Sitting of 13 December 1999

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

    Type 45 Destroyer
    Mr. Edward Leigh: When the type 45 destroyer will enter service. [100954]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): On current plans, the type 45 destroyer is expected to enter service with the Royal Navy in 2007.
    Mr. Leigh: In 2007. Given the massive cuts in the defence budget, can the Minister guarantee even that derisory date?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The massive cuts came under the previous Government not this one, and they were cuts by stealth rather than by the comprehensive review that the strategic defence review represented. As the hon. Gentleman well
    2
    knows, the type 45 will come on stream in 2007 and it will be managed in such a way that there will be no depletion of operational capability whatsoever.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: If these vessels are to come into operation and are to join the fleet in 2007, the orders for their construction will have to be signed soon. Dare I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that many of my constituents and other people who work along the Clyde want those orders to be signed and want a fair share of the work to come to the Clyde shipyards?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The orders for construction will be made in the new year. We are conscious that the shipbuilding industry in certain parts of the country relies heavily upon its capability for building military vessels. The Clyde will get more than its share of those contracts on the basis of its capacity to compete effectively with other yards around the country.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: Does the Minister agree with the many people who are worried that the type 45 will carry the French SYLVER missile launcher, which will launch only one type of missile? Would it not be better to equip the ship with a multiple system that could fire Tomahawks and other missiles? That would turn this anti-aircraft destroyer into a truly multi-role combat vessel.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I think that the intention to purchase the principal anti-air missile system, as it develops, is very judicious. That will meet the operational demands that have been set out. I am absolutely confident that it will meet the needs of the Royal Navy, using the type 45 as its platform.
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: After all the delays to the project that took place under the previous Government, may I welcome the fact that it is now back on track? Does that not demonstrate the great benefits that there will be from smart procurement? What is my

    3
    hon. Friend doing to ensure that smart procurement is being driven through at all levels in the Ministry of Defence, so that it is fully realised as early as possible?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that this development comes from the previous Government's failure to ensure that the Horizon programme was properly conceptualised. We have ensured that the same deadline dates and the same operational capacities will be met. Our adherence to the principles of smart procurement will ensure that, in future, such purchases will be cheaper, will be delivered faster and will be far more efficient.
    Mr. Robert Key: The type 45 destroyer was announced in 1992 with an in-service date of 2002. Yes, that date slipped two years under the Conservative Government, but it has slipped three years in two years under this Government. That is just part of the problem. There is a lot of big talk about two aircraft carriers, but there is nothing said about the ships that will defend them or about the replacement for the type 23. We know that they are short of money to the tune of about £1 billion a year and that there is no hope of the £2 billion saving from smart procurement. When, for the sake of an industry that both sides of the House are interested in preserving, will we receive some straight answers? The compendium of staff requirements and targets was due for publication in September, but that date slipped into the spring. We have not had the strategic defence review figures on budget forecasts or a comprehensive spending review of more than a few lines. Will the Minister guarantee that we shall have before Christmas the first White Paper on defence spending since 1996 and will he guarantee that we shall debate it when the House returns in January?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman overstates the case—to put it mildly—on the success or otherwise of the Horizon project. He makes rather spurious claims about slippage, but I assure him that the present Government took a very brave decision when they decided to review the plans for the type 45. We found out what the real slippage was and understood plainly what the previous Government failed to understand. We understood that we needed to ensure that we have the industrial capacity to meet such a complex order and to ensure that it takes place within a framework of affordability. The previous Government failed to do either.

    European Defence Initiatives
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: What discussions he has had with his European counterparts regarding spending on common defence initiatives. [100955]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): At the Helsinki European Council, European Union member states committed themselves to strengthening their military capabilities and to developing the means for the EU to act in support of its foreign and security policy objectives, strengthening the European NATO pillar and allowing the EU to undertake operations where NATO is not engaged.
    Mrs. Spelman: President Chirac has said of the European Union that it
    "could not fully exist until it possessed autonomous capacity for action in the area of defence."
    That view is shared by Mr. Prodi. Is not that the clearest indication of an inevitable direction in defence policy towards a Euro army?
    Mr. Hoon: No, it is not, and if the hon. Lady read carefully the conclusions of the Helsinki summit, she would find that there is a specific undertaking not to create a European army. What Helsinki does is good for Europe and good for NATO. By strengthening the European pillar of NATO, we are providing a greater capability for Europe to strengthen NATO's operations and, in particular, to allow the European Union, as I said few moments ago, to become engaged in operations where NATO is not involved.
    Mr. Barry Jones: When does my right hon. Friend think that he will be able to make a decision on common spending and procurement, which affects not only Britain but Germany, France and Spain, on the heavy lift project? May I urge on him the solution of the A400M, which British Aerospace would participate in and which would be of huge benefit to my constituents in Broughton? I remind my right hon. Friend that, in a previous Administration, a Secretary of State for Defence said that he recognised the need for some 40 to 50 heavy lift aircraft—what we could call the A400M. It is insufficient to have only 25 to 30 such aircraft.
    Mr. Hoon: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his ingenuity in asking such an erudite and thoughtful question, which I am sure is of passing interest to his constituents. I can assure him that the Government are considering carefully that procurement issue. That careful consideration will continue for some time yet, but I am confident that the decision will be made not too far into the new year.
    Mr. kin Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State answered my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) by talking about the EU defence capability. Is not the reality, however, that, after Amsterdam, the Prime Minister referred in the House to the plans—which he said that he had blocked—to move the Western European Union into the European Union and give the EU a defence capability as
    "an ill-judged transplant operation"?
    Is not it a fact, therefore, that in the past 12 months the Prime Minister and the Government have reversed what had been British defence policy for 40 years, and what the Prime Minister said was an ill-judged transplant operation has now become British defence policy?
    Mr. Hoon: The UK played a leading role in shaping crucial European Union policy that strengthens the EU's ability to operate and to support its common foreign and security policy while, as I said earlier, strengthening NATO. On the subject of changes of emphasis, what is revealing is the Conservative party's obsessively anti-European tone. A once formidable political party has now assumed the status of a pressure group.

    5
    It is perhaps still more revealing that the Conservatives now rely on Baroness Thatcher to lead the charge, with the shadow Defence Secretary following closely behind. The hon. Gentleman refers to Baroness Thatcher as small children refer to a security blanket. He should consider carefully the cautionary tale that says,
    "keep a hold of Nurse, For fear of finding something worse."
    Mr. Duncan Smith: As ever, the Secretary of State talks rubbish. The truth is that the Prime Minister has not introduced a change of emphasis; he has turned British defence policy round by 180 deg. The Secretary of State glibly refers to that policy change as a change of emphasis, but that is not what they believe over in Europe.
    Mr. Prodi knows exactly what is going on when he talks about the inevitability of a Euro army. The French are absolutely clear when they say that the policy is a breathtaking reversal of British policy. The Italians are clear when they say, after conversations with the British Government, that the Euro army will number 120,000. Above all, in the past four days the Russians have welcomed the Euro army. Why? They say that it will decouple the United States from Europe and render European defenceless and less capable. Will that not be the Government's epitaph?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman has been trying hard to decouple the United States from the United Kingdom and Europe. Indeed, he has gone to the US deliberately to scaremonger on that particular subject. He cannot get round the fact that Strobe Talbott said at Chatham House,
    "the US is for ESDI".
    The US supports that policy. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Financial Times today, he will see that there is further United States support for a stronger European pillar.
    It really is deeply depressing for the remaining few pro-Europeans on the Conservative Benches to find that, unlike when the party was led by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), it is apparently ever more dependent on Margaret Thatcher. We were told that, under the right hon. Gentleman, she was a back-seat driver. Now, she is sitting firmly in the front seat, driving the party's policy.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Yet again—this is the third time—the Secretary of State will not answer the real questions. There will be no extra spending by any European Government on the proposal. The capability will be no greater; it is more likely to be less. As we saw in the Sunday papers, east Europeans who recently joined NATO are scared stiff because they are excluded from the process and the United States is worried to the extent that it carries out an inquiry. What the Prime Minister does not say publicly is that he has agreed to Mr. Solana becoming the Defence Minister for Europe. Will not the Government's policy leave us with a common European army policy, which is the same as the common agricultural policy—a disaster?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman should know that questions of defence spending are a matter for national Governments, and that the matter to which he referred is one for our European partners. He would equally know, if he had read the Helsinki summit conclusions carefully, that a specific commitment on capability was agreed,
    6
    and that each country signed up to it. That means that each country must make available such forces and assets to deliver up to a 60,000-strong rapid reaction force into a theatre of operations quickly. That is clear and practical and, I am proud to say, something which the British Government led the way in negotiating and framing.
    Fiona Mactaggart: If the European defence initiative represents such a threat to NATO, will the Secretary of State explain why all 19 NATO countries, including the United States, signed a declaration of support for it at the Washington summit?
    Mr. Hoon: I have puzzled for some time over why Conservative Members cannot understand the plain statements of representatives of the American Administration and senior figures in Washington. They have made it clear, as did William Cohen, the United States Defense Secretary, at a recent NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels, that the improvement of European capability "will strengthen NATO", and that there is no ground whatever for any speculation of a possible division between Europe and the United States. If Conservative Members were able to be less obsessively anti-European and looked at the facts a little more clearly, they would come to the clear conclusion reached by our friends in Washington.

    Leisure and Recreation Facilities
    Mr. David Ruffley: What recent representations he has received regarding the use of his Department's leisure and recreation facilities by civilian members of the public; and if he will make a statement. [100956]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): We welcome public use of the Department's leisure and recreational facilities provided that it does not conflict with the Department's operational purposes, safety or security requirements, or the interests of the Department's landlords, tenants or conservation. Where such use is agreed, fees are usually charged and an appropriate insurance policy is put in place. Representations are received frequently from members of the public wishing to use such facilities. Such requests are either agreed or denied based on the above constraints.
    Mr. Ruffley: May I draw the Minister's attention to the £4 million new facility at Wattisham MOD base in my constituency, which is a physical and recreational training centre comprising a 25 m swimming pool, physiotherapy and weight-training rooms and a sports hall? Is he aware that some of my constituents have pointed out that, given that taxpayers paid for that excellent new facility, local civilians in the Needham market area should be allowed access to it? As everyone is interested in getting value for taxpayers' money, will he consider implementing arrangements at the Wattisham base to allow local civilians to use those fine facilities?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments about Wattisham. He may not know it, but that is one of two pilot schemes, which are evidence of the success of the smart construction initiative. I have been

    7
    there and seen the fine work being done. I would be more than happy for the people of Wattisham to be able to access those facilities, subject to the constraints that I mentioned, and subject to the unit commander reaching agreement with local community representatives on the use of those facilities.

    Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What assessments he has made of the prospective level of recruitment and retention in the TAVR during each of the next three years. [100957]
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on the level of recruitment to the Territorial Army. [100958]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): My Department has recently completed an assessment of anticipated recruitment and retention for the reserves as part of the armed forces' forward manpower planning. We are confident that, over the next three years, the reserve forces will be able to both recruit and retain sufficient numbers of volunteers to fulfil and sustain the roles set out for them in the strategic defence review.
    Mr. Hughes: That is an encouraging answer. However, I gather that only three out of five reservists are available to go into service, having finished their training, and that in the field hospital just over the river in my constituency in Walworth, for example, only about half have signed up for humanitarian aid or multinational work because of the financial implications of that. Will the Minister re-examine the terms and conditions that can be offered to doctors, nurses and the like, who want to be available as reserves to do humanitarian work with our services, but at present cannot do that without prejudice to their jobs or their careers?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point. I am pleased to say that we have had constructive discussions with the NHS regarding the availability of those who work in the NHS and who are also members of the reserve forces. It would be fair to say that there were difficulties in the past, but those have decreased and we are getting far fewer complaints in that regard. If, however, the hon. Gentleman wants to raise specific concerns with us, I should be more than happy to look into them, recognising that there has been a great improvement in relations, to the benefit of both the NHS and the defence medical services.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister confirm that, for the first time since the second world war, whole units of the Territorial Army are being called up for a peace-keeping role in Kosovo and Bosnia? Will he also confirm that the cuts in the Territorial Army, which his Government have imposed, will represent savings of less than 1 per cent. of the total defence budget in any one year? Finally, will he recognise the effect on towns such as Guildford of cutting the historic tie between the TA and our town, and the effect that that will have on future recruitment not just in the Territorial Army, but in the main Army?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions. He spoke about calling up units. That was part of the legislation agreed by both parties under the previous Administration for reserve forces.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: But not for cuts.
    Mr. Spellar: I will come to the hon. Gentleman's second question. He insists on asking three questions in one, but I shall answer serially. The restructuring under the strategic defence review was to reshape our reserve forces to meet the needs of the post-cold war era, rather than the pre-cold war era, and therefore to focus less on home protection and reinforcement of infantry, and far more on the specialist roles of the various reserve services. We have been doing that successfully, to ensure that our reserve forces are both usable and used.

    Departmental Land
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What progress has been made since 1 May 1997 in disposing of land and housing held surplus to requirements. [100959]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): My Department has made good progress in disposing of surplus land since 1 May 1997. During the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99, disposal receipts from such sales totalled some £302 million.
    Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Two of the three barracks in which I did my national service in the Royal Marines—Eastney and Deal—are now closed. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's record of selling such assets and using the proceeds to regenerate local communities is far better than that of the previous Government?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I am bound to agree with my hon. Friend, but whether the Opposition would accept that is a different matter. Following the comprehensive spending review and the strategic defence review, we have set in train a process whereby, over a four-year period, we will raise more than £700 million in capital receipts from surplus assets. Moreover, we have a large number of brownfield sites dotted about the country and we fully intend to bring as many of those as possible back into practical use, rather than leaving them to rot away and waste, as was the case under the previous Government. The brownfield land alone would be enough to build 26,000 new homes.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Given that those figures are below the trend line required to meet the £700 million requirement; given that the first part of the figures would have included receipts generated from the defence cost studies process; given the time it takes to get property receipts into the budget; given that the Department is struggling hugely to meet its £2 billion a year efficiency savings programme, and, as we have just heard, that we have given a commitment to strengthen our military capability which is bleeding away as experience bleeds out of the armed forces and as the retention figures deteriorate, will the Department go back to the Treasury

    9
    to insist that the defence budget is not required to meet any undershoot if it fails to meet the property savings targets?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I hate to disillusion the hon. Gentleman, but the reality is that we shall meet our targets. We are ahead of the targets and doing extremely well with property sales. Some large sales are looming, which I think will take us beyond the figures that we have anticipated. I am confident that we shall meet all the ambitions that we have set out in the strategic defence review.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Through the success of my hon. Friend in the sale of housing and land that are no longer needed, will he ensure that overseas housing is brought up to a habitable standard and then ensure that our armed forces are treated as well overseas as in the United Kingdom, which will help with retention?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: We are well aware of the problems for retention if we do not have a reasonable standard of accommodation both for single personnel and for those occupying married quarters. We are in discussions to ensure that we have a consistent standard of habitable accommodation for those serving at home and those serving abroad.

    Iraq
    Mr. Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on the southern and northern no-fly zones in Iraq. [100960]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The no-fly zones have served a vital humanitarian purpose for the past eight years in helping to limit Saddam Hussein's brutal repression of his own people. I very much regret Saddam's efforts to shoot down coalition aircraft carrying out these legitimate patrols. Let me make it clear. If Saddam stops trying to kill our aircrew, we will stop attacking the systems he uses to threaten them.
    Mr. Brake: I thank the Minister for his response. Will he explain what further action he can take to stop Iraq's campaign of repression in the south, where I understand that villages are still being destroyed? I understand also that villagers are expelled at gunpoint and that water supplies are cut off. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain also whether he expects the UN monitoring, verification and inspection commission to be more or less successful than the UN Special Commission in its monitoring role? Will he outline what the composition of that organisation is likely to be?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman will know that the United Kingdom has been heavily engaged in trying to promote a new resolution in the Security Council. We are in the end game of that process. I anticipate that there will be further discussions on that issue today in the UN in New York. As for the outcome, we are confident that the resolution that we have helped to draft will provide a sensible basis for dealing with Iraq and will provide an opportunity and a road towards lifting the sanctions while securing the interests of those countries in the region, which remain extremely concerned about the ability of
    10
    Saddam Hussein to produce weapons of mass destruction. It is important that we find a new basis for dealing with Iraq. Until that happens, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that we shall continue to put pressure on Saddam Hussein to maintain the no-fly zones, and to preserve the situation in the north and the south as our response to an overwhelming humanitarian necessity, where Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime are seeking to destroy the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of his own people.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: I want to express my appreciation for the air and ground crews who operate missions over north and south Iraq. They endure considerable periods of separation from their families, especially over Christmas, on operations that are not without risk to the aircrews who fly them. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that sufficient Tornado offensive support airframes are available, especially while the mid-life update of the aircraft is taking place, to permit Tornado operations elsewhere if the need arises?
    Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. I shall ensure that they are communicated to our forces in that region, who operate in extremely dangerous circumstances, putting their lives at risk to protect people on the ground. They will appreciate his sentiments. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be sufficient airframes to do that valuable and important job.
    As I said earlier, we want to maintain the pressure on Saddam while ensuring that we do our best to protect those on the ground whose lives have been threatened in the past, and who continue to be threatened by Saddam Hussein's regime.
    Ann Clwyd: I congratulate the Government on the United Nations resolution, which combines humanitarian relief with a strategy to deal with Saddam's continuing capability to use weapons of mass destruction, and the possibility that he is developing a nuclear capability while continuing to develop chemical and biological weapons. Will my right hon. Friend remind people again of the latest report of Mr. van der Stoel, the UN Rapporteur on human rights, who makes it clear that repression, torture and inhumane treatment, as well as ethnic cleansing, continue in Iraq?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with her comments. We hope that we can persuade all members of the Security Council to agree to the resolution. The matter remains under discussion, but we are working as hard as we can on what, I believe, is an excellent statement of the international community's position.
    I also agree with my hon. Friend about the latest evidence to emerge from Iraq. Some people claim that the international community is responsible for the plight of the Iraqi people, but there is a clear difference between the availability of medical and food supplies in the north of Iraq, which is not controlled by Saddam's regime, and that in rest of the country. That nails the lie that the

    11
    international community is responsible for the Iraqi people's plight. The responsibility lies with Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: The majority in the House support the Government's action. However, will the Secretary of State listen to the advice that we received last week from the equivalent of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Assemblée Nationale in Paris? I shall quote from it—I ask hon. Members to excuse my translation. It states:
    "The loss of sovereignty of Iraq, especially in the North of …the country, is not admissible."
    It goes on to call for all sanctions to be lifted.
    Does the Secretary of State accept that the peoples and Parliaments of the European Union perceive the interests of those European nations differently? That is why France takes a different line from Britain in the Security Council. Does he accept that undermining NATO with a Euro army will also undermine our national interest?
    Mr. Hoon: I congratulated my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on his ingenuity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not extend the same courtesy to him. The answer to his point is simple: there is a range of views in western European democracies, and it would be unfortunate if they were not expressed. That is different from the position in Iraq, where there is no possibility of expressing such a range of views. It is inevitable that tensions will arise when the country is led by a man such as Saddam Hussein. Those tensions will continue unless and until there is a democratic Government in Iraq.

    Aircraft Rewiring
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: What steps his Department has taken to check the wiring of military aircraft following recent crashes; and how many military aircraft have been rewired as a result. [100961]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): As a result of damaged, mishandled or misrouted wires, instances of electrical fires caused two Harrier aircraft accidents in 1991. As a result of those accidents, remedial action was taken and there is no evidence that any recent crashes were caused by problems with electrical wiring. The safety of electrical wiring in UK military aircraft is reviewed continuously. Wiring is inspected whenever maintenance activity takes place on an aircraft. We work closely with the British Standards Institution to ensure that aircraft wiring meets the highest standards of safety and installation.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: That all sounds very comforting, and I am happy to hear it, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the length of life of some of the aircraft in the list that he was kind enough to give me is way beyond what was originally envisaged for them by the builders. There is a real worry that wiring faults, in military and civil aircraft, may be a contributory cause of major crashes and it is difficult to inspect all the systems when looking at the wiring of an aircraft during maintenance. Will my hon. Friend please give me a guarantee that—despite his
    12
    confidence in the efficiency of aircraft—he will look carefully in the immediate future at the type of wiring used and at any dangers that may arise from that?
    Mr. Spellar: It is not unusual for military aircraft—so long as there is sufficient assurance about their safety—to run over the life that was originally predicted by either the purchasers or the manufacturers. A number of aircraft are updated with newer equipment, but the basic frame may stay the same. When we undertake routine wiring maintenance, wiring is often replaced and newer materials introduced, but there is also stringent and rigorous inspection and attention is paid to possible mechanical treatment of wiring. Often, the combination of the chemical qualities of the insulation and the mechanical treatment causes arcing and fires. As I said in my original answer, we have not had any evidence of that problem since 1991, but our engineering departments are alert to keeping a look out for it.
    Mr. John Bercow: What study has the Minister made himself of Kapton wiring and what conclusion has he reached?
    Mr. Spellar: I am Spellar, PPE Oxford not MSc Eng.Chem. The hon. Gentleman points to the reasons why we have such extremely fine service engineers, on both the fitting and the technical and engineering side, who give us excellent advice. That is borne out by the fact that no fires have caused crashes since 1991, and I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman should cast such a slur on the excellent technical personnel in the Royal Air Force.

    European Defence Co-operation
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What representations he has received from his French counterparts regarding European defence co-operation. [100962]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): At St. Malo in December 1998, the United Kingdom and France launched a major initiative aimed at building European security and defence. Since then, we have continued to work closely with our French defence counterparts, culminating in the joint declaration made at our London summit on 25 November. That declaration called on European nations to strengthen their military capabilities and was an important stepping stone towards the Helsinki European Council.
    Dr. Lewis: Despite their many other virtues, have not our French allies for more than 40 years weakened the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation by staying outside its integrated military structure? Has not their main reason for that been pride, and resentment of America's role in defending Europe? By playing dangerous games with the formation of a Euro-army, are not the Labour Government undermining the prospects for our future conventional defence, just as they tried to undermine our prospects for successful nuclear deterrence in the 1980s?
    Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman goes to the Library, he will be able to find a copy of the Helsinki summit conclusions, which state that it has been agreed by the United Kingdom and the French Government, as well as

    13
    every other Government of the European Union, that the initiative is not leading to the creation of a European army.
    As for defence co-operation with the French, the hon. Gentleman should consider these words:
    "The relationship between British and French forces at operational level is fantastic. It should be developed. We are the two most serious countries about defence in Europe. … We need to do things together."—[Official Report, 10 June 1999; Vol. 332, c. 812.]
    Those are excellent words. They are not my words, but the words of the shadow Foreign Secretary after St. Malo. Yet as soon as we try to do something together—remember: the shadow Foreign Secretary said that we need to do things together—the shadow Defence Secretary accuses us of trying to create a single European army and a vast European super-state. What is clearly required on the Conservative Benches is a little joined-up opposition.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend is confident that the common defence policy will not affect our relationship with the United States, but does he agree that the forces of isolationism are always just below the surface in the United States, and is he not concerned that these initiatives might give succour to people in the United States who want to tear up the anti-ballistic missile treaty, with all the consequences of that?
    Mr. Hoon: Clearly, there are concerns in the United States. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] In a vigorous democracy it is inevitable that some people will take a particular view of a particular problem. However, there are no difficulties with the Administration and majority opinion on the Hill: they recognise that, by strengthening the European pillar of NATO, we are strengthening NATO as a whole.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Can the increased defence capability as proposed at the Helsinki Council be provided by the United Kingdom and France alone, or is it a non-runner unless there is greater public expenditure on defence by other European Union countries?
    Mr. Hoon: As I said earlier, precise expenditure by other European Union countries is a matter for them. By agreeing to a capability assessment and to deploying specific forces to meet that assessment, European nations are saying that we will spend what is necessary to reach that conclusion. By specifying what forces and equipment are needed to reach that rapid reaction capability, we are specifying precisely what we need to do as European nations. We are improving the European pillar of NATO in a practical way. Those countries will have to decide how they should spend the money to achieve those ends. Having agreed the ends, we have achieved a practical conclusion that strengthens Europe inside NATO.
    Ms Dari Taylor: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain and France enjoy a close relationship on nuclear matters? My memory tells me that. Would he also confirm my recollection that the policy was put together by the Conservative party, which now doubts anything and everything French?
    Mr. Hoon: I can recall an occasion in the 1980s on which the Government under Lady Thatcher were keen on closer Anglo-French co-operation—indeed, her major
    14
    foreign policy adviser wrote about that recently. Perhaps Conservative Members should consider a little more carefully the history of these matters, especially the conclusion of the Berlin summit and the text of the Maastricht treaty, which show that they were in favour of European defence co-operation in the relatively recent past. They have now abandoned that view because of the obsessive anti-Europeanism that now infects the entire Conservative party.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with those who say that membership of the euro—the single currency—is essential to the success of a European defence force?
    Mr. Hoon: No.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Harry Cohen: What discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about that country's use of cluster bombs in Kosovo; what representations his Department has received on the use of cluster bombs; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the future role of cluster bombs. [100963]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I have had no discussions with the United States Defence Secretary on this subject.
    The Ministry of Defence has received a number of inquiries from members of the public, as well as from hon. Members on both sides of the House, about the use of cluster bombs during the campaign over Kosovo. Within our international obligations, the United Kingdom's armed forces retain the right to use the most effective weapons systems available. Consequently, should there be a proven need to use cluster bombs in the future, we would do so. Denying ourselves the most appropriate weapons would not help to end conflicts quickly; it could also put our armed forces at greater risk of harm.
    Mr. Cohen: Is the Secretary of State aware that cluster bombs used during the Kosovo conflict were dropped from a height of 15,000 ft, although they had been designed to be dropped from a much lower level? Did that not increase the number of bomblets that did not explode on hitting the ground, jeopardising the local population and, in effect, becoming land mines? Many hon. Members, including me, felt that military action over Kosovo was justified, but surely the use of cluster bombs in that way has put the allied forces on very shaky moral ground internationally. Will the Secretary of State reconsider the use of such weapons in all future conflicts, and discuss it with all our NATO allies—including the United States—so that cluster bombs are not used in the same way again?
    Mr. Hoon: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, but, in a previous ministerial capacity, I examined the Ottawa convention very carefully, and there is no doubt that, as a matter of international law, a cluster bomb cannot be defined as a land mine in either the spirit or the letter of the convention. Given that there is no international pressure for the expansion of the convention to cover

    15
    cluster bombs, or to change the definition of a land mine to include them, I cannot accept my hon. Friend's argument.
    Let me emphasise that KFOR and, significantly, British forces have been extensively engaged in clearing some 7,400 unexploded cluster-bomb munitions, as well as more than 6,100 Serbian anti-personnel mines and more than 3,400 Serbian anti-tank mines. British forces and KFOR are working hard to ensure that Kosovo is safe for its citizens.
    Mr. Martin Bell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the realities on the ground? The failure rate of cluster bombs is some 5 to 10 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of finding effective weapons systems; this weapons system is clearly failing, and is endangering the lives of those whom it was designed to protect. Surely, in such circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman can start thinking along the lines of an ethical defence policy.
    Mr. Hoon: In fact, the failure rate is around 5 per cent.
    As I said in my answer to the original question, we must ensure that we use effective munitions, not only to shorten conflicts but, crucially, to prevent our forces that are engaged in international humanitarian peacekeeping acts from being put at greater risk than they would be otherwise. That is why we must use the most effective weapons available to us, within our international obligations.

    Centre for Defence Medicine
    Mr. Jim Cousins: When he plans to announce a decision on the future location of the Centre for Defence Medicine. [100964]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I am delighted to announce that, after careful consideration, the University Hospital Birmingham NHS trust has been selected as the host for the new centre for defence medicine. The three competing bids received from NHS trusts were all of a very high quality, but after rigorous evaluation, the University Hospital Birmingham NHS trust was found to meet our requirements most effectively.
    The establishment of the Centre for Defence Medicine is an important landmark in our new strategy for the defence medical services. The centre will provide a very important professional focus for military medicine, and a prestigious place of work. The formal agreement with the trust is expected to be in place by 1 April, and the centre is expected to open by April 2001.
    Mr. Cousins: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one in eight of the armed forces are recruited in the north-east of England, while only one in 100 jobs are located there? One of the three sites under consideration—an excellent site—was in the centre of the city of Newcastle. Does my hon. Friend realise that his announcement will be greeted with a good deal of dismay, disappointment and, indeed, anger in that area?
    Mr. Spellar: I recognise that Newcastle, as well as Guy's and St. Thomas's, will be disappointed not to have been selected as the preferred host. I reiterate that all three
    16
    bids were of extremely high quality, but we had to choose one, and the bid from the University Hospital Birmingham NHS trust was clearly the best and met the criteria. I fully understand what my hon. Friend has said. I understand the disappointment, but it was the best of three good bids.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: It is over a year since the Government announced the foundation of a centre of medical excellence, during which time a number of the prime candidates have dropped out, leaving only three. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the level of dismay that will be felt within defence medical services that the Government are pressing ahead with the plan? Is he aware that, if they were to proceed, the effect would be to transfer doctors and nurses from an area of medical deprivation—South Hampshire—to one which I understand has sufficiency? I use the word "would" rather than "will" because I forecast that doctors and nurses who have chosen in the past five years to move their homes and families to South Hampshire to be near the only tri-service hospital at Haslar will not move to Birmingham. The result will be that the Government's inept and disastrous policy will not succeed.
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman has had a long and consistent record of representing his constituency on this issue. As he knows, I met him and his constituents at Haslar. The message that I got from people in the defence medical services was quite the reverse: they were asking for an early decision on the centre for defence medicine. They see that as an attraction and a key part of a future successful defence medical services. That is separate from the issue of the role of Haslar and the transfer to Queen Alexandra hospital, Portsmouth. They see the centre as an integral part of the defence medical services and a major attraction to young people wishing to be involved. All the messages that I get, not just from the chain of command, but from people on the ground, is that they are looking forward to the centre in Birmingham. They think that it is an exciting venture and prospect. When they become involved with the centre, they will find that that is what they joined up for, and what they will join up for.
    Mr. Syd Rapson: Now that a decision has finally been made, may I have an assurance that there will be no reduction in Ministers' efforts to solve the problem for the constituency of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and my own?
    Mr. Spellar: I say to my hon. Friend and to all Members who represent the South Hampshire area that we are working extremely hard to effect a smooth and satisfactory transition. That is moving ahead. I accept that it is not an easy period for them, but we have exceedingly good relations now with the health authority, the health trust, the secondary care agency and representatives of the local council, whom I met in Gosport.

