hon. Gentleman has said: he has been exemplary throughout in drawing the right distinction between legitimate questions about the conflict and accusations of impropriety that should never have been made.
  Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: In the Prime Minister's statement he referred to page 19 of Lord Hutton's report, which specifically refers to the editorial systems needed to ensure that what we believe to be in the best interests of a democracy—that is, not impugning anyone's integrity, especially that of our Government and the Prime Minister—are in place. What does the Prime Minister believe that the governors of the BBC and the rest of the British media should now do to ensure that that happens?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that the lessons of this will be reflected on carefully by the BBC. It is important, in all the focus that there will inevitably be on the procedures of the BBC, that we make it clear that there is sometimes a strain of journalism—certainly not shared by all journalists or all parts of the media—that is willing to make some of these accusations far too readily. I hope that that reflection will go a little bit broader than the BBC.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Once the decision was made to name Dr. Kelly, did not the Prime Minister share the great unease about the cat-and-mouse process involving the 20 questions asked by The Times newspaper, for example, in order to identify a public servant? It does not seem straightforward, and it leaves unease in one's mind.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should study the part of Lord Hutton's report in which he says that he first came to this issue asking precisely that question, and heard the evidence explaining exactly why this was done. Let me go back to the situation on 7 and 8 July, because the context is extremely important. What had happened was, we had known literally at the very last minute that someone had come forward saying that they might be the source. We did not in fact know whether they were, but we increasingly believed as the days went on that they were. We had the Foreign Affairs Committee literally about to report on 7 July. On 9 July, the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, John Scarlett, was due to give evidence. I was due to give evidence, too. I was also in front of the Liaison Committee on 8 July.
  As was described not merely by me but by the civil servants, Sir David Omand and Sir Kevin Tebbit, there was a dilemma as to whether to name somebody in circumstances in which we could not at that stage be absolutely sure—because the BBC was refusing to confirm even whether it was not the source, which would have cleared the matter entirely—or whether we had to
  354
  be careful about naming someone when we were not sure, and indeed given that other people then could be speculated upon.
  The reason for this way of proceeding, as was explained in the evidence, was that it became increasingly clear that there was a risk of the name leaking out in any event, and that there were other Ministry of Defence officials being harassed as the potential source. So that was the reason why it was done in that way. What Lord Hutton describes in the end is that process, and he concludes that it was conducted in good faith. I entirely accept what he says, that in retrospect it could have been done in a number of different ways. But in the end, one thing was for sure: the name was bound to come out because it would have been wholly improper for us to have realised that we had the person within the Ministry of Defence who was supposed to be the source of this story and not once disclose the fact that we knew that someone had come forward and admitted that, given that we had two Committees looking into it and we were going to go and give evidence to those Committees, and they were focusing on the truth or otherwise of the Gilligan claim. That is the reason for it. I think that the hon. Gentleman is a fair-minded person, and I would just ask him to read what Lord Hutton says about this in detail. I think that he will find it properly described.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Does not the Hutton report confirm what some of us have been reviled for saying for months, namely that the BBC broadcast a lie, that the chairman of the BBC railroaded an acquiescent board of governors into endorsing the lie, that Richard Sambrook withheld from the board of governors information showing it to be a lie, and that Kevin Marsh and John Humphrys endorsed and built on the lie? How can the BBC continue as a public service broadcasting organisation, funded by a tax, unless these people are cleared out and a new regime appointed?
  The Prime Minister: Well—[HON. MEMBERS: "Make him chairman!"] No, I shall not do that. I will simply say that I am sure that the BBC will reflect on the findings of the Hutton report. I also say to my right hon. Friend and to other hon. Members that there are some wider lessons, as well as those for the BBC. Although I am sure that the BBC will reflect on those lessons, there may be too great a willingness to focus only on the BBC, because it is not only particular journalists there who make such allegations at the drop of a hat and do not really bother to correct them once they are found to be untrue.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: As the leader of the largest party from Ulster, I should like to pay tribute to Lord Hutton, an Ulsterman. I congratulate him on the speed with which he brought his findings to this House and on the fact that one does not need to get a dictionary to understand what he is saying.