    Eurofighter
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts regarding expenditure on the Eurofighter. [100966]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I meet regularly with my European counterparts for discussions on a wide range of defence issues, including Eurofighter. Recent discussions have focused on the excellence of the aircraft and its importance for European defence industry, rather than on expenditure.
    Miss McIntosh: I wonder whether the Secretary of State could put my mind at rest on whether our European partners are paying their fair share of Eurofighter. Is he minded to indicate where the Eurofighter might be located? What steps will he take to inform residents who live near the respective RAF stations of what the implications will be for them?
    Mr. Hoon: Eurofighter is a superb aircraft. It is the product of European co-operation. It is well on course to enter service as the RAF's front-line fighter for the new millennium. I am delighted to be able to announce that Coningsby in Lincolnshire, Leeming in North Yorkshire and Leuchars in Fife, with their proud history of RAF service dating back to the beginning of the second world war, have been chosen as Eurofighter's operational bases. I am sure that that announcement, which I hope will be communicated to all those with constituency interests in due course, will be welcomed by all the people associated with those bases, whether they are in the RAF, or part of the local communities.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State's announcement will be welcomed throughout the Royal Air Force. It is particularly welcome to those of us who have supported Eurofighter—or Typhoon as we must learn to call it—in the House of Commons, not least when we remember that one of the right hon. Gentleman's Conservative predecessors practically undermined the whole programme by trying to lease F16s from the United States. Will he tell us in a little more detail the programme for withdrawal of the Tornado F3 and the Jaguar aircraft? When does he anticipate the last of the 232 Eurofighters will be deployed?
    Mr. Hoon: As I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows—I thank him for his good wishes—we expect the first Eurofighter to be delivered to the RAF in mid-2002. There will then be a consistent and steady deployment programme, allocating Eurofighters, as they are constructed, to the different air forces that have ordered them. Therefore—if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me—I shall not be too specific about the final in-service and replacement dates. Clearly, however, the Eurofighter is a huge success for European co-operation, and I hope that that lesson will not be lost on Conservative Members.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: Will the right hon. Gentleman note that the Eurofighter is a European aircraft and ought to be armed with European weapons? In making a decision on the beyond visual range air-to-air missile, will he bear in mind that if we were to buy American for BVRAAM, there is a danger that the United States could veto sale of the Eurofighter to third countries?
    Mr. Hoon: I shall certainly take those matters into account, and all those factors are being considered as part
    18
    of the very careful evaluation of the various bids for the beyond visual range air-to-air missile. We are considering the matter very carefully.

    RAF (Heavy Lift Requirement)
    Mr. James Gray: If he will make a statement on the RAF's heavy lift requirement. [100968]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The strategic defence review concluded that we needed to improve our strategic transport to deploy joint rapid reaction forces more quickly to meet operational requirements in the changed strategic environment. The SDR further considered a wide range of options for enhancing our strategic airlift capability. It concluded that, in the short term, we should meet our strategic airlift needs with C17 aircraft or their equivalent, and that, in the longer term, we should consider a suitable replacement for our remaining transport aircraft.
    We are currently considering solutions in respect of both our short and long-term requirements, and expect to make an announcement in the House in the new year.
    Mr. Gray: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he join me in congratulating the airmen and airwomen of RAF Lyneham in my constituency, whose current fleet of C130K Hercules flew 497 sorties in operation Agricola—carrying 4,964 passengers, 277 vehicles, and an astonishing 2,483 tonnes of freight? Does he agree that the Kosovo operation would not have been possible without the Hercules? Rather than doing what may be more politically expedient and moving towards the European Airbus A400M replacement, will he therefore commit himself to replacing the current Hercules fleet with the C130J and the C17?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The short answer is no. There are three responses to the longer-term aircraft needs of the transport wing, and we shall evaluate each of those, just as we shall do for bids to meet the short-term requirements—according to criteria that have been clearly stated and against which we have practised assiduously since publication of the strategic defence review. We will ensure that there is value for money and that requirements on qualities such as interoperability are satisfied. We will also certainly ensure that we get delivery on time, and that the aircraft meet operational requirements.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about the role of the Territorial Army in supporting the Regular Army in Kosovo. [100969]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The Territorial Army is an integral part of our armed forces, and many members of the TA are currently serving in the Balkans theatre of operations. As of 3 December 1999, 229 members of the TA were serving

    19
    in Kosovo. The TA also supports the Regular Army by back-filling jobs of Army personnel deployed in the region.
    Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in saying that we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to all Territorial Army members who are currently supporting the Regular Army, including the 17 members of the Royal Monmouth Royal Engineers currently deployed on humanitarian work in Bosnia and in Kosovo?
    Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I have special affection for the Royal Monmouth Royal Engineers, because—as he will know—a part of the unit is in my constituency. My hon. Friend—like others who have been to Kosovo and to Bosnia—will be aware of the tremendous job being done and the enthusiasm and commitment being shown by reserve forces in those places. They are working alongside their fellows in the
    20
    Regular Army—doing a job that is well done, and a job which—contrary to some of the assertions made by Conservative Members—is worth doing.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister take this opportunity to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), which he tried to dodge? Is it not the case that, because of defence cuts, the Territorial Army is having to be deployed compulsorily for the first time since the second world war?
    Mr. Spellar: As I said in my previous answer, it is strange for Conservatives to make that point, because it was the Conservative Government, with all-party support, who brought in the provisions for compulsory call-out under the Reserve Forces Act 1996, to make the TA and the reserve forces usable and used. I fail to understand why they have such a low opinion of the reserve forces that they do not think that we should be using them. They want to be used and we want to use them.

Helsinki European Council
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
Accompanied by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I attended a meeting of the European Council in Helsinki on 10 and 11 December.
The key decisions of the Helsinki summit were far reaching. It increased to 12 the number of countries involved in accession negotiations with the European Union and gave candidate status to Turkey for the first time. That presages a hugely enlarged European Union and, over time, with the membership of Turkey now formally on the agenda, one with its borders stretching as far as the middle east. In addition, it has significantly pushed forward European defence co-operation, allowing the European Union for the first time to build the capability of acting where NATO is not engaged. Those are truly historic decisions for the European Union.
Before the start of the summit, we learned of the decision of the French Government to refuse to abide by the decision of the European Union and lift the ban on British beef. As I said in this House on 10 November, it was always preferable to settle this through discussion and clarification, but, failing that, we would have to go to law. We worked hard to reach an understanding with France. In the end, the Commission tabled a summary of our response to French questions, which we and the Commission believed should have satisfied reasonable concerns. Unfortunately, the French Government were unable to agree. The Commission is now taking France to court and will issue its formal legal opinion tomorrow.
There were some who said that we should have tabled the issue at the Helsinki summit. I can think of nothing more counter-productive or misjudged. At present, British beef can be sold in 13 of the 15 European Union countries. The Commission is completely on side with us. The beef ban is in law lifted. To have reopened the entire issue—and given all 15 countries an obligation to debate an issue that the vast majority regard as closed—would have been tactical ineptitude on a grand scale. Neither do I think that it is sensible to threaten a trade war with France. We have trade with France worth billions of pounds and thousands of jobs. To break the law ourselves, while seeking to have it upheld against France, would be folly and we will not do it.
To return to the summit, the main issue was the enlargement of the European Union, which the Government strongly support. Democracy and the market economy are now firmly established in the majority of central and eastern European countries, which are increasingly ready to join the European Union. We also owe an obligation to those countries that stood by us in the Kosovo conflict earlier this year.
Six countries—Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Slovenia and Cyprus—began negotiations last year. The European Council decided to open negotiations early next year with six more—Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Malta, Bulgaria and Romania. The process is lengthy and detailed, but it is now firmly under way.
On Cyprus, the European Council welcomed the negotiations under way in New York between the Cypriot leaders. Successful conclusion of those talks would not
22
only bring a welcome end to a long-running dispute, but facilitate Cyprus's accession to the EU, and we urge all those involved to make every effort to reach agreement. But at Helsinki, Heads of Government endorsed our view that Cyprus's accession was a matter for decision by the member states of the European Union and there should be no preconditions.
The European Council also opened a new and much more positive chapter in its relations with Turkey. This has long been a preoccupation for Britain. Turkey is of great strategic importance and an ally in NATO. A more constructive relationship between Turkey and the EU is long overdue, but we now have secured that. Turkey is now a candidate country, destined to join the European Union on the same basis as the other candidates. It will enjoy all the benefits of other candidates, including financial assistance, even though accession negotiations are unlikely to begin for some time. However, it is an excellent outcome.
The intergovernmental conference next year is aimed at preparing the Union for the impending enlargement. The Helsinki Council confirmed that the conference should focus on the size and composition of the European Commission, the weighting of votes in the Council and the possible extension of qualified majority voting, in certain limited areas. The conference will begin in February and complete its work by the end of next year.
On security and defence, the European Council endorsed our view that the top priority is for European nations to strengthen their military capabilities. At Helsinki, we agreed that member states should, by 2003, be able to deploy and sustain for at least one year military forces of up to 50,000 to 60,000 troops, capable of a range of tasks essentially defined as humanitarian and rescue missions, peacekeeping or peace enforcement.
There have been suggestions that this agreement to increase the options open to us in future crises has adverse implications for NATO, or that the European Union is creating a European army. That is the opposite of the case. The European Council made it clear that the EU will launch and conduct military operations only where NATO as a whole is not engaged. The process will involve full consultation and transparency with NATO. The six non-EU allies will be involved and consulted before decisions are taken, and will be able to take a full part in resulting operations. The EU will avoid unnecessary duplication with NATO. Final decisions on whether to involve troops will remain firmly with national Governments. These arrangements, as the Helsinki Council made clear explicitly, do not imply a European army.
However, it would be a tragic mistake—repeating mistakes of British European policy over the past few decades—if Britain opted out of the debate on European defence and left the field to others. This is a debate that we must shape and influence from the start, because our vital strategic interests are affected by it. As a result of our participation, it is moving in a clear direction—reinforcing NATO, not in opposition to it. I completely reject the view of those who would have us opt out of this issue altogether.
The conflict in Chechnya was much on our minds at Helsinki. Our relationship with Russia is a vital one, above all for the security and stability of our continent. We want Russia to continue on the path of democracy,

23
the market economy and the rule of law, and will continue to support the transition process. But business as usual is not possible while human rights are being comprehensively abused in a corner of the Russian Federation. The EU called for a political solution to this issue and adopted a series of actions designed to back up the words of strong condemnation.
On the withholding tax, the Council agreed a sensible way forward. We will continue to work for a solution to the issue of tax evasion that rightly concerns some of our EU partners, Germany in particular. But this cannot be done at the expense of a major European financial market based here in London. I have made it clear that we will not permit that. We also have genuine concern about the efficacy of the measures proposed.
We have also insisted that, in debates on the way forward, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals for an exchange of information on the basis that involves more than just EU member countries should be examined. There is increasing recognition that it is no good adopting measures in the EU if the only impact is that the market in savings moves outside the EU. The rest of the tax package we can support, although of course other countries have difficulties with parts of it.
The Helsinki summit dealt with pressing issues of the day, but also had a vision for the future. We made the historic decision that the Europe of the future would be one that embraced countries in eastern Europe that 10 short years ago were only just emerging from totalitarian communist rule. This enlarged Europe is one that would have been unimaginable until the very recent past, and it is one that we should embrace.
We also all made the decision that our continent of Europe, which twice this century has lost millions of its citizens in the two most bloody wars in human history, should now co-operate in defence where the object is to help keep the peace. A bigger European Union; a union committed to embracing countries committed to democracy; a Europe of nations determined to use their collective strength to advance our values—that is our vision, and I commend it to the House.
Mr. William Hague: First, I welcome and support what the Prime Minister said about Cyprus and Turkey. I concur with him about the gravity of the situation in Chechnya. The Opposition support the measures agreed at Helsinki, including the diversion of some of the TACIS funding. Russia's actions have been brutal, but it is in everyone's interests that we do not unwittingly destabilise the Russian economy or the progress of democracy in that country.
Overall, however, did not the Helsinki summit represent the complete failure of the Prime Minister's strategy on Europe? Before he came to office, the Prime Minister said:
"I will never allow this country to be isolated…in Europe."
Is not it true that he thought that all he had to do was concede and cave in to gain the good will of our European partners? Two and a half years after taking office, is not it apparent that he has got nothing in return for his caving in or his concessions? There is nothing left of his European policy, which has been exposed as one of astonishing naivety.
24
Is not the greatest example of that the fiasco of the beef ban? When he thought that the ban had been lifted earlier this year, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
"Labour leadership in Europe and our constructive approach…has clearly been shown to succeed."
In July, the Prime Minister told the House that the decision to lift the beef ban had come about
"because the Government have a constructive…attitude to Europe. That is why we got the beef ban lifted and it is another example of new Labour working."—[Official Report, 14 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 402-5.]
Today he is reduced to stating, rather pathetically:
"The beef ban is in law lifted."
Five months and several summits since the Prime Minister's statement to the House in July, is not the fact that British beef is still banned in Europe's two largest countries proof that Labour in Europe is not working? Is not it time that the Prime Minister admitted that he should have lifted our own ban on beef on the bone months ago, as the Opposition demanded, and that he should have begun legal proceedings months ago, as we argued? Should he not have been actively negotiating with the French, which is what we have called for throughout? [Laughter.] The Prime Minister thinks that he has been actively negotiating.
The Government veer between complacently announcing that the ban has been lifted and petulantly refusing to talk to the French when it is not lifted. The Prime Minister may think that he has been actively negotiating, but the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food went through a period when he would not pick up the telephone to speak to his French counterpart. The Anglo-French summit a fortnight ago passed happily by with beef neither on the menu nor on the agenda: where was the Prime Minister's active negotiation then?
The Prime Minister's complacency was finally shattered—and his petulance reached new heights—at Helsinki. A report in The Sun of 10 December stated:
"Mr. Blair was so angry he didn't even mention the crisis when he met with Lionel Jospin last night."
The Government are experts in the tactical ineptitude of which the Prime Minister accuses others. We know that he always says that, in fighting the beef ban, we have the law and science on our side. We do—but, unfortunately, we also have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on our side, which is why the beef ban has not been lifted.
Beef provides one example of how Labour in Europe is not working, but the fiasco over the withholding tax provides another. Instead of vetoing the tax at the beginning, the Prime Minister has allowed the threat of it to hang over the City for more than a year, with all the damage that such uncertainty causes. The Chancellor's own Treasury report states that
"continuing uncertainty…will increase the likelihood that borrowers will look for alternative sources of finance outside the EU".
If the Prime Minister has been so tough about the tax, how is it that he has allowed that uncertainty to continue? How is it that, at Helsinki, he agreed to yet more talks? How is it that the German Finance Minister should have said on Friday that he had had
"differing signals from the British"?

25
How was it that the EU Tax Commissioner should have said that he is "hopeful and positive" about introducing a withholding tax in the next six months? Was not Helsinki the chance to end the uncertainty? Instead of simply vetoing the tax, should not the right hon. Gentleman have insisted that it would never be introduced by the back door through qualified majority voting?
European defence was also on the Helsinki agenda. We are in favour of an enhanced European defence capability within NATO. However, we are concerned about the current development of what is euphemistically called readily deployable EU military capabilities outside NATO—in other words, a European army.
Has the Prime Minister seen the comments of the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Europe in The New York Times today? General Wesley Clark says:
"the main American concern…is decoupling or duplication or discrimination against non-EU, European members of NATO".
General Clark also says:
"the new European plan has the potential to cause long-term irritation for the United States."
It is no good saying that the Americans are not worried about it—the Secretary of State for Defence admitted that they are only moments ago at Question Time.
Does the Prime Minister remember saying at the Amsterdam summit two years ago:
"Europe's defence should remain a matter for NATO and not the EU",
and calling the very plan to which he has now signed up "an ill-judged transplant operation"?
The decision to establish a defence identity outside NATO is momentous—it is one of the biggest changes in foreign and defence policies on which the Government have embarked. We believe that it has profound dangers. Is not it time that the rationale for and considerable risks of the change were fully explained to the House?
Does not the challenge of European Union enlargement most starkly expose the fact that Labour in Europe is not working? We think that enlargement is the single most pressing issue facing Europe today. We believe that an enlarged Europe cannot work unless it is more flexible, unless countries can be in the European Union but not run by the European Union. The Prime Minister believes the opposite—that Europe needs to be more integrated, that more powers and rights of member states need to be transferred to Brussels. Sometimes the right hon. Gentleman leads the way on integration and sometimes he gets dragged along in that direction, but that is always the path that he takes. That is why at the Helsinki summit he agreed to an open-ended discussion on abolishing the veto, the development of a European army and more tax harmonisation.
The Prime Minister has managed to pull off the unbelievable double of signing up to the integrationist agenda while simultaneously being isolated in Europe. Baroness Thatcher was isolated when she won Britain the rebate, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was isolated when he won the opt-out from the single currency. Those British Prime Ministers may have sometimes been isolated, but they came back with something that we needed. Is not the right hon. Gentleman the first British Prime Minister in history to return from a summit both isolated and empty handed?
The Prime Minister: I think that when we got to Baroness Thatcher, we pretty well worked out the true author of that remark.
26
Let me deal with some of the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He accuses us of not doing enough for enlargement. His policy, let me remind him, is to block enlargement. He is committed to blocking enlargement unless the European Union agrees to a treaty change. All 15 member states have to agree to such a treaty change, but not one does. Is there one? The idea of lectures from the right hon. Gentleman on doing more for enlargement illustrates how completely fatuous his policy on Europe has become.
As for beef, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's criticism today was a trifle different from before—he is now accusing me of not negotiating enough. For weeks Mr. Yo-yo has been round the television studios, saying that I was a puppet dancing to Mr. Jospin's tune and asking why I was talking to him instead of fighting. It is another fatuous position. [Interruption.] The Tories shout, but let me remind them of one big difference between us and them. When we came to power, how many countries could British beef be sold in? It was a round figure, approximating to zero—and that was after the Tory beef war.
On the withholding tax, having accused me of being a puppet, of caving in and dancing to someone else's tune on beef, the right hon. Gentleman accuses me of being isolated—the very thing he asks me to be on beef, but for which he criticises me when I am. The right hon. Gentleman's biggest cheek came when he stated that we should have vetoed the withholding tax from the beginning because that is what the Tories did. Well, we have done some research on what they did: the tax arose from a decision taken in April 1996, and, on the previous occasion on which it was on the agenda, in 1989, Britain voted for it under a Conservative Government. The country that vetoed it then was Luxembourg. The Tories cannot tell us that we should have gone straight in with a veto.
The right hon. Gentleman also made some points on defence, a subject on which he is perhaps more ridiculous than on any other. If I understand his position, he is in favour of defence co-operation in Europe, but in a way consistent with NATO.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Inside NATO.
The Prime Minister: Inside NATO. In other words, he supports the European strategic defence initiative agreed by the Tories in 1996 at Berlin. Let me read out what the NATO summit of April 1999 said:
"We confirm that a stronger European role will help contribute to the vitality of our alliance for the 21st century."
The Deputy Secretary of State for the United States said:
"The US is for this. It is in our interests for Europe to be able to deal effectively".
The United States favours the European strategic defence initiative. Finally, let us hear what the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples)—the shadow Foreign Secretary—said in June:
"The relationship between British and French forces at an operational level is fantastic. It should be developed. We are the two most serious countries about defence in Europe…We need to do things together."—[Official Report, 10 June 1999; Vol. 332, c. 812.]
What has changed between then and now? Baroness Thatcher has brought the Tories to heel. All that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks is doing in the name

27
of strength is actually weakness. By choosing not to stand up to the ultra-Thatcherites who run his party, he has taken a party that used—no matter what one's politics—to be a serious party of government and turned it into the equivalent of a religious sect. It is that error of judgment from which all his errors stem—on the renegotiation of the treaty of Rome that would give us an exit route from the EU; on blocking enlargement; or on the absurd positions that he has taken on every policy that relates to Europe.[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Those on the Opposition Front Bench should know better.
The Prime Minister: We shall carry on with our sensible, positive and constructive relationship with Europe. That does not mean, and never has meant, that we shall fail to defend the national interest, but it means that we shall be unyielding when we need to be—as with the withholding tax—shall look for agreement where we can find it, and shall always be persuasive and sensible in our attitudes.
There will be times when we are in dispute with Europe—that happens with all countries—but not every dispute has to be a crisis. The British rebate, negotiated at Berlin in March—and kept—is an example of that. The Leader of the Opposition told us that we would get rolled over at Berlin and that the rebate would go, but we came back with the rebate intact and with the best deal on structural and cohesion funds that this country has ever had—we did it without handbagging anybody. We did it by taking a sensible attitude.
There may be—indeed there are—parts of our media and of the Conservative party who have such a violent dislike of Europe that they will abuse it and exaggerate its weaknesses to an absurd degree, but we will not let them dictate the policy on Europe. The Tory party can give in to them, but we will not, because in the name of defending Britain's national interest, they betray Britain's national interest.
We heard what we expected from the Leader of the Opposition. When we analyse the details of the policies that he proposes, we find that they are far removed from support for this country; they are a mixture of extremism and opportunism. This country prefers grown-up, sensible government.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I begin with the closing theme of the comments of the Leader of the Conservative party—isolationism. The majority of Members would readily concur—whatever the gradation or the spectrum of their views on matters European—that the one matter that should remain profoundly isolated from engagement with Europe is the current stance of the British Conservative party, which is deeply against our national interest.
I welcome what was said and the steps that will be followed, as a result of the Helsinki summit, in respect of the Russian position. The Government deserve support, as do the efforts of the European Union. Does the Prime Minister concur that that matter is an important test of the EU' s ability to manifest a more constructive and coherent foreign policy approach to such a significant neighbour as Russia, which currently is behaving in such an outrageous fashion over humanitarian issues?
28
On defence, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that—despite all the hokum and nonsense about a European army—among those who take a more sensible and constructive interest in the matter, there will be a welcome for the modest but significant step towards the establishment of a European rapid reaction force? That is not least because it bolts us further into NATO and bolts a European component into NATO, which is essential for our long-term interest.
On the all-important issue of enlargement—especially in respect of Turkey—does the Prime Minister agree that a seminal decision was reached in principle in Helsinki? However, Europe must be emphatic that, while wanting to welcome Turkey into the European community of nations in due course, Turkey must respond by a significant improvement in its domestic human rights agenda. We should not lose sight of that simply because of the bigger and welcome aim of enlarging the union in that geographic direction.
As for our friends in France, the old alliance is under some strain at present—never mind relations between Mr. Jospin and the Prime Minister. The benefit of hindsight is a great thing. However, does the Prime Minister acknowledge, with hindsight, that, while dealing with the matter in the sane and sensible way that the Government have adopted during recent weeks, it might have been better to realise that the French could have reneged on the agreement that they appeared to have signed up to? In acknowledging that, we should not lose sight of the bigger truth: British beef exports are locked out of Commonwealth countries throughout the world. We are locked out of the United States. We have no legal recourse in any of these areas of the world.
The only reason that we have a legal recourse—it is not Britain versus France but the rest of Europe versus France in this matter—is that we are members of, and active participants in, the European Union. When the sceptics and the critics say that this is an argument for disengagement, there are those of us who will strongly make the case that it is an argument for more proactive engagement in Europe, and for using the mechanisms that Europe makes available to us to ensure that the undoubted unlawful activity of the French is brought to a speedy conclusion in due course and in our national interest.
Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] I acknowledge that Conservative Members find this boring, because they are not interested in rational dialogue about Europe across the Floor of the House. Long may they remain bored and impotent on matters European.
On the issue of the withholding tax, the Prime Minister said, tellingly but not altogether revealingly:
"I have made it clear that we will not permit that".
What does that mean? Does that mean, as far as the eurobond market is concerned, that he will be willing to exercise a British veto, come Oporto in June? It would be helpful if he would clarify that issue.
Finally—
Mr. Eric Forth: That is the second "finally."
Mr. Kennedy: I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman is subjecting my words to such minute textual analysis. It is better than can be said of what the right hon. Gentleman has to say in matters European where the rest of the House is involved.