  The Prime Minister finished his speech by quoting Lord Hutton, who said:
  "false accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others…should not be made".

  355
  All right-thinking people in this House will agree with that. The Prime Minister finished his own statement by saying, "Let those who made them now withdraw them." No right-thinking person could disagree with that.
  The Prime Minister knows of the turmoil and division in the nation that this matter has caused, and now is the appropriate time for him to discuss with Her Majesty the Queen a national day of prayer that we may return to the old paths and remember this: that justice and judgment are an honour to a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.
  The Prime Minister: In relation to the hon. Gentleman's first point about his party, if he talks to the Conservative party he will discover that a large party can become smaller in time.
  In respect of the day of prayer, I do not think that I shall be suggesting that to Her Majesty, but what he says about the importance of allegations of impropriety being properly sustained or withdrawn must indeed be correct. We do not need to engage in a great deal of prayer to achieve that: we could achieve it perfectly simply if we merely acted on it.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: A great deal of time has rightly been spent on producing this report, because, tragically, a very well-respected civil servant died. Given the thousands who have died in Iraq since the invasion, and given the weight of evidence that we now have that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, will the Prime Minister now undertake to call an independent and non-partisan inquiry with terms of reference wide enough to allow us to discover why we went to war with Iraq? Millions of people opposed this illegal war. Do we not owe it to our democracy and to the citizens of this country to find out exactly why we went?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the last part of what my hon. Friend said.
  In relation to the first part, it is not the case that thousands of people are dying in Iraq, nor that anyone is dying in Iraq as a result of the way in which the coalition forces and the Iraqi civilian authority are behaving—on the contrary, they are doing their best to reconstruct that country. It is former Saddam sympathisers and assorted terrorist groups who are conducting terrorist operations and killing wholly innocent people, including members of the United Nations and, in particular, large numbers of Iraq citizens. Whatever my hon. Friend's thoughts about the war, I should think that she would agree that Iraq is a better place without Saddam, that the region is a better place without Saddam, and that the world is a better place without Saddam; and that we should now get on and help that country.
  Peter Bottomley: Lord Hutton ends his report by quoting Dr. Kelly's obituary on page 328. I think we should keep that in mind.
  May I now raise what appears to be a slightly unpopular subject in the Chamber today, that of journalists' standards and the BBC? May I ask the
  356
  Prime Minister to reflect on the BBC's letter of 30 May last year, which was sent in reply to a letter from the Downing street press office? It gives a clear summary of the BBC's response.
  May I also point out that the words of Andrew Gilligan at seven minutes past 6 o' clock, which he has not defended in full, seem to have led to the controversy? Does the Prime Minister accept that No. 10 could have calmed the whole thing down if it had not over-reacted, especially after the letter of 30 May?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid I do not accept that. I do not accept that this was not a claim that was not substantiated and was sustained over a long period by the BBC. The BBC did that, and the claim was then repeated and then taken up by newspapers. The truth is that it went very much into the public consciousness, and became virtually part of the accepted truth when in fact it was a complete untruth. If the hon. Gentleman looks in detail at what Lord Hutton says about these things, I think he will find a complete answer to the points he has made.
  Peter Bottomley indicated dissent.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I suggest he read the report as a whole. It is quite plain what Lord Hutton thinks.
  Alan Howarth: The public will indeed expect a significant response from the governors to Lord Hutton's serious criticisms of the BBC, but—saving the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) beside me—can my right hon. Friend assure the House that Lord Hutton's strictures against the BBC will not bias the Government in their consideration of the future of the charter and licence fee?
  The Prime Minister: I can give that assurance completely.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: The whole House mourns the loss of an outstanding servant of the nation, but many of us also greatly value the honour and integrity of the House. I am delighted that the Prime Minister will be pleased with the outcome of the Hutton report—it is a good thing to have this put behind us—but will he work with all Members, and particularly with the leaders of all political parties in the House, to uphold the honour and integrity of Parliament; otherwise people will lose confidence in this place? If there is one thing that I wish to do during my remaining time here, it is to enhance the honour and integrity of the House of Commons.