29
Will the Prime Minister none the less acknowledge that the mood music in terms of the summit was that Britain is clearly not playing the central leading role in Europe that it should? It cannot and it will not until Britain and the British Government are more unambiguous about our commitment to the single currency, and about being fully plugged into the European project as a whole.
The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's final point, Britain was clearly playing a very central and leading role in the defence debate.
In relation to the euro, we have set out our position. In order for Britain to join the euro sensibly, the economic conditions must be met. Those conditions remain, and they are right and in this country's interests.
In respect of the right hon. Gentleman's comments on defence, we agree entirely that it is important to see the developments as an addition to our ability to affect issues in the right way. I know that some Conservatives have been saying, "Of course we want this, but only when it is within NATO." I do not think that they yet understand that this is actually building on the European security and defence initiative, so it is entirely consistent with NATO. Indeed, the force can be used by NATO, but it is then available to us to use it where the alliance
"as a whole is not engaged".
In other words, the alliance can decide that it will be engaged in a particular situation; but should, for example, America decide not to be engaged, we can have our own force in the limited tasks that are called Petersberg tasks—humanitarian, peacekeeping and peace intervention missions. Only a Conservative party utterly in thrall to the anti-Europeans could see that in a way that NATO does not see it, as was made clear by NATO's comments at the summit in April. [Interruption.] There was a shout about Strobe Talbott. In fact, he has given some very clear statements on it. He has said:
"It is in our interests for Europe to be able to deal effectively with challenges to European security well before they reach the threshold of triggering US combat involvement"—
not that it will make any difference to the Conservatives.
The right hon. Gentleman is right in what he says about enlargement. We have said that we very much welcome the fact that Turkey is a candidate country, but we have made it clear—and it is clear in the conclusions—that the Copenhagen criteria on human rights and democracy must be met before the accession negotiations get under way.
In respect of France, the right hon. Gentleman is also right. We are extremely disappointed at the French decision. That decision is wrong. It is wrong in law, and it is politically misguided and misjudged. However, it is important that we recognise that it is only because we are members of the European Union that we can sell beef in 13 of the 15 member states, that we are actually selling it now in five countries outside the European Union and that we are free to sell it outside the European Union. When we came to office, not merely was the beef ban in place in Europe, but we were banned from selling it in third countries as well—[HON. MEMBERS: "By Europe."] I do not want to get into that internal row in the Conservative party about which side of the fence it is on. It is important—[Interruption.] We have done enough of that.
It is important that we continue to persuade countries. I wish to make one point again: British beef is the safest in the world because we sell only animals that are under
30
30 months old and that were born after August 1996 when the new rules were implemented. They are the strictest rules on animal feeding anywhere in the world, and there has not been a single case of BSE in such an animal in this country. When other countries consider the incidence of BSE as a whole in this country, they fail to recognise that it occurs within older animals—the animals that we are not selling to other countries. I am afraid that we must recognise that we have a big job of persuading to do. Even when the beef ban is fully lifted, we shall still have to go out and really sell British beef. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman was right to point out that many Commonwealth countries and the United States of America have a ban in place on British beef.
In respect of the withholding tax, we have made it quite clear all the way through that we are prepared to use the veto if necessary. Countries such as Germany have perfectly legitimate concerns. They experience tax evasion on a significant scale because money simply goes across the border to countries where banking secrecy rules apply and where people can relieve themselves of their obligation to pay their proper tax in Germany. They want that stopped, and we are entirely sympathetic to that. However, as I have emphasised many times before, it must be done in such as way that it does not put at risk what is not just a major British and City of London interest, but a major European interest—namely, the eurobond market.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Just 10 years after the fall of the Berlin wall, 10 of the 13 countries recognised as applicants were members of either the Soviet empire or of the Soviet Union. Is that fact not a measure of the historic importance of the decisions that were taken at the Helsinki summit? To show that Europe recognises the importance of that, can my right hon. Friend give us an idea of the working assumptions or the target dates that he and his colleagues have set for the first batch of countries formally to join the European Union? If we do not grasp this historic opportunity, disillusion may well set in.
The Prime Minister: Of course, all the countries are treated the same and according to the same criteria. In a sense, it is up to them how ready they get. In the conclusions, we say that we would want to be ready ourselves to welcome them in by 2002 if they comply with the conditions of entry.
Sir David Madel: In order to make progress on its application to join the European Union, has Turkey been required to undertake that it will withdraw its troops from northern Cyprus? Are we, Greece and Turkey going to continue as guarantors of the 1960 Cyprus constitution, or is that task going to be transferred to the European Union?
The Prime Minister: No, it is not a requirement or precondition for Turkey's accession, but general words in the conclusions of the communiqué make it clear that there is an obligation on people to do their best to resolve border disputes. We have also made it clear—this was welcomed by Cyprus and by Greece—that the resolution of the dispute in Cyprus cannot be a precondition to Cyprus's accession. The hon. Gentleman will find that

31
most people recognise the importance of resolving the dispute, but do not want it to be a precondition on either the accession of Turkey or the accession of Cyprus.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Since the Prime Minister has confirmed to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) that there is now no obstacle to Cyprus being admitted to the European Union—provided, of course, that it complies with the appropriate conditions—will my right hon. Friend further confirm that it would, to say the very least, be anomalous if one country in the European Union had a third of its territory occupied by a country that is a candidate for EU membership? Will he confirm that pressure ought, therefore, to be placed on Turkey to withdraw those forces as soon as possible, under appropriate arrangements, and that the best thing that Turkey can do to advance its candidature will be to urge Rauf Denktas to make an appropriate agreement with the lawful Government of Cyprus?
The Prime Minister: The most helpful thing that I can say is that of course we want the dispute in Cyprus to be resolved. As I said, there is a general obligation on countries to do their best to resolve such disputes. Under the auspices of the UN, talks are being conducted between the respective parties in Cyprus, and I hope that they will be successful. At this stage, that is probably the most helpful and diplomatic thing for me to say.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: What benefit does the City derive from the Prime Minister's refusal to say that, if necessary, the Government will veto the withholding tax?
The Prime Minister: I have just that I would do that, so the City is probably not in the same state of ignorance as the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bill Rammell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this European summit, like all European summits, was difficult and that he had vigorously to fight our corner? Is not that logical and inevitable in a Europe of nation states? Is not the alternative, of Britain being outside the European Union, a position in which we would have no leverage, no influence and no allies? Whether the beef ban, the withholding tax or defence co-operation were under discussion, our voice would count for nothing. Is not that the harsh, cold reality—a reality that the Conservative party does not even begin to address?
The Prime Minister: Of course all countries fight their corner on issues that affect their vital national interest, and this country should be no different from any other. [Interruption.] Conservative Members shout that we have not done it very successfully, but I repeat that at the Berlin summit we got a better deal than any other country could possibly have got. We kept the rebate when everyone was saying that, on enlargement, we would have to give it up. The Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues were saying that we would negotiate away the rebate, but we did not. We kept it, and we added to that a good deal for
32
objective 1 status and structural funds, and we did so in a way that did not isolate Britain from anybody. That, in my view, is the proper way to negotiate.
As a result of our negotiations, there is a change in the balance of contributions between Britain, France and Italy. Although we shall still be big net contributors, our contributions will, in future years, be far more in line with those of comparably sized countries. That is safeguarding our interests.
I remind the House that the Conservatives have been accusing me of being isolated on the withholding tax. I am not isolated, but if I were, it would be precisely because I am prepared to stand up for this country's interests. The Conservatives want me to do what they, as a party, now urge, because they have given in to the Thatcherites who, I am afraid, now run the party. That is why I draw a distinction between the way Margaret Thatcher negotiated for the first six or seven years of her premiership and the Conservatives' later negotiating position. Margaret Thatcher negotiated the single European market, and in the course of that she gave away the veto on more items than any Prime Minister before or since. She did so entirely justifiably because that was in Britain's interests. She took Britain into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.
All that tends to be forgotten, but it is true, and it was only in the later period of Conservative Government that Britain moved into a position of outright oppositionalism and obstructionism. It is a tragedy that the Conservative party forced the next Prime Minister—against his will, I believe—into a similar position, so that on BSE, the ban was imposed and we had a beef war, which is generally agreed to have been a rather humiliating spectacle for this country. I repeat: no matter how much parts of the media or of the Conservative party urge on me a similar course, I shall not pursue it. It is utterly bogus patriotism and it is pretending to stand up for this country's national interests when actually they would be undermined.
Mr. Eric Forth: When the Prime Minister reflects on Schröder's flouting of the single market on Mannesmann, and Jospin's flouting of European law on beef, as well as, indeed, his own isolation on the withholding tax, how does he assess progress towards the vision of Europe that he and Mr. Prodi share?
The Prime Minister: I am not aware that Chancellor Schröder has intervened in the single market. He is perfectly entitled to make his view clear. I have made it clear all the way through that I believe that the European market is right, and that that is how things should happen. It is curious that the right hon. Gentleman attacks me over these issues, because of course he would like to get out of the European Union altogether. He says to me that I should be doing better in the EU, but I am afraid that his mouth is not the one from which such sentiments should be uttered. That is the choice. It is the Conservative party's tragedy that, I am afraid, the right hon. Gentleman finds more support on the Opposition Benches today than I would ever have thought possible.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The decision on Turkey will be greatly welcomed by most of the members of the Turkish Parliament, who are well aware of the concerns in western Europe over the future

33
of Cyprus, and want to enter the European Union as soon as is humanly possible. Furthermore, it will be a spur to those in the Turkish Parliament who want to implement an agenda of modernising Parliament, including changing the way in which it operates.
The Prime Minister: I wholeheartedly agree with that. Managing to secure this step forward is a great tribute to the Finnish presidency, which performed magnificently throughout its six months; to Turkey, for having acknowledged that the rest of the EU wants to involve it in the candidate status; and to Costas Simitis and the Greek Government, who had the courage to grasp the opportunity. They deserve our congratulations. It has long been our desire to see Turkey more closely involved in the EU. Such involvement is of very big strategic interest to this country and the EU.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Summits of this nature have their difficulties and successes and, in fairness, the Prime Minister has emerged quite well from a very difficult weekend. On the withholding tax, he has stood firm—contrary to the suggestions of some. On Turkey, he has taken a lead that many of us welcome. As one who has taken an interest in Turkey and Cyprus for the past 25 years, I welcome the decision in Helsinki. Will the Prime Minister commend the Finnish presidency for the way in which it handled the matter? I see the different nuances of statements on Cyprus; I can read between the lines and I welcome the change in our Government policy on Cyprus.
Coming from an agricultural constituency, I am obviously very disappointed at the French approach to the beef issue. However, one cannot stop people breaking the law—that is the problem—and they are breaking the law. Now that the matter is going into court and will probably take about 18 months to resolve, will the Prime Minister support the UK beef industry in any claim for damages that may arise following the Court's decision? The Prime Minister mentioned 13 countries, but we cannot really get into Italy because we would have to go through France. Therefore, a beef claim could be built, and will need support.
The summit commended the political process in Northern Ireland and asked for the implementation of the Good Friday agreement in its totality. Did all those present realise that that meant the complete disarmament of all illegal arms in Northern Ireland by May next year?
The Prime Minister: On the latter point, people are very familiar with the detail of the agreement and the need for all of it to be implemented.
In respect of beef, we would of course support UK farmers in their claims for compensation. There has been a transit agreement with France, so we should manage to transport beef through France en route to other countries. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the French are breaking the law: they have broken the law. We were right to try to persuade them not to do so because that would have been better for our farmers. As more sensible people understand, getting there by persuasion is more likely to sell beef than doing so simply under court order.
34
In respect of Turkey, I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who has a long-standing interest in the matter. The decision potentially opens the door to a new era in relations with Turkey.
Mr. Denzil Davies: On the interdepartmental conference, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that not only will Ministers report back to the House on progress, but that, when draft proposals are tabled at the conference, they will also be put to the House, so that they can be debated in the House before they are agreed, and not debated only after they have become a fait accompli?
The Prime Minister: We shall keep the House informed in the usual way. Any treaty changes that require the force of law will have to come before the House.
Mr. Ian Taylor: I happen to agree with the Prime Minister that the strength of the European Union when there is an internal dispute is that we have the benefit of supranational institutions such as the European Court. That is why no serious politician would ever advocate withdrawal. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman regrets having done so in 1983.
On defence, can the Prime Minister clarify the discussions that he had with the new applicants? It is clear that the European Union is expanding well beyond the remit of NATO. It is therefore essential that the EU has some military ability to react in circumstances in which there may be a threat to any future member country, which may not automatically engage American interest. In a sense, membership of the European Union is a security guarantee.
The Prime Minister: Most of the applicant countries rightly see their future in NATO. As we have always made clear, we see NATO as the cornerstone of our own defence. It is important to emphasise that the purpose of the defence identity or defence initiative is to allow us to act in certain circumstances, where there is consent—each country would have to consent to act in a particular way.
The force that we are discussing is confined to what are called the Petersberg tasks—the tasks defined in a strictly limited way in relation to humanitarian or peacekeeping objectives. No one seriously believes that, if an issue such as Kosovo comes up again, we will not want to act with NATO. The proposed force also gives us the ability to put right something that Kosovo laid bare—the lack of proper capability in many of the European defence forces, although probably less so in the British defence forces than in those of most other countries. Although large numbers of forces were available in theory, in practice, we did not have large numbers of forces that could do the type of work that was required. That has greatly stimulated people to ask whether we have the right capability. We, for example, are asking questions about strategic lift and whether we have the capability in that respect. That is entirely sensible.
It is unfortunate that that has become a party issue between us, because it builds precisely on the work that the previous Prime Minister did at Berlin in 1996. To set that hare running, as the shadow Defence Minister, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), did by going over to the United

35
States and saying that it is an attempt to break up NATO, is not just wrong, but fundamentally misguided. In the end, it does this country no favours at all.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On Kosovo, where the Prime Minister says that we did not have sufficient capability, when Bernard Kouchner was asked what was needed, he replied, "Money, money, money; police, police, police." Was the parlous situation of winter in the Balkans discussed at Helsinki? In particular, did anybody at Helsinki have any idea how the Danube could be unblocked without the unpalatable prospect of talking to Mr. Milosevic?
The Prime Minister: We have always wanted the Danube to be unblocked, but we are not prepared to start trading with Milosevic the things that he wants. Kosovo was discussed at length at the summit. My hon. Friend is right to say that Mr. Kouchner is making it clear what he needs. He needs armed police, incidentally, which is why the Royal Ulster Constabulary has willingly offered to help.
As for money, we are playing our part substantially. It is right, however, that other countries must realise that our obligation to Kosovo has not ended; it continues. In particular, we agreed that we would consider ways of pushing on the entire stability pact process for the region. That is also immensely important. The countries involved will require a great deal of reconstruction to survive the next few years.
Mr. William Cash: In the presidency conclusions to which both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence referred, there is mention of
"determination to develop an autonomous capacity to take decisions and…EU-led military operations in response to international crises."
The right hon. Gentleman has said that each of the member states would be able to consent. Does he accept that, under the Petersberg tasks to which all this relates, including a wider defence policy, majority voting applies where a joint strategy and a common action have already been devolved? Does he also accept that, in plain English, as in the Oxford dictionary, "autonomous" means "self-governing" or "independent"?
As for strengthening NATO, there can be no serious doubt that that wider defence policy is causing enormous concern in the United States and enormous enthusiasm in Russia.
The Prime Minister: As ever, the hon. Gentleman is seeing conspiracies where none exists. The full sentence from which he has quoted in part is in paragraph 27. It reads:
"The European Council underlines its determination to develop an autonomous capacity to take decisions and, where NATO as a whole is not engaged, to launch and conduct EU-led military operations."
36
There is no way in which any country will give up control over its own armed forces. The European Commission and Parliament are not involved in any way. This is where NATO does not wish to be engaged, or where America for any reason does not want to be engaged.
Mr. Cash: Autonomous.
The Prime Minister: It is autonomous in circumstances where the alliance as a whole does not wish to be engaged. If the hon. Gentleman reads further, he will see that the document refers to forces
"capable of the full range of Petersberg tasks."
Those are specific and limited tasks.
Mr. Cash: Majority voting.
The Prime Minister: It is not majority voting. No country has any intention of giving over its armed forces or defence to another country. I would not do that on behalf of this country and neither would any other country do it on behalf of its armed forces.
The hon. Gentleman talks about huge concern in the United States. There has been some concern, which has been mainly prompted by senior Conservatives going to the United States and talking complete nonsense. [Interruption.] If I remember correctly, if, in the old days, Labour party spokesmen had started attacking this country's defence policy abroad, the Conservative Government would have had our flesh hanging in strips off the rafters.
Ann Clwyd: I agree with the general thrust of my right hon. Friend's remarks on Turkey. However, may I emphasise again that there are serious human rights concerns about Turkey's candidacy? I have recently written to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary expressing some of those concerns. Torture is a daily occurrence and freedom of expression, especially for Kurds, is non-existent. Several Kurdish Members of Parliament are still in prison, including one woman who is very unwell. If the death penalty were to be lifted, that would be a consideration. However, it is time that the Turks treated the Kurds as human beings and not something less.
The Prime Minister: I cannot share all my hon. Friend's sentiments but I say to her that it is precisely to meet legitimate concerns that it was made clear that the accession negotiations do not begin until the Copenhagen criteria on human rights and democracy are met. I think that that is a pretty good guarantee.
Sir Michael Spicer: Given the hostile nature of France's actions towards this country in recent weeks, why was the Foreign Secretary seen on television last week cuddling the French Prime Minister in Helsinki?
The Prime Minister: That requires a delicate answer. I think that the hon. Gentleman really means that to be a serious question. If anything is an indication of what is happening to the Conservative party, it is that question.
Mr. Ben Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Turkey's road to candidature has

37
been long and sometimes disappointing? Does he also agree that Turkey's accession is important not only because it is a secular democracy, a valuable geopolitical power in a troubled region, an important ally and partner in NATO, WEU and the Council of Europe, and our bilateral relations are good but because the candidature process involves it in opportunities and obligations?
The Prime Minister: I fully agree. It is interesting that the step forward with Turkey has been greeted well in both Greece and Turkey. It is unusual for that to happen. My hon. Friend is right to point out that Turkey is a valuable NATO ally.
Mr. David Curry: As it is patently obvious that the rules and arrangements for a Europe of 15 cannot function in a Europe of 25 or 26, what confidence can we have that the intergovernmental conference next year will tackle the matter with greater urgency and efficiency than the Amsterdam conference, which was a total cop-out?
The Prime Minister: It is right that the so-called Amsterdam left-overs are important. We must tackle them, or we cannot make enlargement or a properly functioning European Union a reality. We have already made it clear that we want to maintain a veto on key matters such as defence, treaty change and taxation. However, we must also be prepared to take a view of the European Union that allows decisions to be made in the enlarged body; otherwise, we, as well as the European Union, will be the losers.
Mr. David Winnick: Is not it a fact that, while there is justified concern—which I have shared for many years—about Turkey's human rights record, Turkey has, for a long time, successfully resisted all attempts to turn the country into a fundamentalist state where no human rights would exist? Is there not a far better chance for the improvement of human rights in Turkey if that country is a serious candidate for European Union membership?
The Prime Minister: That must be right. It is the reason for our strong support of the initiative that the Finnish presidency has succeeded in pulling off.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Although I do not believe that I have ever been accused of being a Thatcherite—certainly not in the ignorant way in which the Prime Minister habitually uses that epithet—does he understand that, while the proposed withholding tax poses a serious threat to the City of London, and must be resisted—I congratulate him on the vigour with which he resists it—it is only the tip of the much larger iceberg of general tax harmonisation? Will he accept that the leaders of the European Union believe, almost unanimously, that the single currency will not work until there is general tax harmonisation? If Britain were included in that, our taxation rates would be much higher, and comparable with those of Germany. Many Germans, at every level of prosperity, are trying to get their money out of the country because of the high rate of German taxation.
The Prime Minister: It is simply not right to say that the rest of Europe is in favour of tax harmonisation. Even
38
if there were a substantial body of opinion in favour, the proper role for Britain would be to get into the argument and stop it, and we could not do that if we were removed to the margins of Europe. The hon. Gentleman put his question to me in a fair way; let me put it back to him. If I were to adopt the position that his leader has urged on me and say in relation to next year's intergovernmental conference that I would block enlargement unless we agreed a clause on flexibility—which no other European country would agree to, and which would not be in our interests anyway—I would lose any influence I had in Europe whatever. I would then face the choice of either complete humiliation, because none of the other countries would agree to that, so I would have to withdraw my block on enlargement, or blocking enlargement, in which case I can tell him that the arguments in respect of Britain would be gone altogether.
Defence is another example. The defence initiative was not invented when we came to office; it already existed as part of earlier treaties agreed to by the Conservatives. We have made sure—and we will make sure, because I shall not agree to it otherwise—that defence policy is made in such a way that it is fully consistent with NATO and does not undermine it in any shape or form. If the British voice were not there arguing that case, Britain would be worse off.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to help the people of Chechnya is to provide maximum assistance to the Russian authorities in combating the international financial crime and money laundering that lie at the root of so much of the terrorism that the Russians fear from the Chechens?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, which is why we have to choose with care what instruments we use to try to put pressure on Russia in this situation. For example, we have agreed that some provisions of the partnership and co-operation agreement should be suspended as a result of what is happening in Chechnya, but he is quite right to say that we would be misguided if we tried to undermine our memorandum of understanding with the Russians in respect of organised crime and money laundering because it helps us to try to sort out the situation in Russia. We understand the concerns that Russia and the Russian people have about terrorism, but nothing can justify a disproportionate response in Chechnya.
Mr. Michael Colvin: During the discussions in Helsinki about collective European defence, what was said about the size of our national defence budgets? Is the Prime Minister aware that the United States of America spends nearly 4 per cent. of gross domestic product on defence and this year has increased its budget by 10 per cent. while in Europe the figure is 2.2 per cent. of GDP and falling, as member states scramble to maintain the convergence criteria for the euro? If he wants to give a lead in Europe, should not Britain set an example by increasing its defence budget to overcome the problems of overstretch and to bear a fairer share of the burden of collective defence in NATO?
The Prime Minister: The constraint on defence budgets is nothing to do with euro convergence; it is to do with public spending discipline. Like any other country, we have to remain disciplined in our approach to public spending. The hon. Gentleman is right in a sense, however, because the whole purpose of the initiative is to get European countries including Britain—although Britain probably has less to do than most—to consider what they are spending money on and whether it is being spent wisely. He may be right about the 2.2 per cent., although I do not know the precise figure, but the plain fact of the matter is that although, some countries are spending that much, or in some cases more, if one analyses the defence capability that they achieve as a result, one sees that it is not as impressive as it should be, even for such spending.
The Americans should support the initiative, done properly, because a common complaint of theirs, which they make with some justification, is that Europe expects America to bear the entire burden of defence spending. I am saying that we need a better relationship in which we analyse and improve our own capability and make sure that it can do what we want it to do while remaining entirely knitted together with America on the key NATO issues.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am afraid that we must move on. There is other important business to protect.

Point of Order
Mr. James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the debate on transport on 8 December, the Deputy Prime Minister said, at column 837 of Hansard, among other places, that his view was that Conservative members of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee wholeheartedly supported his Bill to establish the Strategic Rail Authority. That is quite incorrect. The report to which he referred makes it plain in paragraph 5 on page viii that the official Opposition wholeheartedly oppose the establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority.
Has the right hon. Gentleman indicated his intention to come to the House to correct that misleading statement? Is there any procedural rule to protect the rights of Back Benchers on pre-legislative hearings of Select Committees who, although perhaps perfectly content to allow a report to be unanimous, none the less want to protect their own position as members of Her Majesty's official Opposition?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his intention to raise that point of order, but he must know that this is a matter for interpretation and debate. The Chair has no knowledge that the Deputy Prime Minister is intending to make a statement, but the Transport Bill is due to be debated and that will provide an opportunity for matters of argument and interpretation to be determined.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(2) (European Standing Committees),

FISHERIES
That the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum, submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 5th December 1999, relating to the fixing of fishing opportunities for 2000 and certain conditions under which they may be fished, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee A.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents) shall not apply to any proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to fisheries, and the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of those proceedings not later than Seven o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Fisheries
[Relevant document: European Union Document No. 7542/99 concerning the Commission's report to the Council and the European Parliament on the results of the multi-annual guidance programme for the fishing fleet at the end of 1997.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I should make it clear to the House that the Speaker has selected both the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and that in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democrat party.
4.41 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum, submitted by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 5th December 1999, relating to the fixing of fishing opportunities for 2000 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; recognises that many fish stocks remain in poor shape and need to be rebuilt for the future; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for UK fishermen consistent with the sustainable management of stocks, effective enforcement and the need to ensure that the regional differences of fisheries and their communities are fully recognised.
It is traditional to hold a fisheries debate each year before the December Agriculture Council to decide total allowable catches and quotas for the following year. It will be an important debate this year, given the recommendations of the International Council for Exploration of the Seas and of the Commission. This is an important occasion for Members from fishing constituencies and for those with a general interest in fisheries. Although total allowable catches and quotas are the main subjects, the debate enables hon. Members to focus on wider issues. I should like to touch on some of the problems that have affected the fishing industry over the past year, and to look ahead to some of the important questions for the future.
This year, the Select Committee on Agriculture produced a report on sea fisheries. I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), and its members for producing a thoughtful and well-constructed report that adds to the debate on fisheries. Although I regret that the debate has been cut short by the statement, I was pleased that, under the new procedures that have been introduced in the House, we were able to have a three-hour debate on the Agriculture Committee report. That was a useful innovation.
I want to begin by saying a word about the science behind the setting of this year's TACs. There is a debate about the science and the way in which it is applied. Fishermen have views on that, as hon. Members can quite understand. I am keen that there should be a greater exchange of information between scientists and fishermen.
This autumn, the chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations went to sea on the MAFF research vessel, and saw the detail and quality of the work that our scientists do. The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science has regularly contributed articles on fishing science to Fishing News,
42
which enables the industry to read about the scientific work and the calculations on fish stocks, and to comment on them. CEFAS scientists have visited fishing ports and have had useful meetings with fishermen. In the coming year, we want to discuss with the industry how to build on those contacts and put them on a more systematic basis.
Mr. John Gummer: We all want a closer relationship between fishermen and scientists. I hope that the Minister will pursue this matter with great vigour, given the Canadian experience. Despite specific warnings from the scientists, fishermen in Canada said that there were plenty of fish right up until the last one disappeared from the grand banks. It is important to be careful when considering the anecdotal evidence in this area.
Mr. Morley: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. We must ensure that we have a proper scientific basis for the assessment of fish stocks. That is not to say, however, that fishermen do not have valuable information to contribute. We want to work with them to develop that. The fisheries conservation group enables fishermen, scientists and fisheries managers to meet to consider and develop practical conservation measures. Some helpful measures have resulted, which I consider to be to the advantage of fisheries management. We want to develop that further.
Mr. Anthony Steen: May I explain why the Minister was given such a hard time when he visited my constituency last week, and was roughed up by the fishermen? They cannot understand why, despite the conservation measures, they are having to throw more fish overboard—having caught them dead—than they are managing to land in their own ports. Is the Minister aware that there is now a sea lion epidemic? Sea lions are coming from all over the north of Scotland and beyond to find the dead fish, and to catch live fish as well. That is why the quota goes down by 30 per cent. each year. The quota system is madness: the Minister should get rid of it.
Mr. Morley: I did not know that there were so many discards that sea lions are coming all the way from the south Atlantic to the British Isles to eat the fish. Nevertheless, discards are an important issue.
I was sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not join me at the meeting in Brixham. The fishermen did not "rough me up", although they made their point robustly, as would be expected. I thought that the meeting provided a useful opportunity to hear both sides of the argument. The fishermen allowed me, with some courtesy, to make my points and to answer their questions. I have no objection to the holding of such meetings elsewhere, to enable fishermen to discuss the issues at first hand.
Time is being squeezed. Although I find it difficult to resist interventions from Members who are interested in this topic, I want to say what I have to say as quickly as possible, in order to provide the maximum opportunity for Back Benchers to speak.
Let me say something about this year's total allowable catches and quotas. The scientific advice relating to most of the stocks that we are considering is depressing: there is no doubt that many stocks are under pressure. The North sea cod quota has not been taken up this year,

43
because the fish are not there to be caught. Monkfish are another example, and many round-fish stocks in the Irish sea are under considerable pressure. The resulting quota cuts proposed by the Commission have been described as the most drastic for 10 years, and we must think carefully about the consequences to the fishing industry.
Mr. Malcolm Moss: Will the Minister be invoking the Hague preference for, say, cod in the North sea and monkfish in the western Scottish waters?
Mr. Morley: We intend to invoke a preference in regard to certain stocks when we consider it to be in our national interest. That applies to a range of stocks, and we need to give the matter some thought. As the hon. Gentleman may know, I am scheduled to meet representatives of the fishing industry this week, before I go to the Council of Ministers. I shall have an opportunity to discuss the preference then.
We need to take scientific advice seriously. It is provided in good faith by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, after thorough stock assessment and analysis. Some criticise the work of ICES because they do not like the implications of its proposals, but we cannot shoot the messenger because we do not like the message. Fisheries scientists do not have an easy job, but they address it professionally and are committed to it. We should recognise that. To be fair to the industry, some industry groups have pressed us on the need to respect the scientific advice on next year's TACs.
Nor should we blame the extent of the cuts proposed on the need for a precautionary approach. Significant cuts are required regardless of that approach, because many of our key stocks are in extremely poor shape. Some are at such low levels that they are over-dependent on the strength of incoming recruitment, which varies for natural reasons. As a result, the size of catches in the following year can vary significantly. It is not just a case of pressure on stocks, although that may obtain in some cases; there is also the question of natural cycles—for instance, the seven-year cycle applying to cod. Two poor year classes in 1997 and 1998 mean that current catch levels are already well down, with little prospect of improvement in the next couple of years. The number of young fish recruiting to the fishery in 1998 was by the far lowest in more than 30 years. In those circumstances, a deep cut in the TAC for next year will be inevitable and, indeed, essential if stock is to be conserved and rebuilt.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: How can the Minister square what he has just said with the fact that, at Brixham last week, he made the point that he personally completely opposed the reduction of some minimum landing sizes and the abolition of others? After everything he said in opposition, is he going to justify pictures of 45 million dead fish floating in the sea because they have been discarded under the common fisheries policy?
Mr. Morley: I have made it clear that I take seriously the issue of discards. I also take minimum landing size reductions seriously. We cannot overestimate the discards issue. Many discards are the result of normal fishing practice, with undersized and unmarketable fish being caught. It is true that, when we have quota management,
44
some marketable fish will be caught and discarded. That is one of the undesirable side effects of quota management, but the problem is to do not simply with the common fisheries policy, which is often blamed, but with the available quotas. The south-west is a case in point. Apart from the fact that the original quotas were based on the track record before the CFP and that more fish is caught and landed now, the quota has gone down in the non-sector. Boats have moved from the non-sector to producer organisations, taking their quota with them, and that has a knock-on consequence.
I said to fishermen in Brixham, "What is the alternative in those circumstances?" We have to manage a quota. Some fishermen may be catching fish accidentally and cannot stop. Some may be deliberately targeting fish. If we do not have such management, how do we control the effect on those stocks?
The answer from the fishermen was that I was the Minister and it was for me to sort such things out. No solution was forthcoming because there is no easy solution. There may be some alternatives to quota management, but all have advantages and disadvantages. With some of the more attractive ones, such as multi-annual quota, stocks have to be in good shape before they can be applied.
Mr. Alex Salmond: These things have to be looked at with some care. In certain areas—for example, cod in the North sea—people would agree that the stock is in a serious condition; it is difficult to argue against that. There is also the fact that the North sea settlement is boxed in by arrangements that the Minister has made with Norway, but, given his knowledge of the industry, is he really going to say that he is totally satisfied that the reduction in the quota for monkfish and saithe in the west coast of Scotland will not result—if it stands—in a substantial increase in discards of some of the most valuable species? Can he give us some assurance that he is aware of the underlying questions that I am talking about? Will he look at the west coast quotas very carefully in the negotiations?
Mr. Morley: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. There is a problem with stocks of west coast saithe, although I accept that there is the issue of by-catch and potential discards. That needs to be considered. There is also a problem in relation to monkfish, which is more of a targeted fishery. Nevertheless, such problems do arise. I assure him that I will consider them.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Norwegians made their characteristic demand for an increase in North sea mackerel. Not many of our fishermen go to Norwegian or Greenland waters, but is my hon. Friend satisfied that those few vessels will get a fair share of the fish in those northern waters?
Mr. Morley: Yes. My hon. Friend, who knows the industry well and has long experience of it, makes a good point. By and large, there was a good outcome for the United Kingdom industry from the Atlanto-Scandian discussions on stocks such as mackerel. We got a good deal on mackerel and increased access in the western waters. We improved the position in relation to haddock, and that will help those who fish in the North sea as well, so those issues were dealt with.

45
I think that the overall outcome was not a bad one, although some of the agreed cod figures—not in United Kingdom waters—were probably higher than they should have been. We might like to re-examine that matter.
Mr. John Townend: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Morley: I shall, but only because the hon. Gentleman has fishing interests. I should like to make some progress.
Mr. Townend: Is there not some discrepancy between the figures that the scientists are working on this year and MAFF figures? For example, according to MAFF figures we have landed about 60 per cent. of our cod quota, whereas according to EU scientists almost the whole of the EU quota has already been taken. According to MAFF, we have landed about 55 per cent. of our plaice quota, whereas according to the scientists 125 per cent. of the EU quota has been caught. Therefore, either the scientists' figures are wrong or many of our European partners are enormously overfishing their quotas.
Mr. Morley: No, any difference is not due to the latter reason. Although the hon. Gentleman is right that the scientists' figures are higher than the landing figures, there are reasons for that difference, and also for the way in which the scientists make their calculations. A couple of weeks ago, when we met fishermen's leaders, we went through that issue. I should also caution the hon. Gentleman on one point: the logic is such that if actual landings are lower than those that the scientists calculate as possible, stocks may be in an even worse state than the scientists have calculated. Nevertheless, I understand the point. The issue has been addressed and, as I said, there will be an opportunity to discuss it further at the meeting.
We have to recognise the science and the fact that—for a variety of reasons, as I said—some of the stocks are in poor shape. However, we also cannot ignore the socio-economic consequences for the industry. Therefore, we have to examine the science and identify possible room for manoeuvre, while taking into account and trying to minimise effects on the industry. That is what we shall be trying to do when we meet in Brussels to discuss the issue. As I said, we have kept in close touch with the industry. This week, before we go to Brussels, there will be an opportunity to go through the issue again. I shall, of course, be listening very carefully to what the industry has to say.
There is no doubt that we have to institute recovery plans for some stocks, such as cod stocks in the Irish sea. The advice is that they are in such a bad state that only "the lowest possible" level of fishing should be allowed and a recovery programme put in place. Consequently, the Commission has proposed a 70 per cent. cut in the cod TAC and big cuts for haddock and whiting—which also feature in that mixed fishery. The cut is much bigger than the Commission would usually recommend—it tries to propose cuts of no more than 40 per cent.—but it has done so because of the potential consequences to the industry. Because of the size of the cuts, we shall have to examine the matter very closely.
I am convinced, however, that there is a need to develop and implement a recovery programme if those stocks are to have any chance of returning to sustainable
46
levels. We have had informal exploratory contacts with the Commission and Ireland, and both agree on the need for exceptional measures, including technical conservation and for EU commitment to early action. I am also committed to ensuring that we make progress on the matter in consultation with the industry. We are also investigating ways of establishing a regional forum in the Irish sea, bringing together all those who are interested in that fishery. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has previously advocated such a forum, and we should like to make progress in establishing one.
Devolution—to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, and now to the Northern Ireland Assembly—has been introduced in 1999, and fisheries management is one of the spheres that have been devolved. Much time and thought were given in preparing devolution of fisheries management, and we have agreed various bilateral fisheries concordats as part of the general system of bilateral concordats between the Westminster Government and the devolved Administrations. The concordats are being published and made available for people to inspect. We should like, eventually, to establish a concordat on fisheries management with the Northern Ireland Administration.
I am particularly pleased with the excellent relations that have been forged between the Ministry and the new Scottish Executive, from ministerial to official level. The best example of those relations are perhaps in the Fisheries Councils, where I have been ably assisted by the Scottish Fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), as a member of the United Kingdom team.
In the same vein, I look forward to welcoming Brid Rodgers, the new Northern Ireland Fisheries Minister, who will be on board at the Council later this week. Brid Rodgers will be joining the discussions that we shall have with the industry, as there are particular issues of concern for Northern Ireland fishermen, as there are for Scottish, Welsh and English fishermen.
Last month, I had the pleasure of opening the new London headquarters of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission—NEAFC. I was honoured to be accompanied by Commissioner Fischler as well as Fisheries Ministers from Norway, Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. NEAFC is an organisation which has come of age and is exercising an increasing influence over the management of fish stocks in the international waters of the north-east Atlantic. It now regulates redfish, mackerel, blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring stocks. A comprehensive new control and enforcement scheme has recently come into effect. We shall be playing a full role in the organisation.
There are two further issues I am particularly keen for NEAFC to get to grips with. The first is the expanding unregulated fishing for haddock by Russian and Icelandic vessels in the Rockall area. That risks undermining Community conservation measures to protect the stock. It is also unfair to UK and other EU fishermen who respect TAC limits when others do not. At the UK's instigation, the European Commission has served notice that that fishery must be brought under control. If it is not, we shall seek appropriate measures in NEAFC to deal with the problem.
The second issue is the management of the slow-growing, deep-water stocks, which experience elsewhere in the world has shown to be particularly

47
vulnerable to overfishing. Last year, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea urged that fisheries for those stocks in the north-east Atlantic should be brought under better management. The UK pressed for the issue to be raised in NEAFC. Unfortunately, a Community proposal for an immediate freeze on fishing effort on those stocks was not acceptable to certain NEAFC members. However, I hope that suitable measures will be adopted next year, once further advice has been received from ICES on management options.
New minimum landing sizes for plaice and other species come into effect in January. Several hon. Members have expressed concern about those regulations—including my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), who mentioned their effect on his local fishermen in Lowestoft. The changes have been introduced on the basis that reducing the minimum landing size reduces discards. There is some truth in that argument, but we believe that the proposals are not the right way forward because they send the wrong conservation message to the industry. It is better to address the issue of discards through conservation measures, perhaps by introducing bigger mesh sizes, rather than by reducing minimum landing sizes. We shall continue to oppose the proposals, because they are the wrong way forward.
Although we are dealing with an EU regulation, we have the right to apply a higher minimum landing size as a national measure in the UK. Other member states have expressed concern about the new measure and may consider doing the same. I want to discuss that with those member states, including Holland, to see whether it would be in the interests of our fishermen and our industry to apply different landing sizes from those in the European regulation.
Mr. Nicholls: I think that the Minister will at least give me credit for the fact that I have always been prepared to criticise his predecessors from my party as much as I criticise him. Will he at least assure us that there will be no question of agreeing to extra restrictions being imposed on our fishermen if they are not imposed on those from other nations who could be fishing in our area? If not, those who are practising conservation will not receive the benefit of it.
Mr. Morley: I want to apply measures in such a way that the benefit goes to our fishermen. The new limit has been agreed in the Council by a majority decision, so I cannot apply a higher measure to other member states who want to abide by the European directive, but our fishermen are telling me that they do not consider a catch of that size to be marketable. They also do not consider it good for conservation. If our industry tells us in consultation that we should apply our own rules, we must consider that. Other countries may make similar unilateral decisions. I am prepared to discuss that option with the industry.
Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister agree that haddock is the stock about which we are talking? As we catch about 78 per cent. of the relevant stock, the survival or otherwise of the haddock is in the
48
hands of our fishermen. If our fishermen say that they would like special conservation measures, does not it make sense to grant them?
Mr. Morley: A number of helpful suggestions on conservation have come from our industry. In many cases. it would be better to apply measures on an EU-wide basis—there are no two ways about it, and that is a priority. In other cases, there may well be measures that we could apply in the UK that would benefit our industry, and we should not rule that out.
Mr. Christopher Gill: I have provided the Minister with proof positive that undersized fish are landed and sold openly in Spain. Have the British Government ever tried to bring enforcement proceedings against the Spaniards for allowing the landing of undersized fish? Is that not a failure of their inspectorate?
Mr. Morley: Making sure that each member state complies with European regulations is a matter for the Commission. We have argued consistently within the Council of Ministers that control measures should be applied properly across all member states. I believe that we are making progress on the new control measures, and that genuine efforts are being made by countries such as Spain in tackling what they admit is a problem with undersized fish. They are tackling that through market controls—and, from their point of view, that is the right way to do it.
We have been developing an interchange between our inspectors and those of other countries, including Spain. Our inspectors have been to Spain, in the company of Spanish inspectors, and their inspectors have been to the UK in the company of our inspectors. Recently, I was pleased to address a conservation course run by the sea fish inspectorate, which included a Spanish and a Norwegian inspector. It was useful to have them involved in a course run by our UK administration, and it was useful to listen to their experience and ideas. We are trying to develop better national and international management and to make sure that each EU country applies the same regulations to the same standards. We take that very seriously.
Mr. Gummer: Will the Minister consider building on the decision of Baroness Thatcher, when she was in office, to support an international inspectorate in the EU, and consider enabling that inspectorate to make unannounced visits to ports? Until that happens, it cannot do the job properly. Until now, the UK Government have been least happy about that, so it seems to be entirely in our interests if the inspectorate were to have that power.
Mr. Morley: I am glad to report to the right hon. Gentleman that we have reached agreement this year. The new control measures include the right of the Commission's inspectors to make unannounced visits to any member state fishing port, accompanied by the inspectors of that member state. That is the right way forward and we support it strongly.
Mr. Andrew George: Fishermen in the south-west, and Cornwall in particular, view with dismay the proposal to reduce the minimum landing size for megrim. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)

49
pointed out, the Spanish market has a particular taste for immature and small fish. All this measure will do is to encourage that market, which I understand—as does the Select Committee on Agriculture, following its visit to Spain—the Spanish authorities are trying to stamp out.
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right that Spain and other member states are seriously addressing this issue, as it is in no one's interests to have a market in undersized, immature fish which have not had a chance to breed. Our industry does not want to catch such fish, not only for conservation reasons—which they take seriously—but for marketing reasons, such as demand and maximising prices. That is why it may be in the interests of our industry to take steps which benefit other markets and fishing patterns. As I said, we should not rule that out and I am prepared to consider it.
Mr. Steen: I am having difficulty understanding the problem. If the Minister believes that conservation and quotas are important, how can he justify the fact that sometimes, when fish of a certain species are caught, all of them have to be thrown overboard? Would not the simplest way to deal with the problem be to stop that happening, as dead fish do not need to be conserved? I mentioned sea lions earlier, but seals rushing down from the north kill live fish and eat dead ones. However, apparently they are not a conservation problem as there are plenty of fish and no quotas are needed. Why does not the Minister deal with that issue?
Mr. Morley: We cannot look for scapegoats for problems that we have inflicted on the seas. I do not suggest that seals do not have an impact, and the hon. Gentleman mentions issues that need to be examined carefully. Research programmes are currently looking into seal numbers and population dynamics, and the food chain and food web in which they are involved.
However, the problem with discards stems from the difficulty of managing a fishery where there are many species whose quotas are exhausted. How do we prevent such a fishery from being deliberately targeted? I accept that it is impossible for fishermen not to catch certain species even when their quotas are exhausted. That is where discards come in, but experienced fishermen know how to target certain species within the limits that are set. That is another reason for the management system that is in place.
I would be the first to accept that the system is not perfect. As I have made clear to the industry, I am more than willing to consider options and different ways to manage quotas, but they must be managed for conservation and sustainability. As we have discovered, it is neither simple nor easy to find alternatives.
Mr. Townend: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Morley: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already and I want to make progress.
I shall not go into great detail about the common fisheries policy review in 2002, as there will be other opportunities to discuss what is a very large issue. Suffice it to say that we recognise that the CFP is not perfect and, indeed, has a number of serious flaws. We believe that it can be improved, but not simply by abolishing a fisheries
50
policy designed to manage stocks in all European waters. That must remain an important element of the policy, but we want the CFP to adopt a more rational approach with more regional management and greater flexibility.
I am glad to say that I was encouraged by the very sensible approach to CFP reform displayed, in our recent talks, by Franz Fischler, the new Fisheries Commissioner. He certainly had a good grasp of the problems involved. We are also talking informally to other countries with a common interest in CFP reform, especially in connection with the regional issue. Some of the responses have been very encouraging, which shows that progress will be possible in some areas.
Earlier, I touched on the very good report from the Agriculture Committee. I shall not go into detail about that, other than to say that we are trying to act on its recommendations.
This year, we have brought in some new technical conservation measures, one of which will provide better protection for shellfish stocks. Another measure—introduced unilaterally, but strongly supported by the UK industry—imposes limits on catches of bass in the south-west of either 5 tonnes a week or 15 tonnes a month. Incidentally, France applied those limits unilaterally long before we did. The move has been warmly welcomed by all concerned, and it is an example of how local action can be taken. I should mention also that the organisation representing fishermen in the south-west applied that measure unilaterally before we introduced it.
Mr. Andrew George: At the time of the consultation, the Minister did not propose a 15-tonne-a-month option. That has not gone down well in the south-west and around the Cornish coast, and I think that the hon. Gentleman understands why.
Mr. Morley: I do understand why, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider what I am about to say. Of course, we discussed with the Scottish Parliament the impact that such a measure would have on Scottish trawlers—there is no doubt that it will severely limit their catching opportunities—but we think that it is justified because of conservation. However, we also had to consider the practical issues. A limit of 15 tonnes a month is less than 5 tonnes a week, but it would mean that a vessel taking a large haul would not have large discards. We are taking into account management and the potential impact of discards, which we are trying to minimise. We think that that is a fair point and that fishermen who understand bass, how they shoal and how a large haul can be caught, accept it. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that the limit will take a lot of pressure off the stocks, and that has been welcomed.
We also hope to see progress on industrial fishing, which is a matter of great concern. I am very hopeful that, with the agreement of Denmark, we will be able to announce the first closed area for industrial fishing in the North sea. It will extend from north Northumberland to beyond Fraserburgh. The closure will eliminate the competition between fishermen and sea birds. We are using the science provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, based on the impact of sea birds. Issues such as migrating salmon and white fish stocks also play a part.

51
I want to pay tribute to the Danish Minister. This is a sensitive issue, but he has approached it in a spirit of co-operation and considered the scientific and conservation aspects. We are optimistic that we will get Denmark's support for the measure at this week's Council. It will be the first time that we have introduced measures to restrict industrial fishing. It is also an example of integration of environmental and fisheries management which we were called upon to carry out by the Cologne European Council. We take that issue seriously and are trying to apply some of the points.
Fisheries management and enforcement measures have also been introduced this year. When I became Minister two years ago, black fish was a serious problem. It depressed prices at fishing ports and had a devastating effect on stocks. We had to take firm action, and I make no apology for doing so because it is in the long-term interests of fishermen and the fishing industry. In January, our new designated ports system was introduced—there are now prior notification arrangements for all white fish landings made by vessels of more than 20 m.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Against the background of satellite tracking, is there still the same need for designated ports?
Mr. Morley: I shall talk about tracking in a moment. I accept that the installation of satellites gives us an opportunity to review vessels' control measures and bureaucracy and may give us an opportunity to relax those measures. As for designated ports, even if we know where vessels are, someone still needs to be able to carry out an inspection, or at least have the right to do so. I assure the hon. Lady that we understand that satellites can provide flexibility in reducing burdens and we want to consider carefully how to do that.
We have also tackled engine power and put in place measures to require the accurate declaration of engine power, which we believe to be essential to a level playing field in the United Kingdom and if measures to limit fishing are to be effective. However, as we recognise that there are practical issues relating to engine power, we have made generous transitional arrangements for fishermen who need to take action to correct deficits in their registered and licensed engine power. I believe that we can make progress on that.
As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, satellites will come in from January for vessels more than 24 m long. More than 100 vessels are linked to our monitoring system and a further 250 are in the process of linking up. The system will apply to all EU vessels of that size that fish in our waters. Norway is also voluntarily applying the system to its vessels, and I welcome that action. There is an issue of enforcement, but there are benefits for fishermen's equipment, and safety implications arise from the knowledge of where vessels are around our coast.
From January, fixed quota allocations were introduced following the suggestion of the industry. The idea is to provide greater certainty within the industry, and fishermen should no longer be under pressure to maximise their catches simply to maintain a track record for the maximisation of quota. That will bring benefits. Producer
52
organisations are more willing to make quota available to overcome problems in other parts of the fleet. The UK is likely to remain within its quota allocation for almost all stocks.
We shall review the operations of FQAs with the industry early in the new year, taking into account helpful recommendations from the Agriculture Committee on rules on the transfer of licences and quota, issues of ownership, and provision for new entrants, as well as the question of individual transferable quotas, which the Committee has asked us to consider.
Since 1 January, we have made it a licence condition that every UK-registered fishing vessel must demonstrate an economic link with this country. Contrary to the expectations of many, those arrangements are having a significant impact. Landings and related expenditure into the UK have increased. In some cases, additional quota has been made available, such as 50 tonnes of sole in the North sea, and we have allocated it to the inshore fishing fleet. Overall, the number of so-called quota hoppers has declined since the economic link measure was introduced.
That is a far more effective system than the factor 10 system was. The previous Government enacted the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which was designed to address the quota-hopping problem. However, it addressed the problem in the wrong way, partly because it was driven by Europhobia and attitudes against other nationalities, rather than addressing the real management issues surrounding the problem. As a result of legal action, the UK is liable for damages for vessels illegally prevented from fishing after the 1988 Act's introduction. Many figures have been bandied about, but the court case has established only the right of vessels affected to claim compensation for the period during which they were prevented from fishing. It is up to the vessels to demonstrate the amount of the loss. It would be wrong, therefore, to say that an automatic sum of money should be made available for compensation.
Mr. Nick Ainger: As my hon. Friend knows, I used to represent several quota hoppers before the boundary commission intervened. On the measures introduced this year, what action will the Government take against quota hoppers that have not satisfied the criteria? Is my hon. Friend aware that several people in my former constituency believe that they can provide evidence showing that the fishing efforts being claimed by some quota hoppers were somewhat dubious?
Mr. Morley: I understand that point, and the matter must be examined carefully. It is up to the claimants to prove their claims.
On vessels that have not complied with the economic link conditions, regulations make it crystal clear that compliance is a licence condition. Any vessel that does not comply will have its licence confiscated. We have reviewed licensing, and I look forward to receiving a comprehensive report from an industry body, which will consider matters including capacity, penalty, aggregation and the sectors of the fleet that are within their multi-annual guidance programmes.
We shall also deal with the under-10 m fleet, an issue with which I have always had much sympathy. We have published a comprehensive consultation paper on the

53
management of the inshore fleet to try to find a strategy for the way forward. Some hon. Members will be aware that there have been some problems in the inshore fleet with this year's nephrops fishery—its expansion and the need to introduce management controls. Although we want to avoid lengthy and harmful closures in the under-10 m fleet, I cannot guarantee that that will always be possible—especially if effort continues to rise.
I am glad to see the investment that has taken place in the inshore fleet, but the problem is that many of the new boats are immensely more powerful than the boats that they have replaced; they are faster and more effective. That causes problems because we need to manage effort so as to stop it increasing. We need to consider those matters.
Many of the matters that I have mentioned involve new regulations and procedures, because much had to be done during the past two years. Many new measures had to be introduced—some of them were UK measures, to deal with particular problems, and some were European. I realise that they imposed burdens on the industry—I am sensitive to that. For that reason, we have asked officials to convene an early meeting with the industry to consider all aspects of regulation and bureaucracy, as well as issues such as the new satellites. We shall consider whether we can use that new technology to reduce some of the burdens on the industry. We take the matter seriously and we want to deal with it.
Mr. A. J. Beith: There is one more issue that the Minister might add to his list, although it crosses Departments. It should interest him that the smallest fishermen are having great difficulty with the old share fishermen's stamp system. They find that jobseeker's allowance is not available to them when dreadful weather prevents them from fishing. Those are the very people who have been pushed to the margins by the larger and faster vessels to which the Minister referred.
Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman will understand why I do not list the share fishermen's scheme, although I am not ducking the issue. It is important. I shall look into the matter after the debate and write to him.
One of the saddest parts of this annual debate is that it is traditional to reflect the dangers faced by fishermen at sea. Sadly, so far this year seven fishermen have lost their lives—two were lost when the Donna M sank, one each from the Coleen and Gradely, and three fishermen have been lost overboard. I am sure that the House will join me in expressing sympathy to the relatives and friends of all those who were lost. In 1998, 26 fishermen were lost. I hope that the significant reduction in the number of fatalities this year will be continued in future.
Safety grants are of interest to hon. Members—many of them have spoken on that subject. Safety at sea is most important. Obviously, it is a key responsibility of fishermen themselves. I am always concerned when I read of incidents where it appears that there has been a lack of precautions. We are all aware that many incidents are caused by the crew's lack of experience—sometimes, there is a failure to observe safety needs. This year, in two cases of fatal loss, the boats involved did not carry a life raft, which would have increased the crew's chances of survival.
54
Other factors closely related to accidents are the way in which the vessel is operated and changes in fishing methods and in the areas fished. The industry is well aware of those matters. We want to deal with training and the full use of appropriate safety equipment with the industry.
There has been pressure to reinstate the safety grant scheme. Hon. Members will be aware that, when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister visited the south-west, he said that the safety grant scheme would be reinstated. We have been considering how that can be done. New structural funds will be introduced next year. There will be an opportunity to consider safety grants, bearing in mind that, under the old scheme, boats under 12 m were excluded and only certain items of equipment were covered. There are arguments over whether that was the most appropriate scheme. We also need to deal with the safety culture of the industry.
Safety is being taken seriously and we are looking into how we might reinstate a grant scheme. I emphasise that it will not be the old scheme, which was imperfect in many ways. We must consider a new safety scheme—that is what we are doing at present.
Other issues that are—
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Before my hon. Friend leaves the safety issue, I wonder whether he will take the opportunity to commend the work that has been done by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution during the 175 years of its existence. In my constituency, many fishermen serve on the local boats and instil the safety culture to which my hon. Friend referred. I am sure that all hon. Members would join me in commending the excellent work that the RNLI has done over 175 years.
Mr. Morley: I am very pleased to join my hon. Friend in supporting the work that the RNLI has done. It is true that many of its crews are from the local fishing community, and that they serve us very well.
Discussions have taken place on structural regulations. I shall not go into those in depth because they have been reported and I want to bring my remarks to a conclusion, but I shall emphasise one aspect. There is sometimes a misunderstanding, especially in some newspapers, to the effect that the evil bureaucrats in Brussels are denying fishermen fish, and that we go to Brussels to argue with them to get that fish back. It is not like that at all. The discussions are about the science, taking into account the sustainability of stock and the socio-economic effects on the industry. We shall have further discussions on the subject, but I emphasise that it is not an issue of horse trading, although I know that horse trading between Fisheries Ministers has gone on in the past.
Mr. Peter Luff: Seahorse trading.
Mr. Morley: It is not exactly seahorse trading, but it has not been applied in a rational or scientific manner. The decisions that we take must be based on sound science and take into account fishermen's views. This is about management. It is also about technical conservation, as is shown by the idea of introducing no-take zones and closed areas for spawning stocks.

55
There is much in the Liberal Democrat amendment that is thoughtful and constructive. The Liberal Democrats are seriously addressing many of the issues, most of which we are considering. Much that is in the amendment features in the programme that we are trying to develop, and we would welcome their comments and involvement in shaping it.
I cannot say the same about the Conservative amendment; indeed, I am not even sure what it means. It is in Euro-sceptic jargon. I assume that it involves the more extreme and unachievable position of pulling out of the CFP.
Mr. James Paice: No, it does not.
Mr. Morley: Well, okay, but that is what has been said in the past, and that of course is a fantasy fisheries policy.
Mr. Paice: Read it.
Mr. Morley: I am being asked to read the amendment. I merely want to acknowledge that its wording differs subtly from what has been said in the past. For a long time, the Labour party has been advocating a policy of regional and local control. If the Conservative party has now shifted from its position that the United Kingdom should withdraw unilaterally from the CFP, it would be helpful to know that because that would be a major and very welcome shift away from a fantasy fisheries policy.
Unilateral withdrawal from the CFP is not achievable. One cannot ignore the rights of other countries that have fished our waters for generations, and in whose waters we have fished for generations. It is impossible to ignore the need for a European fisheries policy. It is also impossible to ignore the fact that the logic of taking an extreme position—such as advocating unilateral withdrawal from the CFP—is a complete withdrawal from the European Union. If that is the Conservative party's position, it is entitled to take it, but it should make that clear.
In conclusion, this will be a difficult year for negotiations on quotas. With my colleagues from the devolved Administrations, I shall go to Brussels to argue for the best deal that we can get for our fishing industry. We shall continue to address some of the industry's structural problems, for example, by considering the CFP report. We shall continue to develop the links that we have forged with the fishing industry and to involve the industry in developing sensible ideas, especially building on the ideas from the Agriculture Committee programmes on aspects of an achievable and sustainable fisheries policy. I believe that we all have a common interest in that. As parliamentarians, we have a common interest—with the industry, environmental groups and others—in ensuring that our fish stocks are managed.
I understand the implications of the proposed cuts in quotas, and I can assure the House that we shall certainly take into account the socio-economic impact on the industry when we decide how to negotiate the final quotas, bearing in mind the fact that the bottom line must be to achieve a sustainable fisheries management regime.
5.35 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I beg to move, To leave out from "future" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"and believes that this can only be achieved by negotiating a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy that will devolve power to national, regional and local levels."
I join the Minister in offering the condolences of Conservative Members to the families of those who lost their lives in the fishing industry in the past year.
I am amazed that the Minister should attack our amendment.
Mr. Morley: Very mildly.
Mr. Moss: The Minister says, "Very mildly" but he still attacked it, and he thought that the Liberal Democrat amendment was marvellous. However, the Opposition are embracing a policy that the Minister espoused only three years ago. He said:
"We believe that the CFP should be radically reformed to allow us far greater autonomy and national control of fishing waters within our country's limits."
Mr. Morley: Within the CFP.
Mr. Moss: The Minister did not say that. He added:
"We must say that the current situation is unacceptable and that there is a better way which meets the criteria of the CFP, but which gives all member states greater national control and a better way of managing fish stocks leading to a sustainable fishing industry. If we do not meet that objective, we will have no fishing industry."—[Official Report, European Standing Committee A, 23 July 1996; c. 25-27.]
Mr. Tim Yeo: Welcome aboard.
Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point.
The proposals for total allowable catches for the next fishing year make disturbing reading. If implemented as in the first draft, the effect—to use the words of a leading figure in the industry—would be catastrophic. The spectre of crisis has, indeed, been raised before, but never before has a cut of this magnitude been proposed across so many different species' stocks and, in particular, across all commercial white fish fisheries in all sea areas. The reason for that is not so much a sudden downturn in the health of those fish stocks, but the way in which scientific advice has been presented this year. Safe biological limits have been supplemented by precautionary limits within a precautionary approach.
No one in favour of conservation and the future sustainability of fish stocks would argue against that in principle, but there is a substantial gulf between theory and practice. Insufficient thought seems to have been given to how precautionary limits might be introduced without a major disruptive impact on the fishing industry.
The proposals for total allowable catches this year suggest a revenue loss for the United Kingdom fishing fleet of about £85 million to £90 million, and that is out of a total revenue of £660 million. Frankly, that loss is a disaster in the making, and is unsustainable in the industry. Is the Minister aware of the implications? What estimates has the Ministry made of their impact—

57
both social and economic—on fishing communities? The Minister alluded to the fact that he would consider that, but he gave the House no figures this evening. Do the figures for the loss come as a surprise to him, or is he well prepared with counter-arguments and proposals?
I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my question on the Hague preference; it will be gratefully received by the industry, which has been pressing for it. Members of the industry will have been in communication with him about that and other issues.
Mr. John D. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the major reduction in the proposed income of the United Kingdom fishing industry, but is he aware that the position in Northern Ireland will be worse? There is a proposal to reduce the income of the industry there by 30 per cent.—a dramatic cut in the income of fishermen—for next year.
Mr. Moss: I am sure that the Minister has taken note of those serious figures.
Is there no comfort that the Minister can give the fishing industry today about the stance that he will take at the Fisheries Council? Surely, a more phased approach could be proposed—more on the lines of a multi-annual approach—so that over, say, a three to five-year period the industry could move to the precautionary limits without the devastating socio-economic problems that the present proposals imply.
Nothing underlines more starkly the fact that the CFP is not working than the recently announced TACs for next year. Unlike three years ago, however, the Minister has not said a word today about real reform of the CFP, although I remember reading that it was, indeed, one of Labour's manifesto commitments.
The Minister argued today that the arrangements that have been agreed—in an exchange of letters with Jacques Santer—since the Amsterdam summit to establish a so-called economic link between the quota hoppers and the UK economy are having results. However, he did not in any way quantify those results. As we know, some observers have challenged the legality of those arrangements, and we have already seen how foreign trawler owners circumvent the regulations by landing catches in, for example, Scotland straight on to refrigerated trucks to be driven over land back to the home port. The Minister did not say whether that practice has now been stopped.
On quota hoppers, the key issue is not the number of UK nationals or boats employed but the size of the boats and their catch potential. During the time of the Amsterdam treaty, quota hoppers had only 2 per cent. of the total fleet, but they took 44 per cent. of the plaice catch and 46 per cent. of the hake catch. Estimates today point to a share of 25 per cent. of total national tonnage.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman will remember that during the passage of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, the Conservative Government were well warned about the likely consequences of the direction of their legislation. Given that, and the fact that local councillors have been warned that they can be surcharged if they make poor decisions, does the hon. Gentleman see any case for a surcharge on Conservative Prime Ministers and fishing
58
Ministers to make up for the tens of millions of pounds that is about to be paid to quota hoppers which could have been invested in our fishing industry?
Mr. Moss: As the hon. Gentleman knows, proper legal advice was sought at the time and taken.
Mr. Gummer: While my hon. Friend is considering surcharging, may I ask whether he would like to surcharge the Scottish National party for being against every single conservation measure that would bear on every voter whose support it hoped to get?
Mr. Moss: A good political point was made for all to hear.
Mr. Ainger rose—
Mr. Moss: I shall press on now and take no more interventions. The Minister spoke for 55 minutes, and I should prefer to leave some time for other hon. Members to contribute to the debate.
The Labour Government's priorities for the fishing industry are more effective and consistent enforcement; more effective conservation of fish stocks; the achievement of a sustainable future for the fishing industry through structural and conservation measures; increased participation by fishermen in the development of policy; and an improvement in the regional dimension of the CFP. A staggering feature of that list is the omission of any mention of CFP reform.
In measuring the Government's performance against their priorities, I shall concentrate first on enforcement and satellite monitoring. The Government have declined to part-fund satellite monitoring for vessels over 24 m long, blocking any chance of access to EU grants. As we know, boats from other EU countries receive a 100 per cent. grant for that measure.
On conservation, the Government have failed to get agreement on technical proposals such as the mesh size for white fish. As the Minister agreed, they have also failed to prevent the introduction of lower minimum landing sizes for three species, which will be implemented next month.
The third priority was to achieve a sustainable future through structural changes. The key issue here is modernisation. The UK fleet is aged and becoming older by the year. For vessels between 12 and 24 m long, the average age is 25 years. As we know, European funding has been available to assist with the construction and modernisation of fishing vessels, and all our European partners, especially Spain and France, have taken full advantage of that facility to rebuild their fleets by replacing obsolete vessels with modern capacity.
All that has been denied the UK industry since 1989, initially because of the UK's failure to meet the European Community's fleet reduction targets and, more recently, because of the Treasury's unwillingness to permit participation. The Government's position is that, having paid substantial sums to take capacity out of the UK fleet through decommissioning schemes, it makes little sense to pay the industry to build new vessels. That would have an undeniable logic, were it not for the fact that the recently agreed EC structures regulation ensures that EC funding will continue to be made available to other member state fleets.