  The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I think that the vast majority of the House will agree with it. I only wish that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr.Howard) had said the same in responding to my statement. It would have been perfectly simple for him to say "We accept these questions about the Prime Minister's integrity being removed; now let us debate other issues." It is unfortunate that he did not do so,

  357
  because he left the impression—and meant to leave the impression—that there were still doubts about my integrity over this issue.
  Sir Stuart Bell: May I build on the question asked by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton)? Is not the kernel of the 740-page report contained in what Lord Hutton says about the best elements of democracy? Is it not the case that the bridge between the public servant and the public is the press? If that bridge is destroyed by falsehood, innuendo, unfounded allegations and attacks on the impunity of public servants are not the public worse served? Is it not appropriate for the sections of the press that indulge in such odious practices to cease to do so, so that our democracy can be stronger and that bridge between the public servant and the public can be restored?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that people will reflect on what Lord Hutton has said. Let me make it clear that I believe a vibrant, healthy and investigative press is precisely what a democracy like ours needs and should have. That is perfectly compatible with making allegations of impropriety only when they can be substantiated.
  Mr. David Trimble: I am sure the House will agree that the inquiry and the report are the very model of what a judicial inquiry should be, and that Lord Hutton deserves our thanks. I also agree with Labour Members that there is a clear need for a radical response from the BBC to the cogent criticisms that have been made. I am sure the House will return to that on Wednesday.
  The Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary can rightly feel that they have been vindicated in the report because it is clear that they acted properly in handling the dossier and the intelligence material. I have no regrets about my support and that of my colleagues for the war. It was the right thing to do and events since the war have, if anything, vindicated that.
  However, I have a concern about the intelligence material. I appreciate that other intelligence agencies and the Security Council were of the same view as our intelligence services, but there must be serious concern about whether the intelligence services had an accurate picture of the position at the time. I suggest to the Prime Minister that it would be a good idea to examine the way in which we could have some sort of consideration of or
  358
  inquiry into the accuracy of the intelligence that our intelligence services gave him. I do not suggest any impropriety, but there must be a lingering anxiety about the reliability of the intelligence and we need to consider the way in which we can ensure that we get the best possible intelligence in future.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has put his comments moderately and sensibly. I agree that there must be consideration of such issues, which I think will be informed by the final report of the Iraq survey group because it will say, "This is what we have found in Iraq." The information that has already come out is more balanced than people are saying. However, I agree that, at that point, it will be sensible to consider the lessons that can be learned.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There will be a debate on the matter next week.
  Hugh Bayley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Inaccurate and sloppy media reporting, sometimes provoked by hon. Members' inaccurate and sloppy statements, has not only falsely impugned the integrity of a Prime Minister but called into question the effectiveness of the House and the quality of the scrutiny of the Government by our Committees and hon. Members. When you have the opportunity to read the report, will you ask your staff to compare Lord Hutton's conclusions with statements by hon. Members? If there is any case in which an hon. Member appears to have misled the House, will you have a private conversation with that Member about the advisability of making a personal statement?
  Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the matter.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 29th January, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Peter Hain relating to the House of Commons Members Estimate and Bicycle and Motorcycle Mileage Allowances not later than Six o'clock; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the Questions may be put after the moment of interruption; and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply.—[Mr. Ainger.]

  Brain Injury Rehabilitation (Funding)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  3.17 pm
  Mrs. Iris Robinson: I welcome the opportunity to have the debate this afternoon—albeit a little earlier than I expected; indeed, I believe that the Minister too was caught unawares.
  The most recent statistics available show that 7,826 individuals presented with head injuries at the accident and emergency department of one of our major hospitals in Northern Ireland in 12 months. In that total, 2,417 adults, of whom three quarters were male, and 871 children required admission. Fifty-two per cent. of their head injuries were from falls, another 21 per cent. were from road traffic accidents and 18 per cent. were from assaults. Annual figures are not available for the entire Province, but those from the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast give us an indication of the large number of head injuries that occur.