59
The prospect of the UK fleet continuing to become increasingly decrepit while our continental competitors modernise is, therefore, very real. Continental fleets largely fish the same grounds and sell to the same markets; clearly, they will have an economic advantage using modern vessels, as the cost per tonne of producing fish will be lower using new capacity. We should bear in mind also the fact that, with revenue generated in such a way, the door remains open for any other member state to buy UK licences and quotas. A new wave of quota-hopping, surfing on EU structural aid, is a clear possibility.
The Government's position ignores the critical factor, which is equity. For other member states to modernise while the UK fleet is denied the same access to funding can only be a recipe for winding down the UK fleet.
Also on the issue of a sustainable future for the industry, there are the unrelenting and upward costs of regulations, which are often imposed unilaterally by the UK Government. Examples include light dues, hygiene inspection, tonnage measurements, survey fees, escalating fuel prices, installation of the global marine distress system and the requirement of the new control regulation—and the list goes on. What of safety grants? I thought that the Minister was going to make a commitment to them, but he simply said that the Government would look at them afresh, as and when new structural funds appear.
The final plank of the Government's priorities relates to a regional dimension for the CFP, but nobody seems to know what that really means. Even the Minister is not clear. In his evidence to the Agriculture Committee in June, he said in answer to a question on the subject:
"there are some key issues to resolve, and one of the key issues is the definition of both regional and zonal management, because it means different things to different people, different countries and different parts of the industry. So, before we even start to make much progress on this, we need to resolve that particular issue."
However, he said reassuringly:
"we are giving thought to that at the present time."
Given the continuing decline of the UK industry, does not the Minister recognise the need for a great deal more urgency on that issue?
On the face of it, the policy of regional and zonal management is an attempt to restore some competency to member states—probably not individually, and more probably as groups of states—although it is still within the EU structure of the CFP. The policy is flawed on two counts. First, there is the legal position, especially of new entrants to the EU. Where will equal access to a common resource be if everything is stitched up before they join? Secondly, is such management really in British fishermen's interests?
As with any other significant change to the CFP, unanimity would be required, and that is most unlikely. Which member states would be involved in regional or zonal management? Would the Spanish, for example, be involved in the management scheme for the Irish box? On the regional management scheme, how are matters to be resolved—by some form of qualified majority voting or by unanimity? There are so many questions, but it is blindingly obvious to the UK fishing industry that the cards look stacked against it.
60
The cry goes up continuously from the fishing industry for a level playing field. It believes that it is seriously disadvantaged, and there is, indeed, plenty of evidence of that. How do we begin to address the inequalities of the EU system? Why is not that a Government priority?
It has long been a criticism that employment of UK subjects in the directorates-general in Brussels is well below a fair representation in relation to population. In DG XIV—the fisheries DG—only four grade A officials are UK subjects. That is a miserly 1.4 per cent. of the total. Let us compare that with 17 per cent. in DG I and 16.1 per cent. in DG VII. Does the Minister consider that there is fair and adequate representation at the heart of decision making on the CFP?
Another grievance is the lop-sided grant structure. There is no mention of the Government's intention to renegotiate a more favourable outcome for the UK in the successor to FIFG—the financial instrument of fisheries grant. In the mid-1990s, the UK was the fifth largest recipient of such aid–173 million ecu, compared to France, with 267 million ecu and Italy, with 408 million ecu. Way out in front was Spain, which received 1,163 million ecu, a staggering sum.
It has been calculated that the UK's share of supporting the upgrade of the Spanish fleet during the same period was £100 million, on top of the UK's share of the £90 million cost for the purchase of CFP rights to fish in third-party waters.
We heard not a word about such inequities from the Minister today. Does he think that it is fair? Does he believe that UK taxpayers and UK fishermen are getting value for money? Does he agree that arrangements such as the second-generation agreements, which benefit Spain particularly, constitute a fair and proper national fleet reduction, which may extend further favours to the Spanish in the future, possibly when negotiations start in earnest after 2003?
That brings me to the key date of December 2002. The Minister continues to peddle his complacent and over-confident line, first in the Select Committee debate a few weeks ago and again today. No one disputes the fact that, by midnight on 31 December 2002, under Council regulation 3760/92, member states, under qualified majority voting, must decide on any changes to the existing arrangements. If none occur, the arrangements are rolled over, with one exception—foreign vessel access to national six and 12-mile limits. A further derogation will be required to maintain those restrictions beyond December 2002. The previous one was for 20 years, and the assumption is that the proposal will be for a similar period from January 2003.
That all sounds very well, but even though a majority vote may be obtained under QMV, some states, which stand to lose out, may challenge the outcome in the European Court. The Council is, therefore, likely to seek unanimity to avoid such challenges, but that is far from guaranteed.
One of the countries likely to lose out is Spain, which posted its intentions back in 1994, when it withheld its consent to admit new members to the EU until it was given access to more fishing—in that case, 40 boats into the Irish box, which was previously restricted.
Mr. Morley: May I deal with that point? I do not intend to wind up, in order to give maximum time to Back

61
Benchers. On the point about QMV, that is true, but no country has expressed an interest in not renewing coastal limits. That is why I am confident. It is in the interest of our industry and that of other states. With regard to the Opposition motion, there has been a significant shift of emphasis in the Opposition's attitude to the CFP. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is not their policy to withdraw unilaterally from the CFP?
Mr. Moss: We have never said that we would withdraw unilaterally from the CFP. We said that, in negotiations, we would insist on repatriation of national control. The hon. Gentleman agreed with that when he was an Opposition spokesman.
Portugal is another coastal state which, like Spain, would lose out because it has no proper coastal shelf. It is difficult to see how the blocking votes of those countries could be overcome without a change in the voting system. Such changes imply a direct assault on the acquis communautaire.
It is comforting to hear the Minister's reassurance that all will be well on the night. He has just reiterated that at present there is no sign of any state not wishing to extend the derogation, but, judging from the shenanigans over the beef issue, until countries cast their vote, it is difficult to anticipate their attitude.
Why cannot the Minister acknowledge the pitfalls that can be seen by every commentator to whom one turns for advice on the issue? Does the Minister have a deadline by which he would require agreement? If so, will he tell us what it is? Are the UK's six and 12-mile limits non-negotiable, or will he yield them up in the interests of some compromise agreement?
The CFP claims to be science-led, but regularly fails to match that claim because the data that it uses are far from solid or reliable. No one envies the administrators who have to come up with the TACs each year at about this time. To balance the many variables—including stock counts, increasing catching efficiency, estimates of illegal landings and discards, how recruitment operates, and the inter-connectivity of the food chain-must require the patience of Job and the genius of Einstein.
Given the lack of real communication between fishermen, administrators and scientists, it is no wonder that the annual announcement is considered by many to be a rather futile exercise. It also has the ability to generate anger and frustration, not just because of the disputes over fish stocks, but because fishermen are tied up in UK ports and see other EU boats fishing on the horizon and taking the so-called "limited" stocks from under their very noses.
Some years ago, illegally landed fish, or black fish, were reliably estimated to amount to up to 40 per cent. of reputed catches. The other wild card that derails a science-led CFP is discarding, which occurs most where quotas are tight, as in the North sea, and least where under-sized fish can find a ready market or where there is a lax policing system at the ports, as in some southern countries. At the Select Committee, the Minister boasted that he had solved the black fish problem, but the industry acknowledges that it is still significant.
Discarding is scandalous. No doubt many hon. Members will refer to it this evening. It has already come up in questions to the Minister. Some scientific estimates put discards at more than 30 per cent. of the fish stock.
62
It is not good enough for the Government to argue that discards are an inevitable consequence of a quota system, particularly as the justification for the TACs and quotas is largely the conservation of stocks and a sustainable resource.
Why is not the Minister pressing for changes that would at least start to tackle the problem? As we know, Norway bans discards. Admittedly, it monitors catches at sea, has fewer ports and has fewer species in its fisheries, but why could not the CAP introduce rules for spot monitoring? Seasonal closures could reduce discards, but the most practical way is through technical measures such as improved fishing gear and mesh sizes.
I know that the Minister has been active in that regard, and he announced earlier that the UK would regulate a larger mesh size in the near future, but that unilateral decision may again limit the ability of UK fishermen to compete.
The problem of introducing technical measures is one of harmonisation between member states, which is almost impossible, given the wide variation in fisheries and environments. That does not mean that the Government should not have a policy on technical changes, and a programme and timetable for their introduction.
It is difficult to find anyone who believes that the common fisheries policy is working. The general downward trend of the total allowable catches is testimony to that. The CFP is full of contradictions. It seeks to conserve under-age fish that have not yet reached breeding age, but brings in changes to lower minimum landing sizes. We believe—as the Minister and his party believed only a few years ago—that there must be fundamental reform of the CFP.
Conservative policy is therefore to insist on such reform to devolve power to national, regional and local levels. We will press for national or local controls to be established over our own waters, through zonal management or coastal management or in some other way. We are more than happy to discuss a way forward with the industry. These are not exclusive rights of access, and we would hope to develop sensible bilateral agreements and give recognition to the historic rights of other countries.
The Minister has a tough task ahead of him in the Council. We urge him to be robust and to fight for the interests of UK fishermen.
5.59 pm
Mr. Frank Doran: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important annual debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his constructive approach, which contrasts with the spirit in which these debates used to be held. We do not hear any of the aggression and bad feeling that existed previously. That is reflected in my experience of the way in which the industry is co-operating. Now even the fish catchers speak to the merchants in my part of the world. There is a much more constructive and co-operative approach.
I do not know whom the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) consulted in the industry when he prepared his amendment to the Government motion. When representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, whom I met earlier today, saw the word "national" in the amendment, they were extremely

63
concerned. The federation is working across national boundaries with other European countries, their producer organisations and Governments. It does not like the thought that we shall return to the petty nationalism that identified the approach taken by the Conservative Government. That certainly worries it as it wants to see a constructive approach.
The importance of the debate is coloured by the debates that are still to take place with the other EU members. At the top of the agenda for the fishermen and fish processors in my constituency is the proposed new total allowable catches, and particularly the reduction in some of the quotas. Some of these are causing considerable concern, such as a 26 per cent. reduction in the haddock quota—although that is much better than we had feared.
My hon. Friend the Minister referred to saithe and monkfish quotas. I am aware from my discussions with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation that there is especial concern about the monkfish quota for the west coast fisheries and the way in which that quota reduction has been reached. I am advised that there is virtually no scientific evidence relating to monkfish and that it is particularly difficult to calculate the age of the fish. The experience of west coast fishermen is that there are large numbers of monkfish and ample fish to meet the existing quota.
A research project is under way that was jointly sponsored by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the marine laboratory in Aberdeen. It is only six months into its work, with another 18 months to go. As I represent a constituency on the east coast, I am concerned that there will be a displacement of fishing activity from the west coast round to the east, where there is also a reduction in quota but where the baseline is that much higher. The removal of virtually 1,000 tonnes from a 3,000 tonnes quota will have a major impact, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to examine that problem in his discussions in Europe.
A major problem in the management of the industry has improved over the past few years. There have, for example, been references to multi-annual quotas. The way in which the fishing industry—processors and catchers—has accepted rather than simply moved towards the concept of a sustainable fishing industry is interesting. It is important that that is recognised. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister recognises the constructive approach that the industry is taking.
There is concern about huge reductions or fluctuations in quota. Sometimes we see an increase in certain quotas, although not so many this year, but it is possible that there will be quite a large increase in the haddock quota next year because there is such a strong year class this year. I have received several representations recently about a multi-annual approach. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister about the need for stability in stocks, but I would argue against that being seen as an excuse for not preparing multi-annual quotas.
There needs to be some predictability in the industry. We are discussing in December quotas that will take effect in about three weeks' time. It is difficult for fish catchers, processors and the entire industry to plan ahead if the market is thrown into turmoil. It is important that we move towards a system that leads to much more predictability within the industry.
64
We know that huge sums are invested in the industry, both onshore and offshore. In my constituency, there is a sea change in the way in which the processing sector has developed. Traditionally, it has consisted of small, one-man businesses. They are usually one-man businesses because there are not many women at that end of the industry. However, we are going through a period of consolidation. Sectors and companies are being forced to merge because they cannot meet the competition. As for the retail side of the industry, almost two thirds of produce goes through supermarkets. The traditional method of retailing has changed. We need much more certainty and predictability in the industry. It is important that that is examined.
There are questions about the way in which decisions are taken. I think we all accept that scientific evidence is crucial. However, I think it will be accepted on both sides of the House that that evidence is not necessarily complete; certainly it is not perfect. I am concerned that scientific evidence leads to a proposal for significant reductions in quota when that goes against the experience of fishermen who report in certain areas. Saithe is a good example on the west coast. The fishermen there claim that there are abundant supplies of saithe, but the scientific evidence suggests that there should be significant reductions in TACs. It is an issue which has been discussed by the all-party fisheries group.
We are concerned that what starts as scientific advice is almost treated as the rule of law by the time that it gets to Brussels. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will do all that he can to argue our case nationally. It worries me that officials in Brussels—I hope that this does not apply to United Kingdom officials—tend to hide behind scientific advice, with the result that practical evidence, such as that of fishermen, is not taken into account.
Both sides of the industry—catchers and processors—recognise the need to have an environmentally sustainable policy. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation recently proposed to my hon. Friend new technical measures that would result in the introduction of square mesh panels and thinner twine, which makes up the nets. If implemented, these proposals would allow more smaller fish to escape. These are constructive proposals from the industry, which I hope will be introduced, I hope also that they will help to reduce discards, which is a concern for us all.
Mr. Morley: The suggestions from the industry and the Committees were helpful. The action that the fishermen are taking has helped in our discussions to get an increase in the haddock quota. I shall be pressing these matters on the Commission in relation to the calculations that it undertakes.
Mr. Doran: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is another example of the industry and Government working in co-operation. We are moving towards a real partnership.
In my constituency, the Aberdeen Fish Curers and Fish Merchants Association has developed an environmental policy, which is a radical step for the industry. A collection of small businesses sees its interests in developing and being part of a process of procuring a sustainable industry in the North sea. The future of these businesses depends on the sustainability of stocks in the North sea. They do not like a rollercoaster. Like me,

65
they believe that the only way forward is to develop stability in our stocks through a sustainable fishing policy, which takes into account the social and economic aspects of the industry together with the biological aspects. Scientific evidence is important, but it is only part of other elements in reaching a solution.
We need to recognise the importance of the individual fisherman and processor. Year in and year out, we ask the fishing industry and individuals within it to make sacrifices. We cannot ask fishermen to catch fewer fish if they are not to be part of the future of their own industry. That must be a key part of future policy.
It is also important to recognise that environmental groups are focusing more and more on the industry. I know that all of us who are interested in the industry have been lobbied recently by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which is beginning to take an interest in it. That is important in terms of the pressure that it will apply to the industry.
I shall speak briefly about the contribution that can be made by public authorities, especially local authorities. In my city of Aberdeen, Aberdeen city council and Aberdeenshire council, the neighbouring local authority, established a fisheries summit two years ago. They brought together every group in the city that had an interest in the fishing industry, and hammered out the matters on which local authorities could help the industry to make progress. That has resulted in many improvements in the way in which issues are tackled locally. Grampian Enterprise is involved and has a better view of the effect of employment in the fishing industry on our area. However, the most significant step forward is the involvement of Aberdeen city council in responding to the major problem that the industry faces throughout Britain: the likelihood of increased water charges through the waste water directive.
Aberdeen city council has decided to construct a waste water treatment plant which the council, Grampian Enterprise and the industry will fund. It will protect my local fish processors from the huge increase in waste water charges. That is a significant local solution to a national problem. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister considers policy on the industry, he will take into account the important contribution that local government can make.
I conclude by making a point that has not been mentioned because it is not strictly relevant to today's debate. We have heard much recently about the beef war between Britain and France, and the Conservative party's call for a trade war. My local fishing industry depends greatly on our exports, especially to France but also to Spain. My office is opposite the Aberdeen fish market. Every day, I can see from my office the lorries leaving for France. My fishing industry would be devastated by a war with France over beef. I hope that the Government will never countenance it.
6.12 pm
Sir Edward Heath: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief speech. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that all too little time has been allocated for debate on such an important subject.
I was born by the sea, and I lived by the sea for more than 50 years. I swam and fished in the sea when I was a kid; later, I won the national record for the amount of cod
66
caught in a single day–146 lbs 13 oz. Therefore, I have some experience of the matters that we are discussing. I have travelled all over the world, and sailed and raced in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Pacific. Wherever I have travelled, I have talked to fishermen, who have been immensely helpful to us at times. I understand their views and share their anxieties.
I want to look back to some original foundations. We can consider modern problems, but it is also important to look back to 1963 and 1964. Some people claim that the European Community created its fisheries policy in 1963 at the last moment to try to prevent us from becoming a member and to make matters as difficult as it could for us. That is a complete falsehood. The Community's fisheries policy was first discussed by the French in 1963, and they continued to discuss it, to try to resolve problems and create a policy until 1969. A general review of Community policy, including fisheries policy, then took place and it was decided to try to settle the policy by spring 1970. The Community did not succeed in that, and the policy was finally settled in December 1970. We took part in the discussions that followed, and the Community knew our position perfectly well.
There is an answer to those who claim that we sold out to the Community or to the French: we got the decision for which we asked. We asked for the 12-mile arrangement—six miles plus six—and to stick to the arrangements that had existed since the relevant legislation came into force.
Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Edward Heath: No. I am sorry, but I shall not give way because there is no time to do so.
We got the decision that we wanted at the time. It was to last for 10 years, and it was then renewed for 20 years. It will be discussed and possibly re-created in 2002. That policy, which suited us, has remained in operation.
I want to consider deep-sea fishing. At the time, there was a great difference between our deep-sea fishermen and other fishermen. That point is often overlooked nowadays. The coastal fishermen were in the minority. It is also forgotten that when the Conservative Government came to office in 1970, we were at war with Iceland over deep-sea fishing. We had to send warships to protect our fishermen. We got a settlement on political grounds, which hardly changed our landing of fish—I do not know whether the Icelanders ever realised that. However, for four years after that, we were still in the 900,000 series. We did not lose out over that, but we lost our deep-sea fishing industry.
I tried to resolve that by asking the Minister of Agriculture to organise a search for other parts of the world that we could recommend to our deep-sea fishermen. We quickly discovered that the coast of Africa was useless because it was largely monopolised by the Russians. We went to the coast off South America, where excellent opportunities were found. They were put to our fishing organisations. It was reported that, when landed, the deep-sea fish looked awful but tasted delicious. We passed around the information but it was never used, and very few fishermen fish off the coast of Latin America. The change in the balance happened then, and it affected the matters that we have discussed today and in the past.
The arrangements that exist today were not accepted in my time because they were not necessary, but Mrs. Thatcher accepted them when she was Prime

67
Minister and said that they were necessary. I agreed with her; they were the right measures. We must protect the industry by limiting catches—there can be no doubt about it. Unless one is prepared to face up to that, we shall get nowhere. That is why the Government are right—even if they have changed their minds—to pursue the policy thoroughly. I hoped that my party would agree with that. However, the Conservative amendment leads one to conclude that the party wants us to leave the Community. If we accepted the amendment, we would demand to be outside any Community fishing policy. The Community would not accept that, not for a moment.
Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Edward Heath: No, I am sorry.
The Community would not accept that for a moment and we would be forced to give way or get out. I want my fellow Members to realise that. We have to be realistic: that is the situation, so there is no point in tabling such amendments because they are entirely unrealistic and completely ineffective.
We are in a situation in which it is absolutely right to have limits, and if hon. Members look at our figures they will see that we have done very well—much better than most. I am not complaining about that in the least—it has been achieved by the proper means—but, looking to the future, we have to appreciate the situation fully, reach agreements and accept and operate them. If the fishermen have that explained to them, they will understand it perfectly well. I have talked to them on many occasions, and whenever I send them a letter explaining something I never receive a counter-answer saying, "Oh, we can't accept that" or "You're wrong." It is obvious to me that when they analyse an issue they recognise the real facts and the action required to deal with them. That is why I hope that we shall give them encouragement from the House today.
6.21 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: In moving the motion, the Minister made a broad sweep of the canvas. In the time that will fairly be allocated to me, however, it will not be possible to deal with many of those issues and I shall therefore concentrate on one or two matters specific to the Northern Ireland fishing industry. It would be an understatement to say that our fishermen are greatly disturbed and alarmed by the total allowable catches and quotas proposed for 2000 for most of the main marketable Irish sea species. Such proposals are totally unacceptable to them and will place an enormous economic burden on them and their families, on the onshore industries that depend on them and on the economies of the fishing villages in my constituency—Kilkeel and Ardglassas—as well that of Portavogie, in the constituency of Strangford.
The cuts are of a most dramatic dimension. The European Commission has proposed 69.1 per cent. reduction in the TAC of Irish sea cod and, if that is not bad enough, 40 per cent. reductions for Irish sea whiting, haddock and herring. How can our industry survive such cuts made in one fell swoop? It is not possible. On top of that, there is a proposed reduction from 23,000 tonnes to 17,200 tonnes for nephrops, which is our main crop. That will immediately wipe out in that sector alone £3 million of gross takings for those small communities.
68
It is argued that many of the reductions are based on scientific facts, but most of us could be forgiven for questioning some of the bases on which these scientists make their recommendations. I shall give the House a brief example. There were substantial stocks and catches of all those species for the first six months of 1999, but then the fish disappeared for no apparent reason. The scientists said that the temperature of the inner Irish sea had increased by 2 per cent. and the stocks would come back in the autumn when the temperature returned to its normal seasonal average, but it did not do so. The migratory habits of the fish had changed and their dispersal was such that the trawlers could not make economic sorties on the shoals. That, however, does not mean that the fish are not there; they have simply moved across the demarcation lines that have been so conveniently drawn on the map. I suspect that these drastic and unacceptable reductions in respect of all those main species are based on not the scientific fact of the absence of fish, but the evidence of a lack of catches, and that is an entirely different concept.
I must say to the Minister that there is no doubt whatever that the Northern Ireland fishing fleet, the industry and the onshore jobs that come from it will be decimated if the proposals are carried. I am sure that he is not content with the figures. I hope that they are not a fait accompli and that the Council at its meetings on December 16 and 17–wherever they are held, be it London, Brussels or anywhere else—will reject them for their lack of scientific basis and because the proposals will decimate the north Irish fishing industry.
In 1991 and 1992, the Commission recognised the uniqueness of the ecosystem that is particular to the Irish sea, which is virtually an enclosed seaway, and that the special circumstances and needs of the fishing industry had to be addressed. That has never been done, but I ask the Minister to look back to that debate to see where there is reason, justice and logic for allowing him to convince his counterparts in Europe that the cuts are not acceptable. He has rightly mentioned their socio-economic consequences and the motion itself says that
"the regional differences of fisheries and their communities are fully recognised."
I ask for that regional difference to be fully recognised and for the drastic and unacceptable cuts in TACs to be eliminated. The TACs should revert to what they were, at least for 1999, to provide a sustainable industry.
In an intervention, the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) briefly touched on the Hague preference and its invocation by the Government of the Republic of Ireland. Surely, under the new political dispensation—which I welcome and to which the Minister has referred—and, in particular, in the North-South Ministerial Council, special attention could be given to that particular problem to ameliorate the adverse effects of the Hague preference where it is called upon by the Republic of Ireland. Indeed, that should also be a matter for the proposed British-Irish Council, but such consideration cannot be given in this round of talks. Our Agriculture and Fisheries Minister will not have a place at the table with the Minister in the negotiations, I assume, so we depend totally on him and his Department delivering on this problem.
Mr. Gummer rose—
Mr. Curry rose—
Mr. Morley: I assure the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that the Irish Minister, along with the

69
Scottish Minister, will be with me at every stage of the discussions and fully involved.
Mr. John D. Taylor rose—
Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I make it clear to the House that the hon. Member for South Down was allowing the Minister to intervene?
Mr. McGrady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
Mr. McGrady: Yes.
Mr. Taylor: Was the hon. Gentleman referring to the presence of the new Northern Ireland Fisheries Minister or that of the Irish Minister? I think that the Minister's reply referred to the Irish Minister, but we want to know about the Northern Ireland Minister.
Mr. McGrady: I am not sure that I can clarify an answer that was not given by me. The Minister referred to Brid Rodgers, the Minister responsible for agriculture and fisheries in the new devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland. I am delighted to have the assurance that she and her officials will be with the Under-Secretary at the table, and will share responsibility for delivering a much better deal for the fishing industry in Northern Ireland.
In view of the time constraints, I shall not pursue any other issue except a matter that has not been mentioned but is particularly important to the fishermen of Northern Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a new scheme for small businesses whereby, in Northern Ireland, as a sort of peace dividend, there would be 100 per cent. capital allowance grant on capital expenditure. Up until the past two or three days, it was anticipated that such a facility would be extended to capital expenditure in the fishing industry. Before leaving home this morning, I was informed that the fishing industry is excluded from the 100 per cent. relief that was given to small businesses in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Minister will be as surprised as I am by that decision, and will think it unjust, inequitable and unfair. I hope that he will take the matter up with his ministerial colleague for the purpose of clarification.
I cannot emphasise enough the fact that the 70 and 40 per cent. cuts across the main species will decimate the Northern Irish fishing industry. The Minister must not allow those figures to be on the paper at the end of his negotiations.
6.32 pm
Mr. Andrew George: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'in taking note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum, submitted by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on 5th December 1999, recalls that the previous Government added to the burden on UK fishing communities and failed to take any decisive action to protect British fishing interests in 18 years; believes that the Government should establish a coherent joined-up vision of where the UK wants the fishing industry to be in the medium and long term; recommends that the Government both itself and in its negotiations with European and other fishing nations seeks: to develop arrangements which significantly improve the cooperative
70
relationship between fishermen and scientists, to avoid the last-minute annual total allowable catch and quota-setting process which does much to damage this relationship and the ability of the industry to plan ahead, to bring forward proposals to regularise and manage the trading of track records and fishing licences, to establish a decentralised system based on regional fisheries management whilst seeking to reduce the need for discards and engage fishermen in management decisions, to ensure equality of monitoring and enforcement across the European Union, to develop a pan-European policy to encourage low-impact fishing methods, and to reinstate a system of fishing safety grants.'.
There is little time left to discuss this substantial amendment to the Government's motion, the spirit of which the Liberal Democrats agree with, although we want to beef it up along these lines. I have some sympathy with the Minister because of the great difficulty that he is in, especially over the scientific advice. I am sure that he would not wish this on himself, and it puts him in a difficult position in the negotiations that he faces later this week in Brussels. However, as a member of an Opposition party, I shall exploit his discomfort whenever appropriate, but in a responsible way.
The Minister accepts, as I do, that some stocks are in a serious state of decline, and robust and responsible action must be taken. The industry wants a medium-term vision, as described by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), with a multi-annual quota. That would make it much easier for the industry to swallow what I think will be an extremely bitter pill this year.
As for Conservative opposition, I was waiting in anticipation to see whether there would be a significant change in Conservative party policy with the change of its spokesperson. It is unclear, and the jury is still out on the Conservative party's position.
Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. George: No. I would enjoy an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, but, in view of the time constraints, I have to move on.
The Conservative amendment is curious, because, in the Scottish Parliament last week, the Conservatives tabled an amendment advocating the reform of the common fisheries policy that devolves powers to regional and zonal levels. There was no mention of national levels. That is a curious and perplexing amendment, and I cannot help but note that the Conservatives have criticised others for saying one thing in one place and another thing somewhere else, because that is what they are doing now with their amendments in the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments.
Mr. Moss: I have a news release from the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) who visited the Looe fishermen. It says that if the Liberal Democrats do not get their way, they
"would have to withdraw Britain from the Common Fisheries policy."
In a letter, Mr. Robin Teverson MEP says that the Liberal Democrats would advocate
"actual changes to the Treaty of Corfu"
and other treaties.
Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman is right, in that, in all Opposition parties, there are some who stray—he made that point earlier—and make irresponsible calls for pulling out of the CFP and repatriation. I speak on behalf of the

71
Liberal Democrat party in Parliament. I could appeal to irresponsible and populist opposition and call for a unilateral withdrawal from the common fisheries policy, but I am making it absolutely clear that that is not our view. The Liberal Democrats provide responsible opposition. We want radical reform of the common fisheries policy, but not withdrawal from it, as that is unrealistic and not on the agenda.
The background papers to today's debate refer to progress towards meeting targets under the multi-annual guidance programme—ter has not been dealt with in the debate—ACs and quotas for next year. As other hon. Members have said, here we go again. What other industry would tolerate being managed in such a way that it has to limp on year after year, never being sure where it is going? That is a product of either poor circumstances or poor policy management.
Politicians who engage in the fishing industry and anyone who has responsibility for fishing policy will know that fishing is a no-go, no-win area: it is a poisoned chalice, as I have told the Minister before. Last week, the Minister was harangued and verbally roughed up in the south-west. Given the views expressed by fishermen in that area, he may have thought that not being given worse treatment was tantamount to a ringing endorsement. The fishing issue is not for politicians of a nervous disposition. This issue either results in Ministers being harangued and verbally roughed up, or is an opportunity for certain people to get on their high horse about European constitutional issues and to use fishermen as front-line troops in their own xenophobic war. The fishing industry requires responsible and serious leadership, not such an irresponsible approach.
If we wanted to contrive a set of circumstances in which to produce really bad policy, we could not do much better than start here. The relationship between politicians and fishermen has not been good for some time. That relationship needs to be worked on, as does that between fishermen and scientists, which, despite some improvements, is still not what it should be.
The fishing industry faces this 11th hour brinkmanship: this annual short-term, short-sighted approach to the management of fishing policy in which the crucial issue of the quota for the following year is decided only a few weeks before the end of the year. We need a coherent, joined-up strategy to take the industry forward. We need a coherent policy on quota management and trade, technical measures, equality of monitoring and enforcement across Europe and policies to improve the relationship between scientists and fishermen.
Many hon. Members have already made the point that the quota settlement proposed for next year would take quotas for all stocks to their lowest levels for a considerable time. The industry is also facing increased fuel costs, compliance costs and satellite monitoring costs, and the introduction of a global maritime distress system and tonnage proposals. The quota cuts could take £88.5 million from an industry with a total revenue of £660 million.
The scientific base is in the form of advice, not instruction. Some assessments of stock, such as west of Scotland monkfish, do not have an adequate scientific base. The industry has argued to that effect, and I think that it has sound evidence.
72
Fishermen feel that no proper account is taken of effort limitations, or of decommissioning controls, when quotas are set in the beam trawler sector. As others have pointed out, advice is sometimes out of kilter with experience—for example, in the case of the wholesale dumping of saithe in Scotland. This is no way in which to plan for such an important industry. The industry needs meaningful mid-term blueprints, and it needs discussions early in the year between fishermen and scientists.
I heard the wise words of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), and I am aware of his experience. I have to say that, for fishermen in Cornish and south-west waters, the original quota settlement on which relative stability is now based was not satisfactory. It was clearly not good enough in places like area VII, where the French have 75 per cent. of the cod quota, while local fishermen have only 15 per cent.
Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. George: I cannot possibly do so, given the amount of time that remains.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the Hague preference. The Minister said that he would consider invoking it in Scotland, and I hope that he will extend that to include hake stocks in western waters.
I think that the Minister accepted our arguments about low-impact fishing, which is mentioned in our amendment, but I do not think that his answer to me about bass was adequate. Fishermen in Cornish waters, and in the south-west, are concerned about the way in which the "15 tonnes per month" decision was made. It was not part of the original consultation. The Minister will appreciate that the fishermen are not happy, and I ask him to keep the matter under close review.
Safety is an important and tragic issue. Today, we learned of another tragedy in Grimsby, involving a Brixham trawler, and in October, we lost another of my constituents off the coast of the Isles of Scilly. Following the announcement of an end to fishing safety grants in May, I am encouraged by the fact that the Minister—having gone round the mulberry bush of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Deputy Prime Minister—is now reconsidering their reintroduction.
Concern has been expressed about the safety of beam trawlers following the investigation of the loss of the Margaretha Maria, a trawler from my constituency, in November 1997, with the loss of four lives. The findings of the marine accidents investigation branch make it clear that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's own stability tests may not be adequate. I am not saying that all beam trawlers are fundamentally unstable—I have been out on them, and they have a good track record—but the MCA has been criticised by the MAIB. It is important for the tests to be improved, and for our fishermen to know that they are adequate. That means carrying out the tests in dynamic, rather than static conditions.
I have spoken briefly on what is a substantial amendment. It is important to reinstate fishing safety grants, to encourage low-impact fishing, to establish regional forums—the Minister has referred to that in regard to the Irish sea—to encourage, through the reformed common fisheries policy, an increased regional

73
dimension, and to bring about a medium-term joined-up policy based on a clear vision and the introduction of multi-annual quotas for future years.
6.45 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: It is a long time since I spoke in a fisheries debate. Although I shall vote with the Government, I can tell the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) that I have some sympathy with his amendment. I think that he and the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) were absolutely right to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that our fishermen were being asked yet again to swallow a bitter pill because of what I consider to be a lousy common fisheries policy.
I must tell the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), with great respect, that I, too, have some experience of the industry, but my experience is a little different from his. I am the son of a fisherman and a fishhouse lass. When the right hon. Gentleman and his Administration were mishandling the fisheries dispute between the United Kingdom and Iceland—popularly known as the cod war-three of my brothers were fishing on trawlers off the Icelandic coast and facing the dangers of wire cutting. I can tell him from personal experience—because I was up there as well—that wire cutting was very dangerous for the lads who were on the decks of those trawlers.
Coming, as I do, from a fishing community, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman something else, again with great respect. Many members of our fishing communities feel that his Administration sold the pass when they took us into the European Economic Community, because the common fisheries policy and, more important, our fishing industry were used as a bargaining counter. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman's Administration and his officials were too ready to listen to the representatives of the British Trawler Federation, which represented only the trawler companies on the Humber and, to a lesser extent, in Aberdeen.
The interests of the share fishermen, in communities throughout the United Kingdom—in Northern Ireland, the Shetland Islands and in Cornwall, for instance—were disregarded in the right hon. Gentleman's honourable drive to take us into what was then the EEC. Since those days, my brothers have been on the dole for many years, together with many friends and many other relations, and I blame his Government for that.
As one who was born into a fishing community, and has stayed with the industry all his life, I can tell the House that successive Administrations, both Labour and Conservative, have let our fishermen down. In the 1960s and 1970s, they behaved with appalling arrogance to the small nation of Iceland when we were involved in that fisheries dispute. Our fishermen are still suffering the aftermath—the unintended consequences—of British arrogance towards a nation that was wholly dependent on the catching and processing of fish for the livelihood of its communities, from Akureyri in the north to the Vestmannaeyjar Islands in the south. A deal could have been done; indeed, the right hon. Gentleman struck a deal with the Icelanders. All that led to the common fisheries policy. Our communities still suffer because the right hon. Gentleman's Administration sold the pass.
As I said earlier, we must be fair-minded: Labour Administrations have not done much better by our fishing industry. That was always the view of my late mother,
74
who first worked "on the herring" when she was 13. She did not have much regard for Labour or Conservative Administrations; she lost a brother and a brother-in-law at sea. We, too, have some experience of the industry, perhaps more than the right hon. Gentleman.
Respect has been paid to the fishermen. A character in Scott's novel "The Antiquary" says—my Scottish friends will forgive me for the accent; my grandmother came from Aberdeen, but I did not—"It's not fish you're buying, but men's lives." That is precisely the case. I hate the fact that fishermen go out in bad weather to fish. I was brought up in a community where, if the ice room was empty or half empty, skippers would shoot the gear in very bad weather, often resulting in deck hands being knocked overboard, as happened to two school friends of mine, Harry and Terry Williams.
My hon. Friend the Minister should listen to what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said. If a share fisherman cannot fish because of heavy weather, he should not be denied a legitimate claim for jobseeker's allowance. I hope that a Labour Government will do something about that. I do not want men fishing, shooting the gear and having to work on deck in anything over a force 6.
If I push other hon. Members out of the debate, they will have to forgive me because it is a long time since I have spoken on the issue and I do not think that we sufficiently discuss the safety concerns of our fishermen. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned safety grants, as did the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss)—it is a bit different from our usual exchanges over Northern Ireland, but I welcome him to his post. Can safety grants be used to purchase survival suits?
I shall ask my hon. Friend a question. He will not be able to answer it tonight, but I would welcome a letter, with a copy put in the Library. What proportion of our fishing vessels carries survival suits for their crew members? If we are to talk about safety grants, as the Minister did, that issue will be critical. I shall give an example. A friend's trawler went down off St. Kildare a few years ago—in the month of February—with a crew of 27. The men who were on watch had time to put on their survival suits. The lads who were down below went over the side in their underwear or pyjamas. Some of the men with survival suits survived for almost four hours in freezing waters—the lads who had to go over the side in their simmits and drawers were dead literally within minutes. My view is—and the fishermen's organisations know it—that no fishing vessel should be allowed out to sea without survival suits for all crew members. My hon. Friend needs to look at that in terms of safety grants.
I think that I am right in saying that no French trawler whose overall length is 15 m or more can leave port without survival suits. The Minister and his ministerial colleagues have been informed by Brussels that survival suits should be carried. I should like him to examine the matter.
Another question comes to mind in relation to our fishermen, who follow that most hazardous of occupations. When will financial compensation be paid to former trawler company employees? Does my hon. Friend have an answer for me tonight? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and others, including the Minister himself, have pursued that issue.

75
Men who were put out of work saw their employers given money. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) gave a lot of money to Humber trawler owners by way of compensation, but the crews did not get a penny. That injustice-many of the crews are in their 60s and 70s—should be remedied.
The motion refers—my hon. Friend mentioned it—to regional management. The Opposition amendment talks about national management. That is nonsense, but I should like to know what the Government's definition of regional management is. I wrote a paper on it for the Scottish government yearbook of 1975; my hon. Friend the Minister might like to read it.
My view is that with regional management comes local preference. It is a difficult issue because it means giving local fishermen preference over nomadic fishermen—not just from other countries, but from the same country; from other parts of Scotland. There will be conflicts among the nation's fishermen—for example, those in Ullapool and those whom the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) represents—but, if we are to talk about regional management, we will have to talk about protecting local fishing communities against the depredations of big trawler operators—against beam trawlers. I would ban beam trawling if I had my way. We have to protect those communities, many of which are far removed from London; they are far removed even from Edinburgh.
That is the problem with the review of the common fisheries policy in 2002, which my hon. Friend mentioned. What will we do about regional management? Will we give autonomy to local fisheries committees of one sort or another? Looking at Brussels, I do not think that we have a cat in hell's chance of having regional management that protects the local indigenous industry from nomadic fishermen, who are often not concerned about preserving the stock that they are dipping into and then disappearing over the horizon.
Another question arises from the review of the common fisheries policy. Have applicant countries that are seeking to join the European Union—obviously, I am talking about the maritime nations—been told that they will play no part in the CFP review? Let us not forget the Polish fleet.
Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. From memory, we were promised full-day fishing debate and then the Government promised a half-day fishing debate without a ministerial statement. Is there anything—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised a matter that has nothing to do with the occupant of the Chair.
Mr. Salmond: That is the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you do anything from the Chair to avoid the farce of an annual fishing debate in which only seven Members get to speak?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Dr. Godman: I am about to finish, anyway—[Laughter.] I thought that I heard someone shout, "Daytripper" to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it was not me,
76
although he might be seen as a daytripper to this place. I would have thought that this place is as important to him and to his hon. Friends as the Scottish Parliament.
The safety of our fishermen should be paramount, and the Minister and his colleagues should not ever forget that. I say that against the background of a lousy common fisheries policy.
Amendment proposed: To leave out from "House" to end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
`in taking note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum, submitted by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on 5th December 1999, recalls that the previous Government added to the burden on UK fishing communities and failed to take any decisive action to protect British fishing interests in 18 years: believes that the Government should establish a coherent joined-up vision of where the UK wants the fishing industry to be in the medium and long term; recommends that the Government both itself and in its negotiations with European and other fishing nations seeks: to develop arrangements which significantly improve the cooperative relationship between fishermen and scientists, to avoid the last-minute annual total allowable catch and quota-setting process which does much to damage this relationship and the ability of the industry to plan ahead, to bring forward proposals to regularise and manage the trading of track records and fishing licences, to establish a decentralised system based on regional fisheries management whilst seeking to reduce the need for discards and engage fishermen in management decisions, to ensure equality of monitoring and enforcement across the European Union, to develop a pan-European policy to encourage low-impact fishing methods, and to reinstate a system of fishing safety grants:.—[Mr. Andrew George.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 36, Noes 320.

Division No. 17]

[6.59 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Keetch, Paul

Ballard, Jackie

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

Beith, Rt Hon A J

(Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Brake, Tom

Kirkwood, Archy

Brand, Dr Peter

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Burnett, John

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Cable, Dr Vincent

Moore, Michael

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

Oaten, Mark

(NE Fife)

Rendel, David

Chidgey, David

Salmond, Alex

Cotter, Brian

Sanders, Adrian

Dafis, Cynog

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Stunell, Andrew

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

Fearn, Ronnie

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Tyler, Paul

Harris, Dr Evan

Harvey, Nick

Tellers for the Ayes:

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Sir Robert Smith and

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Mr. Bob Russell.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Banks, Tony

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Bames, Harry

Ainger, Nick

Barron, Kevin

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Bayley, Hugh

Alexander, Douglas

Beard, Nigel

Allen, Graham

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Ashton, Joe

Bennett, Andrew F

Atkins, Charlotte

Benton, Joe

Austin, John

Bermingham, Gerald

77

Betts, Clive

Fisher, Mark

Blizzard, Bob

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Flynn, Paul

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Follett, Barbara

Borrow, David

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Bradshaw, Ben

Foulkes, George

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Fyfe, Maria

Browne, Desmond

Galloway, George

Burden, Richard

Gapes, Mike

Burgon, Colin

Gardiner, Barry

Butler, Mrs Christine

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Gerrard, Neil

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Cann, Jamie

Godman, Dr Norman A

Caplin, Ivor

Godsiff, Roger

Casale, Roger

Goggins, Paul

Caton, Martin

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Cawsey, Ian

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clapham, Michael

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Grogan, John

Clark, Dr Lynda

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hanson, David

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Healey, John

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clwyd, Ann

Hepburn, Stephen

Coaker, Vernon

Heppell, John

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Cohen, Harry

Hill, Keith

Coleman, lain

Hinchliffe, David

Colman, Tony

Hood, Jimmy

Cooper, Yvette

Hope, Phil

Corbett, Robin

Hopkins, Kelvin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Corston, Jean

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cousins, Jim

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Cox, Tom

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Crausby, David

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Hurst, Alan

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hutton, John

Cummings, John

Iddon, Dr Brian

Cunliffe, Lawrence

IIIsley, Eric

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Jenkins, Brian

Dalyell, Tam

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

(welwyn Hatfield)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)

Davis, Rt Hon Terry

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

(B'ham Hodge H)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Dawson, Hilton

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dean, Mrs Janet

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Denham, John

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Dobbin, Jim

Kemp, Fraser

Donohoe, Brian H

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Doran, Frank

Khabra, Piara S

Dowd, Jim

Kidney, David

Drew, David

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Edwards, Huw

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Efford, Clive

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Laxton, Bob

Ennis, Jeff

Leslie, Christopher

Etherington, Bill

Levitt, Tom

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

78

Linton, Martin

Reid, Rt Hon John (Hamilton N)

Livingstone, Ken

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Love, Andrew

Rogers, Allan

McAvoy, Thomas

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

McCabe, Steve

Rooney, Terry

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Roy, Frank

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Ruane, Chris

(Makerfield)

Ruddock, Joan

Macdonald, Calum

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McDonnell, John

Ryan, Ms Joan

McFall, John

Sarwar, Mohammad

McGrady, Eddie

Savidge, Malcolm

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Sawford, Phil

Mclsaac, Shona

Sedgemore, Brian

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Shaw, Jonathan

Mackinlay, Andrew

Sheerman, Barry

McNulty, Tony

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Mactaggart, Fiona

Short, Rt Hon Clare

McWalter, Tony

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McWilliam, John

Singh, Marsha

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew(Oxford E)

Mallaber, Judy

Smith, Angela(Basildon)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Snape, Peter

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Squire, Ms Rachel

Martlew, Eric

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Maxton, John

Stevenson, George

Merron, Gillian

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

Steward, Ian (Eccles)

Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

Stinchcombe, Paul

Miller, Andrew

Stoate, Dr Howard

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Moran, Ms Margaret

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Stringer, Graham

Morley, Elliot

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

Sutcliffe, Gerry

(B'ham Yardley)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Mountford, Kali

(Dewsbury)

Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Mudie, George

Temple—Morris, peter

Mullin, Chris

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

Thomas, Gareth R(Harrow W)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Tipping, Paddy

Norris, Dan

Todd, Mark

O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

Touhig, Don

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Truswell, Paul

O'Hara, Eddie

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Olner, Bill

Turner, Dr George(NW Norfolk)

O'Neill, Martin

Turner, Neil(Wigan)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Twigg, Derek(Halton)

Pearson, Ian

Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

Pendry, Tom

Tynan, Bill

Perham, Ms Linda

Vis, Dr Rudi

Pickthall, Colin

Walley, Ms Joan

Pike, Peter L

Walley, Ms Claire

Plaskitt, James

Wareing, Robert N

Pollard, Kerry

Watts, David

Pond, Chris

White, Brian

Pound, Stephen

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Powell, Sir Raymond

Wicks, Malcolm

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

(Swansea W)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Primarolo, Dawn

Williams, Mrs Betty(Conwy)

Prosser, Gwyn

Winnick, David

Purchase, Ken

Winterton Ms Rosie (Donzcaster C)

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Wise, Audrey

Quinn, Lawrie

Wood, Mike

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Rammell, Bill

Rapson, Syd

Raynsford, Nick

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

79

Woolas, Phil

Wyatt, Derek

Worthington, Tony

Wray, James

Tellers for the Noes:

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Mr. Greg Pope and

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.
It being after Seven o'clock, MR DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings, pursuant to Order [this day].
Amendment proposed: To leave out from "future" to end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"and believes that this can only be achieved by negotiating a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy that will devolve power to national, regional and local levels."—[Mr. Moss.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 347.

Division No. 18]

[7.12 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Hayes, John

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Horam, John

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Baldry, Tony

Hunter, Andrew

Bercow, John

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Blunt, Crispin

Jenkin, Bernard

Body, Sir Richard

Key, Robert

Boswell, Tim

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Brady, Graham

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Brazier, Julian

Lansley, Andrew

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Leigh, Edward

Browning, Mrs Angela

Letwin, Oliver

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Bums, Simon

Lidington, David

Butterfill, John

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Cash, William

Loughton, Tim

Clappison, James

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Collins, Tim

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Colvin, Michael

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Cran, James

McLoughlin, Patrick

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Madel, Sir David

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

Malins, Humfrey

& Howden)

Maples, John

Day, Stephen

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Duncan Smith, Iain

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

May, Mrs Theresa

Evans, Nigel

Moss, Malcolm

Faber, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Fabricant, Michael

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Fallon, Michael

Ottaway, Richard

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Page, Richard

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Paice, James

Fox, Dr Liam

Paterson, Owen

Fraser, Christopher

Pickles, Eric

Gamier, Edward

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Gibb, Nick

Prior, David

Gill, Christopher

Randall, John

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Robathan, Andrew

Gray, James

Robertson, Laurence

Green, Damian

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

Greenway, John

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Hague, Rt Hon William

Ruffley, David

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

St Aubyn, Nick

Hammond, Philip

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hawkins, Nick

Shepherd, Richard

80

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Viggers, Peter

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Walter, Robert

Spicer, Sir Michael

Wardle, Charles

Spring, Richard

Wells, Bowen

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Whittingdale, John

Steen, Anthony

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Streeter, Gary

Wilkinson, John

Swayne, Desmond

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Syms, Robert

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Woodward, Shaun

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

Yeo, Tim

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Townend, John

Tredinnick, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Trend, Michael

Mr. Oliver Heald and

Tyrie, Andrew

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clark, Dr Lynda

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Ainger, Nick

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Alexander, Douglas

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Allan, Richard

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbndge)

Allen, Graham

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Clwyd, Ann

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Coaker, Vemon

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Coffey, Ms Ann

Ashton, Joe

Cohen, Harry

Atkins, Charlotte

Colman, Tony

Austin, John

Connarty, Michael

Ballard, Jackie

Cooper, Yvette

Banks, Tony

Corbett, Robin

Bames, Harry

Corston, Jean

Barron, Kevin

Cotter, Brian

Bayley, Hugh

Cousins, Jim

Beard, Nigel

Cox, Tom

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Crausby, David

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Cryer, John (Homchurch)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Cummings, John

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Bennett, Andrew F

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Benton, Joe

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Bermingham, Gerald

Dafis, Cynog

Betts, Clive

Dalyell, Tam

Blizzard, Bob

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Borrow, David

Davidson, Ian

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Davis, Rt Hon Terry

Bradshaw, Ben

(B'ham Hodge H)

Brake, Tom

Dawson, Hilton

Brand, Dr Peter

Dean, Mrs Janet

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Denham, John

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Dobbin, Jim

Browne, Desmond

Donohoe, Brian H

Burden, Richard

Doran, Frank

Burgon, Colin

Dowd, Jim

Butler, Mrs Christine

Drew, David

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Cable, Dr Vincent

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

(NE Fife)

Edwards, Huw

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Efford, Clive

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Cann, Jamie

Ennis, Jeff

Caplin, Ivor

Etherington, Bill

Casale, Roger

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Caton, Martin

Feam, Ronnie

Cawsey, Ian

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Fisher, Mark

Chidgey, David

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Clapham, Michael

Flynn, Paul

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Follett, Barbara

81

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Laxton, Bob

Foster, Don (Bath)

Leslie, Christopher

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Levitt, Tom

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Foulkes, George

Linton, Martin

Fyfe, Maria

Livingstone, Ken

Galloway, George

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Gapes, Mike

Love, Andrew

Gardiner, Barry

McAvoy, Thomas

George, Andrew (St Ives)

McCabe, Steve

George, Bruce(Walsall S)

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Gerrard, Neil

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Gibson, Dr Ian

(Makerfield)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McDonnell, John

Godman, Dr Norman A

McFall, John

Godsiff, Roger

McGrady, Eddie

Goggins, Paul

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Golding, Mrs Llin

Mclsaac, Shona

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McNulty, Tony

Grogan, John

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

McWalter, Tony

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

McWilliam, John

Hanson, David

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Harvey, Nick

Mallaber, Judy

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Healey, John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Martlew, Eric

Hepburn, Stephen

Maxton, John

Heppell, John

Merron, Gillian

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Hinchliffe, David

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Hood, Jimmy

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Hope, Phil

Miller, Andrew

Hopkins, Kelvin

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Moore, Michael

Hoyle, Lindsay

Moran, Ms Margaret

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Morley, Elliot

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

Humble, Mrs Joan

(B'ham Yardley)

Hurst, Alan

Mountford, Kali

Hutton, John

Mudie, George

Iddon, Dr Brian

Mullin, Chris

Illsley, Eric

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Jenkins, Brian

Norris, Dan

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Oaten, Mark

(Welwyn Hatfield)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

O'Hara, Eddie

Jones, Ms Jenny

Olner, Bill

(Wolverh'ton SW)

O'Neill, Martin

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Pearson, Ian

Keeble, Ms Sally

Pendry, Tom

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Perham, Ms Linda

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Pickthall, Colin

Keetch, Paul

Pike, Peter L

Kemp, Fraser

Plaskitt, James

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

Pollard, Kerry

(Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Pond, Chris

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Pound, Stephen

Khabra, Piara S

Powell, Sir Raymond

Kidney, David

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Primarolo, Dawn

Kirkwood, Archy

Prosser, Gwyn

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Purchase, Ken

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Quinn, Lawrie

82

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Stunell, Andrew

Rammell, Bill

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Rapson, Syd

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Raynsford, Nick

(Dewsbury)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Rendel, David

Temple—Morris, Peter

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Rogers, Allan

Tipping, Paddy

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Todd, Mark

Rooney, Terry

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Roy, Frank

Touhig, Don

Ruane, Chris

Truswell, Paul

Ruddock, Joan

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Ryan, Ms Joan

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Salmond, Alex

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Sanders, Adrian

Tyler, Paul

Sarwar, Mohammad

Tynan, Bill

Savidge, Malcolm

Vis, Dr Rudi

Sawford, Phil

Walley, Ms Joan

Sedgemore, Brian

Ward, Ms Claire

Shaw, Jonathan

Wareing, Robert N

Sheerman, Barry

Watts, David

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Webb, Steve

Short, Rt Hon Clare

White, Brian

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Singh, Marsha

Wicks, Malcolm

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

(Swansea W)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Winnick, David

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

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Snape, Peter

Wise, Audrey

Squire, Ms Rachel

Wood, Mike

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Woolas, Phil

Stevenson, George

Worthington, Tony

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Wray, James

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Wyatt, Derek

Stoate, Dr Howard

Tellers for the Noes:

Stringer, Graham

Mr. Greg Pope and

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum, submitted by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 5th December 1999, relating to the fixing of fishing opportunities for 2000 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; recognises that many fish stocks remain in poor shape and need to be rebuilt for the future; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for UK fishermen consistent with the sustainable management of stocks, effective enforcement and the need to ensure that the regional differences of fisheries and their communities are fully recognised.

Fisheries

  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 108 (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)),
  That the Order of the House of 30th November relating to the meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee on Tuesday 14th December shall have effect with the substitution of the words 'half past Ten o'clock and between Four o'clock and Six o'clock' for the words `half past Ten o'clock'—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  Question agreed to.

  Adjournment (Christmas)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Tom Cox: I wish to raise the issue of Cyprus. I chair the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Cyprus group in this Parliament, a group made up of Members from all of the main parties in this House.
  Next year will be the 26th year in which the Republic of Cyprus has been a divided island, occupied by troops of a foreign power—namely, Turkey. Cyprus is a Commonwealth country, and the United Kingdom is one of the guarantor powers for Cyprus. This in itself shows to many people the inability of many countries, including the UK, to resolve this long-running tragedy.
  Cyprus is a small and beautiful country. For more than 25 years, nearly one third of the territory of the island of Cyprus has been occupied. It is the only country in Europe that is divided. The capital city, Nicosia, is divided by a wall, barbed wire and troop emplacements. All who walk along the dividing line have the same thought—why, after 25 years, is this island still divided? How do we allow a Commonwealth country to suffer as, sadly, both Greek and Turkish Cypriots suffer from this divide?
  Since 1974, there have been countless meetings in Cyprus, London and the United States, and many meetings of the United Nations Security Council. Resolutions have been passed that clearly outline the views of the United Nations on what should be the basis for a settlement to this long-running tragedy.
  Many promises have been made. One has only to think of the promise made many years ago for the return of Famagusta—a town that is still deserted some 25 years after the invasion. Once, it was one of the most beautiful towns in Cyprus. Yet the promise made by Mr. Denktas, the leader of the Turkish Cypriots, to return that town has never been honoured, any more than the resolutions passed by the United Nations have been honoured.
  Report after report has stated clearly that, under successive presidents of the Republic of Cyprus since the invasion, there has always been a willingness to enter into meaningful talks. Regrettably, however, that has always been refused by Mr. Denktas and so, sadly, we have got nowhere.
  Mr. Denktas, fully supported by Turkey and the Turkish army, plays by his own rules of non-co-operation. Thousands of Turkish settlers—no one knows the correct number—have come from mainland Turkey to live in the occupied area of northern Cyprus. At the same time, thousands of Turkish Cypriots have left the country.
  In a debate such as this, it is interesting to highlight the views of the countries of the world. After some 25 years, the only country that recognises the so-called independent state of northern Cyprus is Turkey. No other country in the world does so.
  I referred to the many meetings held over the past 25 years to try and find a settlement. At the G7 meeting at Cologne earlier this year, the heads of Government issued a statement calling for the President of the Republic of Cyprus, President Clerides, and Mr. Denktas
  84
  to meet to discuss the grounds for a settlement. I and many other hon. Members warmly welcome that commitment by the G7 countries.
  The group that I chair has always made it clear that we want a settlement in which the rights and security of Turkish Cypriots will be just as important as those of Greek Cypriots. Guarantees to that effect should be written into any such settlement.
  The talks called for by the G7 nations have started. Discussion is, sadly, slow, but the deadlock is of long standing, so we must accept that the talks will take a long time and be difficult. However, the House, the United Nations and other countries involved in the Cyprus problem must be clear that the settlement that we hope to achieve must be based on the resolutions passed by the UN. Those resolutions require that Cyprus must remain a single sovereignty, that there must be total withdrawal of all Turkish troops, and that all refugees who so wish must have the right to return to their homes. The resolutions also call for the final resolution of the fate of the missing people, and state that there can be no recognition for a separate Turkish state in any part of the island of Cyprus.
  I have referred to the repeated willingness of the President of the Republic of Cyprus to enter into meaningful talks on any aspect of a settlement. Cyprus is now a candidate for membership of the European Union, and it has every right to be considered. Its economy is far stronger than that of many of the other applicant countries now under consideration.
  President Clerides has called repeatedly on Mr. Denktas to join in the discussions about the EU membership application. Regrettably, Mr. Denktas has refused on every occasion. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, and my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, will fully support Cyprus's application for membership of the European Union. I hope, too, that they will make it clear to Mr. Denktas and the Turkish Government that they have no veto over Cyprus's application.
  The events of the past few days have altered considerably the issues surrounding a settlement in Cyprus. At the weekend, the Helsinki conference of European Union heads of Government decided to invite Turkey to attend meetings to discuss its possible EU membership. The House knows how much Turkey wants that to happen, and I have no doubt that, in time, Turkey will have a role in the EU. However, I hope that the Government will be at the forefront of those telling Turkey what is expected of it.
  European Union membership sets very clear rules. Countries must respect human rights and have no political prisoners. Above all, however, their troops should not divide and occupy another European country.
  I understand that the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Ecevit, attended the European Union meeting in Helsinki. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not forget that it was the same Mr. Ecevit who said not so long ago that there was no Cyprus problem, and that
  "the invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus solved the issue."
  I hope that the leaders of the European Union will leave Mr. Ecevit in no doubt that membership of the European Union will bring responsibilities and clear obligations to resolve disputes and conflicts. No dispute requires resolution more than that over Cyprus.