  Acquired brain injury is responsible for 30 per cent. of all trauma-related deaths. We tend not to consider traumatic injuries in the same way as viruses, cancer or cardiac deaths, for instance, yet acquired brain injury is the leading cause of death in young males in developed countries. Two thirds of those affected are aged between 14 and 39. When a brain injury occurs, it can change the way in which a person thinks, acts, feels and moves his or her body. Brain injury can also change the complex internal functions of the body, such as regulating body temperature, blood pressure and bile, and bladder control. Those changes can be temporary or permanent. They may cause impairment or a complete inability to perform a function.
  An acquired brain injury occurs when an outside force impacts on the head hard enough to cause the brain to move in the skull, or when the brain is hurt directly if the force causes the skull to break. That type of injury can be caused by motor vehicle crashes, firearms, falls, sports and physical violence, such as being struck with an object. A rapid acceleration and deceleration of the head can force the brain to move back and forth across the inside of the skull. The stress from those rapid movements pulls apart nerve fibres and causes damage to brain tissue. Acquired brain injury takes place at cellular level in the brain, so it can affect cells throughout the entire brain, instead of just in specific areas.
  An acquired brain injury cannot be hereditary, congenital, degenerative or induced by brain trauma. It has occurred after birth and causes can include trauma to the head or neck, heart attack, stroke, intracranial surgery, airway obstruction, crush injuries, choking, strangulation, near-drowning, electrical shock, lightning strike, infectious disease, intracranial tumours, metabolic disorders, meningitis, certain venereal diseases, AIDS, insect-borne diseases, seizures, or toxic exposure to chemicals or gases, such as carbon monoxide poisoning.
  Reconnect is an organisation in Northern Ireland that provides training for those with complex neurological disability resulting from acquired brain injury. It aims to provide access of opportunity for that group of people. Reconnect's mission is
  360
  "to enable people with an acquired brain injury to realise their maximum potential for social and vocational reintegration, through structured training programmes based on the needs of the individual."
  I have had personal involvement in the case of one young man who suffered a severe head injury and benefited from the input of Reconnect. He was a civil servant in his 20s living my constituency, who suffered a head injury at a football match that led to him spending three weeks in a coma. He spent some time at the Joss Cardwell rehabilitation unit on Holywood road in Belfast. My office assisted him in securing benefits. His subsequent experience at Reconnect proved invaluable not just for himself, but for his young wife and their very young children. He continues to experience some difficulties, but manages to function at a reasonably high level today. If he had not had access to Reconnect at that time, his quality of life would have deteriorated owing to lack of stimulation.
  Reconnect came into existence under the name Garden Reach in 1991. Based on the Ormeau embankment in Belfast, it operated in modest surroundings and provided training and rehabilitation for those with acquired brain injury from two simple glasshouses and another two portakabins. That was the extent of its facilities.
  The original idea came from a physiotherapist who recognised that when patients in Northern Ireland left hospital after a traumatic head injury, no service was available to help them to piece their lives back together again. Sufferers from complex neurological disability therefore became socially excluded and lacking in confidence. As a result, they could not gain access to any of the limited services available and tended simply to sit in the house all day. Those who did gain access to services were likely to attend a day centre, where they had only limited interaction with elderly individuals. One important consequence of a lack of stimulation is regression from what has been achieved through the good work carried out by dedicated hospital rehab teams.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way on that point, because Garden Reach operated in my constituency until redevelopment meant that it had to move. Does she agree—indeed, this is the very point that she is making—that it is vital that after the acute sector has done its immediate work, we should not leave people without the back-up that is needed to give them the quality of life that the rest of us would like to have, and also that what is done should be done at minimum expense to the state?
  Mrs. Robinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and totally concur with them. I shall deal with that point later in my speech.
  We could consider the victims of road traffic accidents as examples. They will probably be admitted to intensive care after assessment in accident and emergency. Their gradual recovery will continue in one of the general hospital wards, and then the new regional brain injury unit at Musgrave Park hospital, where they will re-learn how to walk, talk and swallow. They will be attended by a rehab team of physiotherapists and speech and language therapists, and I pay tribute to the work

  361
  undertaken by staff at the hospital However, after patients are discharged home, Reconnect represents the final stage for those with head injuries to get their lives back together again. Reconnect assists patients to return to work, or simply to function to the maximum as a normal human beings again through structured training programmes.