  85
  We in the United Kingdom can never say, "It's sad, we hope the problem will be resolved, but it isn't our responsibility." It certainly is our responsibility. As I said, Cyprus is a Commonwealth country, and the United Kingdom is one of its guarantor powers. I hope that, in the coming weeks, we will be in the forefront of those countries supporting the Republic of Cyprus and working towards a settlement there. Such a settlement will bring benefits to the country and its people, be they Turkish Cypriots or Greek Cypriots.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. May I explain to the House that a number of Back Benchers wish to speak and that brief contributions would therefore be appreciated.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: I shall certainly adhere to your request for brevity, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I wish to raise the subject of policing levels in Hampshire. My contribution arises from my experience as a local Member of Parliament, and from recent headlines in the Chandler's Ford and Romsey newspapers. Examples of those headlines include "Safety Fears as Police Shortages Affect Local Residents", "Bobbies Cut as Shops Face Vandal Problem", and "Precinct Folk Frightened". Another story, headed "Police Cuts Row", had a sub-headline describing how angry traders feared more vandalism if police officers were transferred elsewhere in the district.
  Many hon. Members will be familiar with such headlines in their local press. In my constituency, they have been prompted by the anger felt by shop traders in Chandler's Ford's troubled central shopping precinct in Bournemouth road. They are angry that police officers are to be transferred from that area to make good personnel shortages elsewhere. As reported in the Southern Daily Echo, they complain that the precinct is "a magnet for vandals" and say that matters
  "will only get worse if fewer police are on patrol."
  I think that all hon. Members would agree with that. The article continued:
  "In the past few months, gangs of youths and young girls have vandalised seating, upturned concrete plant pots. scrawled graffiti on buildings and verbally abused anyone who has challenged them.
  "Several shops have regularly had windows smashed, takeaway food has been smeared over windows and rubbish and excrement pushed through letterboxes. In some cases, attempts have been made to set fire to items pushed through doors."
  Such stories show how bad the situation is.
  On 29 November, the Home Secretary launched his crime-reduction strategy and stated that the Government had embarked on a crusade against crime. Laudable though the aims of the strategy may be, I am having difficulty in relating them to what is happening on the ground. Page 2 of the strategy's summary refers to:
  "a new ring-fenced crime fighting fund part of which will be used to enable forces to recruit, train and pay 5,000 new officers, over and above the number that forces would otherwise have recruited, over the next three years and commencing in April 2000."
  I suggest that it is a little optimistic to promise to increase our police forces by 5,000 new officers when there are 3,000 gaps in the thin blue line every day due to unfilled vacancies and sickness. Still, the Home Secretary has
  86
  challenged police authorities to agree plans for more bobbies on the beat, and, if they meet their targets, they will receive more money from the Home Office.
  About half our police force funding comes from council tax payers, with the other half coming from the Home Office. In recent years, Hampshire is fortunate to have received additional grants of £2.7 million to enable it to increase its police establishment by 222 full-time equivalent police officers, bringing its total establishment up to 3,491. But the force is currently 66 constables short. That may not seem a lot, but, coupled with the pressures that officers are under, it has a significant impact on the area.
  Superintendent Tribe, the divisional commander in the Eastleigh police station, which serves my constituency, says:
  "Our problem lies in that we are supposed to be all things to all people. We are expected to provide anything from a traditional policing with a 'bobby on the beat' that people know and recognise to a round-the-clock emergency service response. The public, rightly, has increasingly high expectations of our performance and we are constantly having to expand into new areas."
  He cites establishing a dedicated domestic violence officer, as well as
  "sending officers into school to help prevent the children from getting into trouble, and in Hampshire we are participating in the new Youth Offenders Team pilot with probation officers and youth workers."
  For all that extra work, over and above normal requirements, the Hampshire police authority receives no additional resources.
  If my constituents want more bobbies on the beat, the Hampshire police authority will have to meet the Home Secretary's challenge. Council tax payers will have to pay more, or cuts will be made elsewhere in Hampshire county council's budget. Even if the establishment is increased, we must find suitable recruits and retain more police officers.
  I do not think that police officers are paid enough, and that applies to many other forces in the south-east. On appointment, a police officer receives £16,635 per annum, which rises to £18,612 after one year. That salary is not attractive enough to compete with commercial and other industrial employment in a prosperous part of the country—my constituency has virtually full employment. Moreover, in such an economically sound area, there is more to steal. Although recorded crime figures are decreasing—following the trend started in the previous Government's term of office-an awful lot of crime, such as the vandalism and thuggishness that I mentioned, is not reported.
  I have three or four points to raise, and should be grateful for the Government's view. First, what about having a differential in rates of pay for police constables across the country? I am told that there is no problem in recruiting police officers on Merseyside and in similar areas of high unemployment. Recruitment is particularly difficult in the south-east and I think that the tripartite police negotiating board on pay and conditions of service should consider that possibility.
  Secondly, we must think again about housing allowance. When I first started taking an interest in the police, officers were provided with dedicated housing, which they retained throughout their service. The housing has all gone—a victim, perhaps, of the right to buy.

  87
  Had that legislation excluded police houses, they might have been retained, but that chance has been lost. I am not suggesting a return to such provision, because buying the housing would be expensive. We could, however, reintroduce the housing allowance. It was phased out at the same time as dedicated houses, and reintroducing it would make the job much more attractive, particularly to police officers' families. It would improve retention as well as recruitment.
  Thirdly, we should think again about reintroducing police cadets. I believe that the Metropolitan police force still has cadet units. There is no doubt that the Territorial Army units' sponsorship of local cadet forces has helped to recruit youngsters into the armed forces. The same can be said of the police forces, and local police authorities might like to reconsider whether there is merit in reintroducing police cadets to build up the ethos of both public service and service in the police forces.
  Fourthly, we should look at the retirement rules. At present, police officers retire after 30 years of service, or when they are 55. There is a provision for that age limit to be extended to 60 if applicants wish it and if they have a good service record. Many jobs can be done by people over the age of 60. I am one such person and, looking round the Chamber, I can see plenty of others over the age of 60 who are still contributing to society by serving their constituents in Parliament. I do not see why police officers should be forced to retire at 60 when they could probably come off the beat and go into an office, with all the experience gained from their years of service, and continue to add to the establishment of the police force.
  Finally, there should be more special constables back on the beat, as they have an enormous contribution to make. First, they are volunteers, so they are dedicated to the task of policing. Secondly, they are free—we do not pay them. They receive a free uniform and their expenses are covered. Most importantly, they have strong local community links. That is the real value of a bobby on the beat. In addition to the 3,500-odd police in our establishment in Hampshire, there are another 700 special constables, and I only wish that there were more.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: When visiting my local police station, I discovered that many special constables want to see what the police force is like, with a view to joining it later. Allowing special constables to have that role would be useful in recruiting police.
  Mr. Colvin: That could well have been my fifth point. My hon. Friend makes a most valuable contribution. Job tasting is an important part of recruitment and could be tried in the armed forces as well as the police service. Some Members of Parliament who are taking part in the armed forces scheme may be tempted from this place to serve their country in other areas.
  In conclusion, I do not want to give the impression that Hampshire is a lawless place. It is not. Recorded crime continues to go down, following the trend established in the previous Government's term of office, but we do not know how much unrecorded crime there is. We do know, however, that there is a problem right across the south-east of England in recruiting and retaining the very high-quality police officers to whom we have become
  88
  accustomed. I hope that my suggestions will be listened to seriously by the Government, and I look forward to hearing their response in due course.
  7.49 pm
  Ms Jenny Jones: My reason for speaking is to try to prevent an impending deadlock over the sale and redevelopment of the former Wolverhampton Royal hospital in my constituency. As we speak, important decisions are being made about the site's future, and the situation is not hopeful.
  The former hospital is a grade 2 listed building in the middle of Wolverhampton. It dominates the All Saints area, and is situated in one of the most deprived wards of the west midlands. The area has been subject to regeneration initiatives for some years. The decision to close the hospital was taken in the early 1990s and was controversial, partly because the hospital contained the town's accident and emergency services, but partly because it was held in great affection. I was against closure, but by the time of the general election in 1997, the plan was too far advanced to be reversed. It seemed a more positive use of energy to seek to ensure that redevelopment would benefit local people and the whole of Wolverhampton.
  From the outset, Wolverhampton council and the local community made it clear that the site's redevelopment required what planning jargon refers to as mixed use. In other words, there could certainly be commercial development that would bring in money, but there must also be social housing and facilities for local people. The redevelopment of the hospital site was seen as the focus of the area's regeneration, and the plans were enshrined in a document titled "Royal Hospital Development Area—Wolverhampton Town Centre Urban Village". The plans were also included in the council's unitary development plan, and were subsequently approved by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, a point to which I shall return.
  When the hospital was handed over to estates officials of the national health service executive for disposal, they were made aware of the plans and of what the town, the council and the local people wanted. The site was first marketed in 1998, but that attempt was not successful. A second attempt to market the site occurred earlier this year. In between the two, I facilitated a round-table meeting in All Saints involving residents, council officials, councillors, churches, schools, voluntary groups, housing associations and the NHS executive. The purpose of the meeting was to highlight the expectations of the local community and the council, and to make officials aware of what people wanted from redevelopment. After the meeting, everyone was positive, feeling that a greater understanding of the community's needs had been achieved.
  However, the result of the second attempt to market the hospital site has been disappointing. The NHS executive seems likely to agree to a food superstore. That option does not fulfil the needs of local people and, as it is counter to the council's unitary development plan, it probably will not receive planning permission. There is a supermarket 200 yd away, so the proposal does not seem to make sense, and the council has already earmarked a further site within half a mile of the hospital for a food superstore.

  89
  The reaction of the NHS executive officials is that Government guidelines bind them to achieving the best value for money deal. The hospital has been closed for two years. The building has been vandalised. The executive has changed its security firm three times, and the costs of patrolling the building are likely to run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. If the executive goes ahead with the plan for a food superstore, the council will probably not give planning permission, and we shall be locked into appeals to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The local community will campaign against the development, and the hospital building could stand empty for at least another year.
  I have written to the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), to outline the problem. I asked whether his officials might be able to exercise discretion in the disposal of the site so that we could achieve mixed use. I wrote to my hon. Friend at the end of October and have not yet had a reply, although I am fairly confident that I shall receive one soon.
  A food superstore is not what we need. My constituents and the rest of Wolverhampton deserve a lot better. The hospital was originally built and maintained by public subscription. The people of Wolverhampton built that hospital. It would not be acceptable if the NHS executive walked away from the site with maximum financial gain and without contributing to regeneration of the immediate area. I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office to pass on my message to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, and, although I know that the latter is busy, I would like a reply to my letter.
  A wider issue is at also stake. I cannot understand why a plan accepted by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions appears to be being thwarted by the criteria applied by the Department of Health—perhaps some joined-up government is needed.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sorry to start on a carping note, but I regret the absence of the Leader of the House this evening. Those of us who served in previous Parliaments recall the tradition that the Leader of the House should attend this debate. That was a good tradition, and I hope that the practice is reinstated.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to raise two constituency matters that have a wider import. The first is the availability of beta interferon in Lincolnshire health authority's area. The second is funding of Lincolnshire police, on which I shall make some remarks not dissimilar to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin).
  My interest in beta interferon arises from my concern about two constituents. I do not think it right to name them, so I shall call them N and E for the purposes of the debate. Both are young ladies in their late 20s, who have recently developed multiple sclerosis. Both have been seen by general practitioners and have been referred to the consultant neurologist responsible for decisions in this area, to whom I shall refer as Professor B. He is responsible for identifying those among those referred to him who would benefit from beta interferon.
  90
  In both cases, Professor B concluded that my constituents would benefit from beta interferon. Having regard to their ages, he concluded that the treatment would be particularly appropriate. In a letter to the health authority concerning N, he wrote:
  "Here is another patient with very active multiple sclerosis who is having frequent attacks and a high risk of significant disability. She has had six attacks in the last 12 months. As we have no currently available funding in Lincolnshire Health for incidence cases I would be grateful if you would let me know when additional funding will be made available for patients like"
  N. He continued:
  "We now know that treatment as early as possible in the disease course is critical in order to avoid long-term disability and I would be grateful if you can support additional funding for such patients."
  In respect of patient E, her GP wrote:
  "The only available treatment for relapsing and remitting multiple sclerosis is beta interferon, which is indicated for the reduction of frequency and the degree of severity of clinical relapses. It is only effective if given in the early stages of the disease process. It is imperative that she receives the best treatment available. Clearly, at present this is not the situation. As her GP, she has my complete authoritative support and I think that the health authority should be responsible for and fund her treatment."
  I regret to say that funding is not available. Lincolnshire health authority has ring-fenced a budget of £200,000, and it adopts the position that it cannot go beyond that sum. Mr. Jeavons of the health authority wrote to me about its policy. His letter stated:
  "Within the fixed sum available only Consultant Neurologists can judge which patients will benefit the most from treatment, and thus should receive priority. We cannot increase our level of funding for beta interferon because we face many competing demands for resources, most notably the rapidly rising demand for emergency medical admissions."
  That is profoundly unsatisfactory.
  Budgetary constraints operating in Lincolnshire—and, no doubt, elsewhere—actively prevent the prescribing of drugs to those for whom the clinical neurologist recommends them. A letter to me from the professor makes it plain that one cannot prioritise within the groups of people who satisfy the clinical criteria; all of them are equally eligible and would benefit to a like degree.
  That is a clear example of rationing by budget—I have no doubt that it is true elsewhere.
  Mr. Peter Luff: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to point out that there are similar problems elsewhere. This morning, I received a most disturbing letter from a constituent who complained of rationing not by budget but by postcode. I understand that my health authority has no budget at all for beta interferon.
  Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to hear that. In another letter to me, the professor pointed out that, because of budgetary constraints, perhaps only one in six of the patients who would benefit from beta interferon is receiving it.
  Ultimately, the Government are responsible and I am entitled to know where they stand on the following options. The first would be to do nothing but simply say, "Well, that's tough. Too bad, we are not going to do anything." If that is the Government's position, we should know. Secondly, they could tell the Lincolnshire health authority to allocate more money to the budget. The authority would then have to move money from another

  91
  spending head. Is that the Government's position? Thirdly, the Government could say that they will allocate more money to the health authority. If that is their position, we should know about it. If that is not their position, we should know why.
  For aught I know, there are various other possibilities, but it is the Government's business to tell us what the alternatives are. I realise that the Minister is not able to comment in detail; I do not blame him for that. The Leader of the House would also be unable to comment in detail. However, the Minister could tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health that the House is entitled to a considered reply to the points that I have made. I trust that he will persuade his right hon. Friend to write to me and, furthermore, that a letter will be placed in the Library.
  In relation to the funding of the Lincolnshire police, we find that rural areas are being disadvantaged under the Labour Government. There are two general points. First, the number of police in the county is lower than when the Conservatives were in office. In April 1997, we had 1,214 constables in Lincolnshire. A year later, in April 1998, the number had risen by four. In April 1999, there were 1,165 constables—a decrease of 49 since 1997. I suspect that that is matched in many shire forces.
  Secondly, Lincolnshire receives the second lowest grant per head of the population. In consequence, as in the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey, council tax payers in my constituency are paying about 34 per cent. more than the average rate. As all those Members who represent rural areas are well aware, the problem is sparsity. For obvious reasons, it costs much more to provide a police service in a sparsely populated region. I need not go into the reasons, as they will be well known to those who are interested in the matter.
  I am not usually fair to the Government, but in this case I will be and will point out that, in April 1998, the Home Office commissioned ORH Ltd. to produce a report, which was received in May 1999. A letter sent by the Home Office to police authorities stated that the working party to whom the consultants had reported found that there was a serious sparsity factor. The consultants recommended a heavy shift in spending priorities to take account of the sparsity factor in the formula. In Lincolnshire, that would increase the cash by about £2 million, or about 3 per cent. That is a significant amount in a budget of about £60 million. That is important.
  In September, I received a letter from the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), in which he stated, in effect, that there was problem but that the Government were not in a position to address it. Indeed, they could not give me any guarantee for the next three years.
  Plainly, in Lincolnshire, we have too few policemen—fewer than there were two years ago. It is acknowledged that sparsity is a serious factor, but the Government completely refuse to pay any attention to the report that they commissioned and which has been endorsed by the Home Office working party. That is profoundly unsatisfactory. I realise that the Minister will not be able to give me a considered reply—even the Leader of the House would not be able to do so. I do not complain about
  92
  that. However the Minister can certainly draw my remarks to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and suggest that a considered and sympathetic response would be in order. A copy of that letter should go to the Library of the House.
  Mr. Colvin: I draw the attention of the House and of my right hon. and learned Friend to the excellent Adjournment debate initiated by our right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) on 2 December on the policing of rural areas. Our right hon. Friend listed the 14 police authorities—including Lincolnshire—which face the problem described by my right hon. and learned Friend and which have jointly lobbied the Home Office. I recommend that my right hon. and learned Friend joins forces with those authorities and perhaps he will receive a better answer from the Minister of State, Home Office than our right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon received on 2 December.
  Mr. Hogg: I should put it differently—they might join forces with me. Lincolnshire is one of the counties that suffer most acutely. It is perfectly true that 14 forces are affected by the sparsity factor. They are referred to in the ORH Ltd. report and by the Home Office working party.
  In respect of the police and beta interferon, we must acknowledge that those who live in rural areas are being disadvantaged by the Government. Those of us who represent those people must ensure that the whole country knows and understands that.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. John McDonnell: The debate gives us the opportunity to raise grievances that have not been dealt with. I demand redress for my constituent, Andrea Morgan. Some months ago, I raised her case in a debate on myalgic encephalomyelitis—ME—initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright). At that time, I believed that, after a long struggle, the case had been resolved.
  However, tragically, the sorry tale of a bureaucracy pursuing a lengthy and virulent campaign of harassment against my constituent continues, because, although she suffers from ME, she has dared to stand up for her right to fair treatment from the local authority. Since the Lawrence inquiry, there has been much debate about institutional racism. Andrea Morgan's case is an example of institutional discrimination on grounds of disability. I hope that, by exposing the case again, I will halt in its tracks the campaign against her by the malevolent bureaucracy of the London borough of Hillingdon. I shall explain what can happen to people with disabilities if they dare to demand fairness and justice.
  The background is that Andrea was an employee of the London borough of Hillingdon. Ironically, her post was to assist long-term unemployed people—especially those with disabilities—to return to work. After six years, she was redeployed within the council to assist members of the public with their problems—providing information, advice and assistance. She was generally considered to be good at her job—competent, committed and sensitive to the needs of the community.
  In January 1997, Andrea was taken ill and eventually, in May 1997, she was admitted to hospital after collapsing, and was diagnosed as suffering from ME.

  93
  The full details of the condition were outlined in a report by Dr. Sevitt, the Hillingdon hospital consultant. Andrea was treated by her general practitioner and was in regular contact with Dr. Thompson, health adviser to the London borough of Hillingdon.
  Andrea Morgan is a worker, not a shirker. She is keen to get back to work as soon as possible, and was so at that time. So Andrea herself arranged appointments with the borough's health adviser, which produced in September 1997 from that adviser, Dr. Thompson, the following advice to the London borough of Hillingdon personnel department:
  "If at all possible she would be able, from a medical point of view, to start work at home with a view to a slowly graded return to work, which can only be decided in terms of her symptoms."
  The doctor continued:
  "I would be grateful if you could let me know if this would be possible."
  No response was received from Hillingdon, despite Andrea's phone calls and messages left in the personnel department, so, in November 1997, a further memo was sent by Dr. Thompson to the personnel department, saying:
  "I would reiterate my last memo of 26 September that Miss Morgan is fit to start work at home when this is possible and that this should be followed by graded return to work in line with her symptoms. It is important that, even though she remains well, the gradation of her return does not increase, and that her symptoms are monitored carefully, as too much too early could cause a recurrence of her symptoms."
  There was no response from the borough, so Andrea yet again arranged for an interview. She took with her her GP's note, saying:
  "Andrea is now ready to return to work but needs a period of part-time work to ease herself back into routine. I hope that this is possible".
  This is a woman struggling to get back into work, despite a severe illness, diagnosed by several doctors, including consultants at Hillingdon hospital and her own GP.
  Andrea eventually did return to work, in November 1997, but what did the London borough of Hillingdon do? Was there any assistance for her? No. The borough refused to allow her access to its own recuperation programme. On the day that she returned to work, her own manager was late. There were no arrangements for prior induction. She was set up to fail. She could not cope in those circumstances, and left her employment on that day.
  The occupational health adviser informed the council:
  "This sort of stress is likely to be detrimental to her health and could quite possibly cause a relapse."
  Andrea again tried to return to work. She sought redeployment. She was willing to do everything within her abilities to get back to work, and she was referred to the borough's corporate monitoring panel to match her to any vacancies that arose. Departmental managers were also asked whether they could provide some work for her to do at home. Although in other instances the borough paid other employees a full salary and found them work to do at home, that was not the case for Andrea. It seems that it is all right if one is able-bodied, but not if one has a disability.
  Having done nothing to help, the borough's personnel department suggested that Andrea be psychologically tested. In a debate earlier in the year, we heard that many
  94
  ME sufferers have endured similar treatment. The argument is that they are not sick—that the problem is not physical but psychological. It is the modern-day equivalent of "it is all in the mind" or "it is psychosomatic". It has revealed the attitude of the personnel manager to ME sufferers that they all seem to be classified as "mental malingerers".
  Time dragged on. The borough made no real effort to find an appropriate job for Andrea and, in January 1998, after months of trying to get back into work, she could cope no longer and resigned her employment with the borough. In February 1998, Andrea, through her union, Unison, lodged an industrial tribunal application with regard to the borough's treatment of her, on the grounds of discrimination on disability.
  In October 1998, the industrial tribunal found unanimously in Andrea's favour. It said:
  "The London Borough of Hillingdon unlawfully discriminated against her, a disabled person".
  The tribunal did not believe that, in an organisation of 8,000 employees, the borough could not find some work for her to assist in her return to work. It cited numerous examples of other employees who had been assisted in such a way.
  What did the borough do? Immediately, in the local paper, it distorted the judgment, claiming that it would appeal because it could not create work for Andrea when there was no work for her to do—a complete distortion of the decision.
  The decision should have been an end to the case, and Andrea was looking forward to putting the whole issue behind her and starting a new life, possibly in new employment—but no, bizarrely, the London borough of Hillingdon appealed. Personnel officers lodged their own industrial tribunal appeal application, using the borough's resources. Although that was subsequently denied by the chief executive, I have the paperwork on which they lodged the claims in their own personal names, on London borough of Hillingdon headed paper.
  In May 1999, the appeal was dismissed. The personnel officers dropped their own case, and they were refused leave to appeal further by Lord Justice Morison.
  In June 1999, the London borough of Hillingdon applied to the Court of Appeal for refusal of leave to be lifted. In November 1999—only a month ago—Mr. Justice Sedley refused leave to appeal and said:
  "Even if there were not a second tier appeal requiring particular cogency, I would not consider it a proper case for permission to appeal. It has in my view no real prospect of success."
  I understand that, even now, the borough is considering further appeals and further pursuits of this case. In the past year, the borough has settled numerous employee cases at industrial tribunals, and settlements have ranged from £4,000 to £45,000, but in this case it is determined not to settle.
  The costs incurred by the borough in pursuing its vendetta against my constituent—a disabled woman—are staggering. They must now amount to more than £100,000—the costs of counsel's opinion, counsel's representation in court, legal officers' advice, personnel officers' advice, occupational health advisers' advice and the administrative tasks involved in this escapade. The matter has been referred to the district auditor, but he seems incapable of investigating the matter.

  95
  I am demanding a full investigation by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I believe that, if there have been issues of unreasonable behaviour, the district auditor should surcharge officers and, if necessary, members in this case. What we have on our hands is a grubby, hurtful conspiracy to victimise my constituent, which should not go unrecorded and must be remedied. That is what these debates are for—to draw attention to that type of disgraceful behaviour by a public body.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. David Heath: I am most grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on matters to be considered before the Christmas Adjournment—or, perhaps more apocalyptically, matters to be considered before the end of the millennium. It may be the right moment to place on the record my appreciation of the efforts of the bodies in my constituency to celebrate the millennium.
  I shall not be polite about the dome—I shall be entirely consistent on that matter. I have been rude before and I shall be rude again, and I suspect that, as a result, I am not on the Christmas card list of the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am talking about the individual community efforts that are taking place throughout the country—small-scale schemes in villages and small towns, which have much to commend them. I think of the church bell schemes—I saw some instituted in Isle Abbotts recently. I think of millennium greens. I think of the excellent work done on Jack and Jill hill—the hill that Jack and Jill went up to fetch their pail of water, in Kilmersdon in my constituency—which has now been reconstituted by the efforts of local people. All are excellent schemes.
  I do not intend to spend my entire time in congratulating my constituents, tempting though that is. Instead, I shall address a serious matter, which I believe that the House should consider, and should consider time and again in the next few months. That is the very real threat that has been posed by the Government's actions to rural sub-post offices—and urban post offices because they will face the same dangers.
  I do not believe that the Government have grasped the scale of the problem. They cannot have grasped the extent to which people are concerned about the threat to their local sub-post offices. They realise, if the Government do not, that half our rural sub-post offices could disappear in the next few years, as a result of Government actions. Regrettable is not a sufficient word to describe that. It would be worse than a decimation.
  I am indebted to the actions of our major regional newspaper, the Western Daily Press, which has been running a vigorous campaign on the issue. If Ministers need proof of how upset people are about the issue, they need only look at the coverage in the Western Daily Press and consider the number of people who are queueing up to sign a petition in their tens—I think hundreds—of thousands. People are even demanding a petition in their sub-post office, if there is not already one there, so that they may add their name to the list.
  I had a valuable meeting with the postmasters and postmistresses from the smaller post offices in my constituency. It took place at 2 o'clock on a Saturday
  96
  afternoon when most of them were trying to run their businesses. My constituency is large—it can take an hour and a quarter to drive from the far end of it to Frome where the meeting was held—but, despite all that, the postmasters and postmistresses were there in number. The majority were represented and they were unanimous in their view. Every one of them saw the Government's plans as a threat to their businesses over the next few years.
  I do not dispute that the Government's proposals for automation will unlock potential in sub-post offices. I want that to happen and I want such post offices to extend the range of services that they provide. However, the Government's plans for the payments of benefits and pensions and for the changeover to automated credit transfer will have a simultaneous and opposite effect. It represents a real threat to those businesses. I am told that up to 35 per cent. of the turnover of the post offices in my constituency comes from the payment of pensions and benefits and that, in urban areas, that figure can rise even higher. However, post offices will lose not just that business, which they undertake on an agency basis, but the added business that goes with it. When people come into a post office to collect their pensions, they do their shopping or pick up a newspaper; they do other business.
  Postmasters and postmistresses also see a second threat—a threat to the value of their businesses. Those of them who are thinking of retiring and believe that they have served the community for long enough find it almost impossible to dispose of their businesses in the present climate and with the uncertainty that lies ahead. It is difficult to produce a realistic business plan. If someone wants to buy a post office, he cannot produce a realistic business plan that will satisfy the banks enough to lend him money. They do not know what sort of business will be there in future.
  The continuation of such businesses, the loss of jobs and, most of all, the loss of community facilities are real issues. Villages have lost so many things in recent years. Many villages do not have a village shop, post office or pub. However, the Government's proposal is a further threat to village life and it will encourage villages to become dormitories and museums rather than the living communities that we want them to be.
  Coupled with the difficulties to the businesses themselves are the difficulties that will be posed to the many people who collect their pensions or benefits from post offices. Pensioners are an important group in that respect, but they are not the only people in that position. Those with disabilities and young mothers who do not have transport of their own may find that the post office is an essential resource if they are to lead their normal lives. They will be placed in an almost impossible position if, at some stage in the future, they cannot use post offices to collect their pensions or benefits.
  The answer often given is that such people should use bank accounts. However, there are several problems with forcing people to have bank accounts. First, there is the question whether the clearing banks would be prepared to accept their business. People on low incomes are very often not considered to be good credit risks by banks and credit is often determined by the postcode of where one happens to reside. I foresee real problems. We could end up with the Government having to pay the banks to take the business rather than paying post offices to continue the business that they carry out.