  With head injuries, a person's life can change dramatically in an instant. With a severe brain injury, an individual goes from being independent to being totally dependent, and from being capable to being incapable; everything about their lives becomes different. During the recovery period, there is a need not only to reconnect neurological paths, but at a deeper level, for people to reconnect socially and emotionally with their friends, families, therapists and society at large.
  Training and rehabilitation focus on reconnecting lost skills and learning ways to compensate for abilities that have been permanently changed because of a brain injury. The brain is a dynamic organ, and as long as it receives repeated stimulation, chemical and physical changes occur to ensure that cells will react to that same stimulation in the future. Following a brain injury, the remaining tissue may set up new connections and pathways. The surrounding tissues in the brain try to take over the functions that were lost in the area of injury, so the brain tries to reconnect to the old pathways. That can occur only if a person is active. The brain does not adapt or try to recover if it is inactive—it must be stimulated. Rehabilitation involves stimulation, and that happens at Reconnect using information technology, office skills, horticulture and many other essential social skills.
  Reconnect is a voluntary organisation that has been supported since 1995 by the European social fund. In 2002 the ESF doubled its funding, which allowed it to embark on plans to move away from its dilapidated premises on the Ormeau embankment and source new land to build the first purpose-built training facility for people with acquired brain injury in. Northern Ireland. As a result of heavy capital investment from the European regional development fund, the European capital programme, a brand-new £750,000 training facility sits in the Castlereagh hills overlooking the city of Belfast. The new facility is greatly expanded from the old premises and can accommodate up to 15 staff and more than 60 trainees at any one time. On any day, it is likely to hold the highest concentration of people with an acquired brain injury under any one roof in the Province.
  The facility is unique because it can train brain injury sufferers on site in areas as diverse as catering, in the kitchen and preparation areas; information technology, media and communications, in the computer suite: office and administration work, in the large, specially designed secretarial areas; and horticulture, in its specifically designed climate-controlled glasshouses, seeding area and polytunnels. It has numerous other training facilities in the large boardroom, the therapy room and additional offices.
  In September 2003 staff numbers increased to 15, and in November the organisation was officially relaunched as Reconnect, bringing with it new corporate branding and a strategic vision for the future. The strategic plan was a realistic achievable vision that would enable the organisation to become a centre of excellence in the
  362
  provision of community-based training and the rehabilitation of people with acquired brain injury. Through a commitment to person-centred planning and an ethos of "whatever it takes", Reconnect set out to provide each trainee with their own training package based on their skills and desires, which is essential to attaining a positive outcome for someone with an acquired brain injury.
  Unfortunately, in December 2003 Reconnect received a letter stating that its application for core funding from the European social fund programme "Building Sustainable Prosperity", administered by the Department for Employment and Learning, had been unsuccessful. That occurred despite the fact that the organisation had surpassed the ESF's criteria for a quality organisation, thereby reaching the threshold for acceptance for funding. The decision to stop funding was taken by two civil servants and an independent member, and was based on information identical to that in previous successful applications. As the ESF provided more than 65 per cent. of Reconnect's core costs, which was match funded by other organisations, such as the disablement advisory service in the Department for Employment and Learning, Reconnect now faces closure on 30 March 2004. Up to 48 trainees will be denied access to training, 15 experienced and highly specialised staff face redundancy, and a brand new £750,000 ESF-supported purpose-built facility will be left derelict and unused.
  One reason given for the failure of the application, apart from an overall reduction in European funding, is that Reconnect's services cut across the remit of several Government Departments. It appears that it has fallen between two stools. No service equivalent to Reconnect is currently provided by the statutory sector in Northern Ireland. In current circumstances, Reconnect simply does not have the finances to continue. It is ludicrous to end funding at this critical phase in its development, as it has received extensive support thus far. I therefore urge the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), to intervene and support Reconnect in its appeal against the decision. I also encourage her to consider mainstreaming the organisation to allow its services to continue. Co-operation between Ministers with responsibilities for health and for employment and learning may be required.
  Anecdotal evidence suggests that across the Province, 500 people a year sustain a head injury and would benefit from a service such as Reconnect. I trust that the Minister agrees that the organisation fulfils an important role and offers an invaluable service to many people across Northern Ireland. For that reason, I decided to seek this Adjournment debate, and I hope for her support in maintaining and optimising this critical service.
  3.33 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Circumstances are fortuitous, because the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) and the Minister would originally have had to wait until 7 o'clock for a half-hour debate. We could now have a debate lasting until 7 o'clock—although I have no intention of making my speech last until then. None the less, I shall take the opportunity to say a few things in support of the hon. Lady's request.

  363
  We hoped to have a meeting with the Minister to argue the case for supporting Reconnect. It is unfortunate that it has not been arranged yet, because there are time pressures and a decision could be made by the end of the week. However, this is a timely occasion for an Adjournment debate on the subject, and I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing it. She mentioned the work that is done and said that the figures would not tell us how many were injured in other parts of the Province. That is partly because the Royal Victoria hospital is the major trauma centre in Northern Ireland, and the Musgrave Park hospital in my constituency is the rehabilitation centre, which does a great deal of work for people throughout the Province.
  Now we must deal with onward development. Even in speech therapy, there have been changes in recent years with growing recognition of the importance of stimulating people who have had strokes and lost the power of communication. It is fantastic to see some of the work being done.
  One of the saddest statements that the hon. Lady made was about the concept of prosperity. So often that concept is used only in relation to finance, and takes no account of the physical, mental and social prosperity of people who have been so handicapped. There is a case to be made. I pay tribute to the work done at Musgrave Park and to the work of Reconnect. I hope the Minister will take the matter on board. Even though she spells her surname differently from mine, I believe we have a similar understanding of human nature.
  We are talking about the seamless robe of Government and the fact that Government Departments have been reconnected. I hope that money can be found in the Department to keep that excellent work going on. It is strange that two civil servants and an external person acknowledged that money was needed in the past, but they say that there is no money now. There must be some way to find extra money, because the need still exists. The facilities are better than in the past and it would be tragic to lose them. I plead with the Minister to use her influence with her colleagues. If we can help her to put pressure on them, we shall be glad to do so.
  3.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith): I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) on securing the debate. The subject is obviously close to her heart and I commend her for the way she made her case; it is one with which I have considerable sympathy. I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).
  In the time remaining this afternoon, it may be helpful if I explain the background. I understand the hon. Lady's concerns for her constituents, and I am very much aware of the pressures on individuals and families when a member of the family suffers an injury that leads to acquired brain injury. The hon. Lady outlined the random nature of such an event and the traumatic effect that it can have on the life of the person with the injury and on friends and families, who often bear the brunt of dealing with a very different person, in some cases, and caring responsibilities.
  364
  Brain injury is a complex and difficult area of medicine. The Government recognise the seriousness of the issue and the need to find ways to combat the effects of such injury on victims. As the hon. Lady said, brain injury can arise through traumatic events such as accidents, or be acquired through brain damage as a result of tumours or chronic illnesses. Initial treatment usually takes place in hospital neurosurgery or neurology departments. Following hospitalisation, a patient may recover sufficiently to return home, although some may require considerable support.
  Investment in the health service in Northern Ireland is central to our Government's policies and is bringing improvement to Northern Ireland for the benefit of patients and their families. This commitment is reflected in the fact that almost 41.5 per cent. of the Northern Ireland departmental expenditure limit for 2003–04 is devoted to health issues. The figure will rise by 7.8 per cent. in the next financial year, amounting to more than £3 billion.
  The Department for Employment and Learning, not my Department, is responsible for administering the European social fund for projects such as Reconnect which, as she described, provides rehabilitation for people with head injuries. Eligible projects are those that provide training and skills development for people seeking employment or advancement in employment. Some supported projects seek to meet the employment and training needs of those with health problems or disabilities, as in the case of Reconnect.
  The primary focus of the European social fund is to provide individuals with the necessary skills to gain employment. The general rehabilitation of those with health problems or other disabilities is not the primary objective of the European social fund, but, of course, the building of confidence and of the skills required to enter employment are an important contribution to rehabilitation.
  There are some misconceptions about the reasons for Reconnect not succeeding this time. There is a substantial but finite amount in the European social fund available to projects for the two years from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2006. That amount is £22 million. I understand that that is not a reduction, but the reasons for the application's failure have nothing to do with it crossing two Departments. Each application is considered on its merits.
  One problem is that there is extensive competition for the funds: 95 applicants sought a total of £36 million, which the fund could not meet. The result was that there were more deserving projects than could be dealt with by the funds available That is one reason why, on this occasion, Reconnect was not successful.
  I understand that Reconnect was supported previously by the European social fund, but that in itself is not a criterion for future support. I am told that that would be unfair to new applicants, which is understandable. However, that causes a problem for organisations on the ground of sustainability, so perhaps we ought to work across Departments and with the organisations that might be involved to see whether more can be done to help to develop exit strategies or alternative funding streams.
  Unfortunately, the timing is difficult, because often when organisations are notified that they are to lose their funding there is not always enough time to put

  365
  other funding in place. However, the Department for Employment and Learning, as well as my own Department, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, very much recognise the seriousness of brain injury and its effects on the victims.
  I understand the disappointment felt by Reconnect at its recent unsuccessful application. It has decided to appeal against that decision—I am told that the review panel is meeting on 4 February—but the difficulty is that Reconnect was not the next organisation on the list for gaining funding. Other organisations, which are also extremely worthy and extremely important, were ahead of it. We await the outcome of that appeal. In the meantime, I can assure the hon. Members for Strangford and for Belfast, South that the discussions are ongoing between the organisation, the South and East Belfast trust and the Eastern board to see whether any interim measures can be taken. I will say more about that later.
  In a moment, I will come to the discussions that are taking place and what steps we are considering to see how the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety can help. First, I want to talk about the Department's work in this area of health.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I may be coming in too soon on this one and the Minister may be about to answer my question. I understand her reference to the South and East Belfast trust and the Eastern board, but are no folk in other board areas benefiting from Reconnect's work? Has the Department taken that point into consideration?
  Angela Smith: Unfortunately, Reconnects work takes place only in the Eastern board area, not in others. Therefore, it would be difficult to ask other boards to assist in funding activities that do not take place in their areas. There is a problem here—my Department would fund work that happens across all four boards, but this organisation's work does not do that.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) is that we have only one centre in Northern Ireland that does not deal exclusively with those who require assistance in the Belfast area. Obviously, others who require support must travel to that centre.
  Angela Smith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be patient for a moment. He is not correct because, as I will explain, considerable other work is going on across Northern Ireland to assist people with acquired brain injury. I shall outline some of what my Department is doing.
  The Department recognises that people with a brain injury require a continuum of care—this was also acknowledged by the hon. Members for Strangford and for Belfast, South—in respect of acute care, which is followed by community care and support. As a result, we are establishing a new regional acquired brain injury unit on the Musgrave Park hospital site. That will provide state-of-the-art in-patient rehabilitation
  366
  services, and is due to open in 2006. I am sure that that will be welcomed across Northern Ireland and by all in the Chamber. The £8.5 million cost of that represents a considerable investment in brain injury rehabilitation services.
  The development of community brain injury services to complement the new unit is also essential. These will provide rehabilitation and support for those with brain injury already living in the community and provide a "step down" service for the new unit, the importance of which both hon. Members specified. It is envisaged that community services will be provided by teams comprising psychiatry, psychology, therapy, nursing and social work input. In 2004–05, an additional £500,000 will be provided for that purpose.
  The third aspect of support for people with brain injuries and their carers is also provided by voluntary organisations. Currently, my Department provides funds amounting to £120,000 to the Cedar Foundation, which provides rehabilitation and vocational training. Cedar provides socio-vocational brain injury services at six centres across Northern Ireland—Belfast, Ballymena, Lisburn, Londonderry, Newry and Enniskillen. The Cedar Foundation was successful in its recent application for funding from the European social fund, and it plans to expand its brain injury services. Headway also provides support and services for people with brain injury and their families. That organisation received project funding until March 2003.
  A new organisation, the Northern Ireland traumatic brain injury forum, was established in 2002 to bring together people with a brain injury, their carers and professionals in the field to lobby for better services. My Department provided funding for the organisation's inaugural conference in 2002 and an application for recurrent funding is currently being considered. The forum also organised a seminar in November 2002 on the needs of children with a head injury, which my Department funded. A report of the recommendations of the seminar is awaited, and that will assist in planning for future service development. In addition, an inspection of services for disabled children is being undertaken by the social services inspectorate, which will advise my Department of any current gaps in service provision.
  Work is also being undertaken by the Department for Employment and Learning through its disablement advisory service, which provides advice, guidance, training and a placing service for people with disabilities and health issues. The service is available for those who wish to obtain or retain employment and can be accessed through a specialist team of disablement employment advisers across Northern Ireland.
  The disablement advisory service also offers a range of practical and financial support to employers recruiting and retaining disabled employees, as well as a professional assessment system. The disablement advisory service administers four main employment programmes to help people with disabilities enter or remain in work: the job introduction scheme, access to work, employment support and the new deal for disabled people. The job introduction scheme is a job trial facility, which offers both the employer and the disabled jobseeker an excellent opportunity to find out if the job and the person match. The disablement advisory service helps the employer with a contribution towards

  367
  employment costs for the first few weeks, and the trial period usually lasts for about six weeks. Employment support gives people with more severe disabilities the opportunity of working alongside non-disabled employees in a wide variety of jobs. That enables people who cannot reach standard output levels, because of their disability, to work in real jobs and earn the full rate of pay for the job that they are doing. I have mentioned the work of the new deal for disabled people.
  Projects such as Reconnect, which were already receiving European social fund assistance, were aware that further assistance, as previously, is subject to competition with other organisations. That, however, does not lessen the threat to Reconnect's services. Clearly, health is a priority for Northern Ireland and is central to Government policies. As I indicated earlier, the priority is reflected in the high proportion of expenditure devoted to health issues in Northern Ireland, and I have outlined some of the important work that is going on to assist people who have disabilities and acquired brain injuries. We do as much of that work as we can, as this is a very complex and distressing area of medicine, and patients, carers and their families need support, as I outlined at the beginning of my speech. However, I have to recognise that, within the budget limits that apply, we cannot meet every need in medicine.
  I want to comment on the specific action that we are taking to try to help Reconnect. I apologise to the hon. Member for Belfast, South if he has not had a response about meeting me. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) is the Minister with responsibility for
  368
  employment and learning. If the funding falls under that Department, the request would not have come to me at this stage.
  I understand that 33 people are currently using Reconnect services and I am most concerned that they continue to receive the care and support that they need. I am sure that the hon. Lady appreciates that it is quite difficult for the Health Department and health boards to pick up the drop in expenditure from the Department for Employment and Learning. I can say that the trusts that use Reconnect services have advised the board that they have contingency plans to absorb current users into alternative provision if the need arises. For those currently accessing the services of Reconnect, every effort has been made to ensure that there is no lack of provision of service for them.
  The Eastern health and social services board and the four community trusts are working together to find a means of supporting Reconnect beyond 31 March 2004. What we would like to do then is collectively to review the longer-term funding of the organisation to establish how it can be supported. I am pretty confident that we will be able to achieve that. There will be further formal discussions with Reconnect in the very near future, but its longer-term future must be viewed in the context of other services being provided across Northern Ireland for people with brain injury. The commitment to building community services for people is also important.
  I assure the hon. Lady that I take a personal interest in this matter and I have asked to be kept informed of what happens in future. I hope that I have dealt with the points that she raised and I thank her for the way in which she raised them today. I hope that we can find a way to continue these services, which are so important.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Four o'clock.