  97
  People on low incomes can ill afford the charges on bank accounts. Perhaps Ministers have forgotten the problems in living from hand to mouth and managing a very small budget over a month rather than over a week. It is intensely difficult for people to manage in those circumstances, as any citizens advice bureau and any Member who has held a surgery knows. However, the Government's proposal would take away a facility that enables people to budget more easily.
  Transport is another problem. Many people cannot get to a bank. They are airily told that they can use an automated telling machine. However, in some areas of my constituency, the nearest automated telling machine is 30 miles away. How on earth are people supposed to use that? How on earth are they supposed to find the public transport, which does not exist, to get them to a bank, which does not exist, so that they can withdraw the money that is rightfully theirs?
  There are also societal problems. Post offices provide a much wider resource than simply paying over money or selling a jar of coffee. They perform a social function that is critical in these days when people are often terribly isolated and find it difficult to meet others. The post office is the place where they meet, do business and can find a friend or a contact who they know will be on their side and who will assist them when they need help.
  The Government's suggestion is based on making savings to the social security budget. No one in the House would deny the desirability of making savings on that budget if the money can be used elsewhere. However, those savings should not be made at the expense of people or of individual or community interests.
  If the Minister agrees that the post office network is valuable—I believe that it is invaluable—will he tell us how the Government will sustain it to the point that it can benefit from automation? It is no good saying that there will be jam tomorrow if post offices go out of business today. How will the Government help those who rely on post offices for their pensions and benefits? We have heard much about the social exclusion unit, and this job, above all others, is one for that unit. It should provide a strategy to deal with a problem before it is created by a Government who, in this instance, have taken the wrong turning.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Alan Hurst: I associate myself fully with the remarks of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I am sure that I would not be alone among Labour Members in expressing that view.
  I wish to raise two issues that have been brought to my attention by my constituents. The first is the position of slaughterhouses within the rural economy. Over many years, the number of small slaughterhouses serving their own localities has sharply declined. That decline has been hastened by the expression—quite rightly—of new concerns about hygiene and animal welfare. It is proper that such issues should be at the forefront of our minds. However, large operations find it much easier than small family-run businesses to adapt their premises and mode of business to the relevant regulations and changes.
  Of course, on top of that we have had the crisis that has emanated from the concern over BSE, the complete collapse of the rendering trade and the collapse of the economies in the far east and Russia, which has deprived
  98
  producers of an outlet for the sale of hides. The burdens placed on the proprietor of the small slaughterhouse have become greater and greater and his margins have narrowed.
  That has a great effect on the rural economy, particularly on farmers. If the local slaughterhouse closes, farmers must transport their beasts much further afield. That has a consequence for them because their costs rise, particularly when fuel prices are high, but it also causes concern about the welfare of the animals being transported. On the one hand, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, we are making improvements through modernisation and by being concerned about welfare, but, on the other, we are increasing welfare risks by lengthening the journey time for animals.
  That issue is more vividly in my mind because of the actions of the Intervention Board, which recently reduced from 29 to 21 the number of approved slaughterhouses that can operate in contract with the board on the over-30-months scheme. It said in its press handout that the remaining slaughterhouses will be geographically appropriate and the change should not greatly increase the journey time. In East Anglia, there is no contracted, approved slaughterhouse. From 22 December, the slaughterhouse in Brentwood will cease to have a contract, and the venue nearest to East Anglia will be in Derbyshire or Kent. Whatever the ambitions of our Saxon forebears, I never thought that Derbyshire was part of the eastern counties or East Anglia.
  That change has exactly the same consequences as the closure of small slaughterhouses: the journey time and distances over which the animals are being transported are enormously lengthened. Indeed, there will be trips of up to 150 miles, some of which will be on country roads, with aged, and in some cases, frail or unwell animals that are subject to the over-30-months scheme. Such journeys can hardly be beneficial to their welfare.
  The consequence of the change is, allegedly, that the Intervention Board will save some £5 million. It may well do, but the world is a strange place and, as with all savings, when money is saved in one area, costs seem to
  crop up somewhere else. As the Intervention Board saves £5 million, the farmers who produce the beasts are laden with the cost of making that saving as they transport their animals further and further to slaughterhouses.
  My final point about slaughterhouses relates to the system of double inspection, which I am sure all hon. Members who represent rural areas will have been told about by local producers. Slaughterhouses or, as they are now normally known, abattoirs, are inspected not only by somebody from the Meat Hygiene Service, but by an approved official veterinary surgeon.
  Slaughterhouse inspection is not the most attractive occupation for veterinary surgeons, and there is concern that because this country has a shortage of vets who want to undertake what is, in essence, a monotonous and low-level occupation, vets are being brought in from abroad. Their English is often, initially at least, poor, but an agency charges the slaughterhouse a high fee for those vets, which is passed on to the producer.
  Many people say to me that they believe that it is unnecessary to have two inspectors present at the same time. I submit that it would be helpful if the Government's red tape working group, which I know is greatly

  99
  welcomed, could attend to that matter. It could find out where savings could be made and consider how to switch the burden to high-risk areas, where increased supervision might be needed. Where there is a low risk, other approaches could be taken. Tomorrow, we shall hear the first results of the working group's deliberations, and I hope that it will take those matters into account thereafter.
  The second matter that I wish to discuss is one that I raised the very first time that I spoke in an Adjournment debate, in the autumn of 1997—the Hatfield Peverel to Witham link road, which is in my constituency. Some hon. Members may have heard of the town of Witham; fewer, perhaps, will have heard of Hatfield Peverel. I suspect that its main claim to fame is that it is the home address of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), but, in our locality, we do not broadcast that fact more often than necessary.
  The Hatfield Peverel to Witham link road is an essential feature of transportation safety in that part of Essex. The Al2, which runs between Witham and Hatfield Peverel, is notoriously congested and dangerous, and the accident statistics are way above what would be anticipated on that section of road.
  I raised this matter in the House in one of my early speeches in the Chamber in autumn 1997. I then went to see the Minister responsible, and I thought that things happened easily and quickly thereafter because I soon had a letter saying that the road, which is only about a mile long, had been approved as one requiring a safety measure, and, that summer, it was incorporated into the roads programme as a minor scheme. In spring 1998, it was referred to the Highways Agency for progress to be made.
  The scheme has been in the intended budget of Essex county council for many years, and I am sure that it was pushed in this House by my predecessor and, indeed, by other Members who are greatly concerned. The scheme was announced on safety grounds in January 1998, yet nothing further of any substance has occurred and it is now December 1999.
  I have been to see representatives of the Highways Agency, who told me in the spring that substantial progress would be made by July. July has come and gone and we are now in December. Colleagues from the county and district councils have approached the Highways Agency and been told that progress will be made by spring 2000—a vaguer date than July—but still nothing further has occurred.
  I raise the matter because I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will have the ear of those concerned. I hope that they will grab by the ear those in the Highways Agency who are responsible for the development of the road. What a dreadful thing it would be if there were further deaths on the road because of the apparent inertia since the safety scheme was announced.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I beg to move that this House should not adjourn until it has considered a clear and present danger: nuclear terrorism.
  "New York City Under Threat From Iranian-Backed Terrorist Group"
  100
  would be an alarming headline, but not one without precedent. If we knew that those terrorists were armed with a primitive nuclear device stolen from a loosely guarded Russian stockpile, it would be the stuff of nightmares. Yet, unknown to most people, that was a genuine threat investigated by the CIA and the FBI only months after the bombing of the World Trade Centre.
  The collapse of the Soviet Union has made nuclear terrorism more likely. We rightly fear that terrorists and rogue states might gain access to Russian nuclear weapons and use them, or threaten to use them, against us. Despite Chechnya, it is in our enlightened self-interest to provide generous international financial assistance to Russia in order to reduce that threat.
  Incidents of nuclear terrorism have already occurred, though they have received little publicity. In November 1995, the Chechen guerrilla leader, Shamil Basayev, informed Russian television that his group had placed a container of radioactive caesium 137 in the Ismailovo park in Moscow. Although Russian officials subsequently dismissed the threat, the fact that teams were sent around the city with Geiger counters underlines the seriousness with which it was taken at the time.
  Another incident occurred in spring 1997, when a blackmailer telephoned the president's office threatening to sabotage a nuclear power plant. According to Russian security services, the threat was not an empty one and there was great relief when the blackmailer was arrested.
  Until the collapse of the Soviet Union, the threat of nuclear terrorism was virtually non-existent. What the Soviet Union called the
  "Nuclear shield of the Motherland",
  was one of the state's top funding priorities and was protected from the "Imperialist West" by one of the most efficient police states in the world. Internal security was never seen as a potential threat. Therefore no investment was made in alarm systems, closed circuit television cameras and radiation detectors. It is only in today's Russia of severe budgetary difficulties and widespread corruption that the unthinkable has suddenly become possible.
  At times, the lack of concern shown by Russian authorities over nuclear security issues in Russia would be risible if it were not so serious. The northern fleet had its electricity cut off by the local power company for not paying its bills. That action posed a severe risk of a meltdown in one of the fleet's nuclear-powered submarines. In November last year, 20 soldiers of the strategic missile force—the body responsible for guarding nuclear weapons—were discharged as mentally unfit.
  With the collapse of the economy, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Russian Government to fund security measures for civil and military nuclear establishments. Military personnel have been withdrawn from most civilian research and weapons production centres. Those civilian centres must now provide their own security, despite dramatically reduced budgets.
  Thousands of former employees who are currently unemployed retain their security passes. Military sites are guarded by soldiers whose pay is often erratic and who must often operate out-dated, if not dangerous, facilities. The results of an official Russian inquiry into conditions at nuclear storage facilities are horrifying.
  The 12th main directorate of the Defence Ministry, responsible for security at military nuclear sites, reported that, at one facility, officers and men had not been paid

  101
  for three months and had thus suffered malnutrition that was severe enough to cause fainting fits. The officers were forced to borrow money to pay for the protective slippers used when working close to nuclear warheads.
  All over Russia there are inadequately guarded facilities. In some places, nuclear materials are stored in no more than glass jars protected only by padlocks. The lack of proper inventories aids potential nuclear proliferation, for, if no one is aware exactly how much uranium or plutonium is stored, it is easy to make unauthorised withdrawals.
  Such a scenario prompted President Clinton to authorise what is known as Project Sapphire. That was the covert removal of 600 kg of highly enriched uranium from the Kazak storage facility near the Iranian border. The laxity of the Kazak accounting was underlined by the fact that when the shipment arrived in the United States, it was found to contain 4 per cent. more uranium than that for which the US had paid.
  It is not just a matter of future dangers if nothing is done—there is already a small but growing trade in radioactive material. The largest seizure came in August 1994, when 580 g of MOX—mixed oxide, used as fuel in light water reactors—was discovered at Munich airport on a Russian airliner. Of that 580 g, 300 to 350 g was plutonium close to weapons grade. The following year, 8 g of plutonium–239 was discovered on the Swiss border. As the plutonium was more highly enriched than is usually found in nuclear weapons, it is believed to have been smuggled out of the Arzamas–16 research centre.
  Nuclear proliferation has three major components: plant, fissile material and personnel. Russia is witnessing a haemorrhage of experienced personnel from the formerly closed nuclear weaponry design and production centres. During the Soviet era, personnel in those secret establishments were some of the best paid and most highly respected members of society. However, since 1991, they have been periodically unpaid for months on end, their salaries have failed to keep pace with inflation even when they have been paid, and they have lost their status.
  The situation worsened in April 1998 when the Russian Parliament stopped closed cities, where most of those facilities are located, retaining all taxes collected within their borders, and returned them to dependence on uncertain central Government funding. In such circumstances, it is not surprising that some Russian scientists are tempted to offer their services elsewhere. The average wage for a scientist in one of the closed cities is about $70 a month. Iran is offering up to $5,000 a month to the same people.
  The scale of the problem is huge. In 1992, the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy estimated that up to 3,000 former Soviet scientists had a detailed knowledge of nuclear weapon construction. That does not take into account the thousands of other specialists whose knowledge, although not directly related to weapon construction, could still be of use to a state or group looking to produce a nuclear device.
  What can be done? The United States has taken the lead. Since its inception in 1991, Congress has appropriated more than $2.2 billion to the Nunn—Lugar co-operative threat reduction programme. The programme has been a success and has made a vital contribution to United States and global security. Under its auspices,
  102
  3,300 strategic nuclear warheads were removed from Belarus, Kazakstan and Ukraine, which are now free of nuclear weapons, and 4,700 former Soviet warheads have been removed from strategic weapon systems that used to point west. Hundreds of launchers, missiles and nuclear test tunnels have been destroyed.
  It is clear, however, that the scale of the problem is so great that the programme does not go far enough. Russia needs western financial help to assist it to ratify the START 2 treaty. One of the major reasons for Russian delay, apart from nationalist opposition, is the $7.5 billion estimated cost of implementing START 2 for Russia. I suggest that self-interest should prompt the international community to assist with funds for this purpose. If the treaty is not ratified, the United States alone will have to spend $4 billion maintaining weapons that eventually will have to be destroyed.
  Secondly, the west must provide money to improve Russia's nuclear safety and security infrastructure. According to General Maskin, head of the Defence Ministry's 12th main directorate, "reliability of personnel" is still a key. Physical security must also be addressed. The co-operative threat reduction programme will provide the Russian military with an automated system to track its nuclear materials. This system should be offered to non-military research establishments and the nuclear power station network. Investment funds must be made available to improve the physical security at nuclear facilities.
  Links must be forged between Russian nuclear scientists and their counterparts in the west so that the Russians feel that they are fully integrated into the international scientific community. Russian research facilities should be twinned with American and European centres so that their work can be directed towards civilian research. The United States agreement to buy at least 500 tonnes of highly enriched uranium is an important non-proliferation measure and provides research centres with funds for conversion. Can we not go further? Could we not pay Russia to destroy an increasing part of its nuclear stockpile?
  The United States and the international community are facing a huge potential proliferation problem, but one that can be brought under control with sufficient funding. Without further funding, the Russian nuclear weapons complex faces almost certain collapse. That will usher in a free for all among rogue states and terrorist groups, which will then pick up the radioactive pieces.
  8.48 pm
  Dr. Rudi Vis: I return to the issue of Cyprus, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). I am a member of the various groups that are associated with Cyprus and I have been to Cyprus three times. I have declared this information.
  As my hon. Friend said, the United Kingdom has a grave responsibility for the future of Cyprus as a guarantor power. As he also said, a recent decision was made in Helsinki to allow Turkey to become an aspirant member of the European Union. I understand that that was due to the enormous pressure that the United States put on the leadership of the EU. I am concerned about the issue and, in the next two or three minutes, I shall attempt to explain why that is.

  103
  I shall mention five issues that count against the Turkish state. The first is Cyprus, an issue which my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting presented so well; I shall not repeat his points. The second, which is known to us all, is the unacceptable discrimination of the Turkish state against the Kurdish people. Thirdly, there is the Loizidou case. Hon. Members may ask, "What is the Loizidou case compared with Cyprus and the Kurdish question?" It does not seem as important, yet it is crucial. A Greek Cypriot woman overwhelmingly won her case against the Turkish state in the European Court of Human Rights. She cannot go to her home, and is thus deprived of enjoying her home. She was offered a huge sum of money, but, a year and a half later, Turkey has not abided by the Court's decision. A nation cannot remain a member of the Council of Europe if it does not observe the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.
  The fourth issue is vital, and it was raised by a British Conservative delegate at the Council of Europe. Western European nations and other countries all over the world are overwhelmed by refugees and asylum seekers from Turkey. How can that be if Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe? It should uphold the human rights that are laid down by that organisation. The fifth issue is the death penalty, which will be meted out to Mr. Ocalan by the Turkish state. Again, that is against the Council of Europe's rules. If the Council of Europe has one achievement, it is speaking out against the death penalty. That is admirable.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting said earlier, Turkey has not adhered to many United Nations resolutions on Cyprus. We may be in a conflicting position, in which Turkey is thrown out of the Council of Europe while simultaneously being accepted as an aspirant member of the European Union. That would be most embarrassing. Those five issues should be raised repeatedly with Turkey before we progress further with relations between the Turkish state and the European Union. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to pass on those comments to the Foreign Office.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: I want to speak briefly about the procedures that the Government will pursue for considering regional planning for the south—east. Before I do that, I want to make some personal remarks because I do not know how else they can be placed on the public record.
  On Sunday 5 December, The Sunday Telegraph published an article which made some critical comments about me. The next day, I brought the matter to the attention of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards because it seemed right and proper to do that as soon as possible. The substance of the complaint in the article was that I had failed to register a loan in the Register of Members' Interests.
  The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards considered the matter and concluded that, because the difference between the interest that I had paid and the market rate at the time was not greater than £215, registration of the loan was not required. She also concluded that there was nothing wrong with the donations that were made to my constituency association.
  104
  However, she ruled that I should have registered my involvement with Asian Business Breakfast, although I had not gained financial benefit from that body. I took her advice immediately and registered my involvement.
  I briefly draw the matter to the attention of the House because, given that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had made a ruling, I expected The Sunday Telegraph to make some comment about it in yesterday's edition, not least because it had published the original article under a headline that contained the word "sleaze". I was somewhat surprised, therefore, to see no mention at all of Miss Filkin's adjudication in yesterday's paper. When a colleague of mine approached another paper that had published the story, he was told that had I been found guilty of every offence by Miss Filkin that would have been news, but being exonerated for the main offence was not news. Such is the life we live, but I think that I should put those matters on the record before the House adjourns. Otherwise, I see no way of hon. Members knowing what has happened.
  My real concern is the regional planning guidance process, and I say that as a former junior Minister for inner cities and for planning. Ministers cannot be unaware of the genuine concerns that exist throughout the south—east, but we have a problem because the Minister for Housing and Planning, for whom I have enormous respect, is sidelined: through no fault of his own, he is campaign manager for a Labour candidate for the London mayoral election. Early next year, the Government will publish new regional planning guidance for the south—east, for which there is a consultation period, and I suspect that a large number of people from villages and parishes throughout the south—east will want to take part.
  I wrote to the Under—Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), asking whether she would consider visiting Oxfordshire during the consultation. My letter—which was courteous, not aggressive—asked her to come and listen to the concerns of local people about over—development in the south—east. To my total surprise, I received the fairly bureaucratic, dismissive response that Ministers had not yet worked out how they would deal with the consultation process. When I was a Minister, I considered it a particular obligation to visit the constituencies of Labour Members whenever they asked me to do so and I spent a great deal of my time, as did my ministerial colleagues in the then Department of the Environment, making such visits to listen to people's concerns. It seemed to be an important part of the democratic process that constituents should not feel that Ministers were not interested in their problems simply because their Member of Parliament was of a different political party.
  I say to the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who will reply to the debate, that there are genuine concerns about the proposal to build 1.1 million new homes in the south-east by 2016. It has been noted that not one Labour Member signed the letter to the Deputy Prime Minister expressing concerns about that, but it must be in the interests of the Labour party and the Government for Ministers to get out and about early next year when the draft regional planning guidance for the south—east is published. I can guarantee that Conservative Members, along with colleagues from other political parties in the various shire counties concerned, will be more than willing to arrange properly organised, sensible meetings

  105
  at which local authorities, local people and local amenity groups can reasonably and rationally express their concerns direct to Ministers.
  It must be in the interests of democracy for everyone to feel that they have a part to play in the process. Democracy will be damaged and enormous resentment caused if people think that they have not been heard on this important issue, and the Government simply produce a new set of figures at the end of this nominal consultation process on draft regional planning guidance. In the short term, that will be bad electoral news for the Government and the Labour party. Much more significantly, it will undermine confidence in the planning system for years to come. I hope that the Minister will be able to convey to his ministerial colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that it must be in everyone's interests for them to listen during that crucial consultation period.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. David Drew: One of the advantages of speaking at the end of the debate is that I have had the opportunity to listen to right hon. and hon. Members. I should like to comment on the rural issues raised. I could comment on the views of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) on nuclear terrorism, because I have read some of the same source material. I could also be taken along the planning route, about which the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) spoke. However, I shall stay with the rural theme that has been explored mainly by Opposition Members. I shall deal with funding issues, and then come back to what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said about rural sub-post offices.
  It is a canard that the problems with the funding of rural authorities started in May 1997. Those of us with a legacy of involvement in local government and national politics in the rural domain could argue cogently and coherently that these problems have a much longer legacy. I take no pleasure in so saying, but it is important that we put that on the record. I want to draw attention to three problem areas, using examples from my constituency of Stroud and from the county of Gloucestershire. They do not result from immediate policy changes, because their antecedents occurred much further back. The three areas are health, education and policing.
  On health, the problem for Gloucestershire is that the formula has been rejigged, which is causing concern among constituents and health professionals. I would argue that the formula should be reconsidered because of the lack of sensitivity in dealing with some of the problems that it is trying to address in difficult and varied circumstances. I would not demur from the view that we should try to deal with the biggest problems in the most deprived areas, which are usually the urban centres because of the number of people who live there. I strongly concur with the Government's approach of prevention rather than cure. We should deal with the worst excesses of health inequality and deprivation, but that should not be done at the cost of the health of others.
  In Gloucestershire, we have identified vulnerable areas, particularly to do with older people, and they need to be addressed. Many people want to retire to Gloucestershire, and there may be good reasons for that—I am sure that other hon. Members have similar experiences in their
  106
  areas. People usually retire when they are fit and healthy, but, in their latter years, their health may deteriorate. Health authorities are sometimes not capable of dealing with the skewed nature of the health problems. That is particularly acute in Gloucestershire, which has a good reputation for dealing with people with special needs and learning difficulties. Some of them are older, and they are cared for by the residential and nursing sector. To be fair, that is accounted for in social services funding. We do not get as much as some of us would like, but we tend not to get equivalent and appropriate funding for health services.
  My hon. Friend the Minister may care to comment on that, or pass on my remarks to his colleagues in the Department of Health, who need to be made more aware of the acute problems faced in Gloucestershire. The existing budget has to take much of the pressure, and that is neither fair nor reasonable. I can state categorically that we are pleased with many of the changes that the Government have introduced. The main acute hospital in the west of the county, Gloucestershire Royal hospital, is being refurbished, but much still needs to be done.
  Gloucestershire's education has traditionally received low funding. We were part of the E8 group, which has now grown to become the E40. Heads are always approaching me to tell me about Gloucestershire's problems: it does not benefit from an area cost adjustment and, in both the secondary and the primary sectors, it has been relatively underfunded in comparison with other counties. There is a considerable difference—about £1,000—between the funding of Essex schools and that of Gloucestershire schools. That did not arise overnight, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise the problems that it causes and the need to re—evaluate the formula.
  A particular problem has been caused by the fact that many schools in my county chose to become grant£maintained, not for any philosophical reason but because more money was involved. Those schools have now returned to local control. There has been no blood—letting or arguments, either between the authority and the schools or, more particularly, between the schools, which says a lot for the professionalism of the teachers—including heads—and, indeed, for the attitudes of parents and children. An anomaly has been thrown up, however. The schools involved now have less money, which means redundancies—redundancies that will have to be shared throughout the LEA sector. That is unfair to schools that have remained under LEA control and also means that there is less money available generally.
  As for policing, I do not disagree with the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) or with those of the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), but the sparsity factor is important. I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a bit negative: I understood that the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), had accepted—certainly in principle—that the arguments were sound and should be reflected in the rejigging of the formula. The problems relate to when we deal with the matter, where the money will come from and who may lose out as a result, but at least we have made the point.
  By pure chance, a meeting took place with my local police authority this morning, attended by four Gloucestershire Members. We heard a doom—laden catalogue of the results of the current low increase,

  107
  but there was also some good news: if we can have the new police officers that the Home Secretary has said we will have, it will make a considerable difference. It will improve security, which is always a bone of contention in Gloucestershire, and may enable us to make progress with the radio project—a project that involves a good deal of capital expenditure in areas such as ours. I know that that is true in every part of the country, but it applies especially to a small rural force.
  All those factors prove to me that there is a problem of funding in rural areas. I will not hide from that; I will not say that the Government should brush it under the carpet because it happens not to be convenient for them to talk about it. The reasons for the problem are obvious. They relate to how we measure distance, how we deal with isolation, the lack of economies of scale in our most rural areas, and, indeed, the ever—increasing likelihood that we need a debate on minimum standards. Obviously, in rural areas standards sometimes fall below the norm that is expected in urban areas.
  I do not disagree with what was said by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. There is a real threat, but, as always in the case of threats, there are also opportunities. Last week, when I spoke in the debate on the Post Office, I said, "For heaven's sake, let us realise the opportunities." When I visited ICL last week to view the horizon project, I thought that there was a real chance to put the Post Office at the forefront of the new technology and of any competition, whether it came from within this country or, more particularly, from outside it. What worries me is that I am not sure whether that has been totally understood. I am not criticising Post Office management, and I am certainly not criticising those who are trying to run sub-post offices, but it should be realised that there are enhanced opportunities to extend postal and communication services.
  On my Christmas visit to my post office, I heard that mail is up by 15 per cent. That shows what sub-post offices can do. On the back of that, they have to break into the network banking system, rather than view it as a total threat. What better way of turning the position round than to realise that banks which have lost all those branches can regain them again? They cannot do so through their own businesses as they have sold them, but they can use local sub-post offices, particularly those in rural areas. That is what people want and are looking forward to.
  I am aware of the time, so I will not speak much about the matter, but the e-government debate is crucial. Sub-post offices could become the centre point of their communities, where people genuinely use the internet, find out information, but, more particularly, change passports, get a driving licence and use local government services in all their different forms. That shows that there is a nexus between commercialisation and the way we liberalise the system and democratising it and making it fully available.
  I have tried to show that there is a need for a proper rural debate. That was no more clearly shown than by the publication of the performance and innovation unit report, "Rural Economies." There was a rumour that it was slipped out on a Friday. I hope that that is not true. I have read it quite quickly, so I will not pretend that I am an
  108
  expert on it, but it contains many good ideas. It is about putting forward a debate as a starting point to the rural White Paper, which will come some time next year.
  There are many challenges in rural Britain, as those of us who are interested in the agricultural scene know only too well. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) spoke about one aspect of that. There are many challenges, but agriculture is not the whole rural scene, although it is an important part of it. We can show that we are capable of doing many things in the rural domain.
  The planning process needs to be completely reformed, but not by going away from any controls and throwing away the green belt and the greenfield protection that we need. We have to recognise that some flexibility is required in the way in which we use old buildings and bring back communities that no longer have the opportunity to work in agriculture so that they can genuinely find work where they live.
  I could make many other comments, but time is against me. I urge the House to start a proper debate on where we want to take our rural economy, rural services and, indeed, democracy in rural areas.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Four hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. If they could confine their remarks to six to seven minutes each, all will be satisfied. Otherwise, I am afraid that all will not. I call Mr. David Amess.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, I wish to make several points. The first is a happy one. The Palace theatre opened last Wednesday. I am missing tonight's gala performance, but I am delighted to tell the Minister that he will not have to listen to any more complaints from me about that matter.
  I congratulate all those who have been responsible for the constructive pressure that has resulted in the theatre reopening. In particular, I am delighted that the chairman of the Eastern Arts Board has supported the theatre and Key Med, the theatregoers club. I congratulate everyone associated with the reopening of the theatre. As I went on Saturday, I can commend to everyone "A Christmas Carol." It was a magnificent performance, better than any West End production.
  The rest of my five minutes is not happy at all. I am sick to death of the Government, their photo opportunities, their press releases and their non-delivery of services. For two years, I have worked with all the people who wished to achieve objective 2 status for Southend. I had meetings with the Minister. I went to Europe. A few weeks ago, a letter was delivered to me by the Minister telling me that we had successfully achieved objective 2 status for Southend and, in particular, for Leigh and Chalkwell in Southend, West.
  Leigh and Chalkwell have worked on various programmes to uplift those communities—with objective 2 funding, the creek would have been dredged, the jetty would have been enlarged, housing would have been redeveloped and various leisure facilities would have been provided. I am, therefore, sure that hon. Members will

  109
  appreciate the astonishment and deep anger I felt when, last week, as I was about to help switch on the Leigh lights, my attention was drawn to an item in the evening edition of the local newspaper, stating that Leigh and Chalkwell were not to benefit from objective 2 status.
  The way in which I learned that information was a disgrace. At the very least, a Minister could have written to me about the matter, or contacted me on the telephone. Instead, the Government have treated me with complete contempt, and it sickens me. I have yet to receive a letter on the matter signed by the Prime Minister. Although I know only too well that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Trade and Industry are responsible for the matter, I cannot even get a signed letter on it from the leader of the Labour party. I have received one letter on it, but it was from the correspondence secretary, who will pass on the matter to the appropriate Minister.
  It is an absolute disgrace that Ministers think that they can adopt a cavalier attitude towards hon. Members. I am sorry, but the way in which they have chosen to handle the matter demonstrates political spite. It is disgraceful to take it out on my constituents.
  I have had one letter from a Minister—[Interruption.] The Government Whip shakes his head. I have received a letter from a Minister telling me that Leigh and Chalkwell would benefit from objective 2 status, but I have also read the opposite in a newspaper—as Ministers did not show the courtesy of sending me a letter to that effect. It is disgusting, and I blame no one other than the Prime Minister.
  All my other remarks are on the same topic. Southend council has 19 Conservative councillors, 12 Liberal Democrat councillors and eight Labour councillors, and the Labour and Liberal Democrat members work together to keep the Conservative party out of power. The Liberal Democrats are constantly wringing their hands publicly, whereas, privately, they hang on to power. Although they make terrible noises, saying, "It's awful that Leigh and Chalkwell are being deprived of objective 2 status", if they were serious about it, they would withdraw from the alliance and give the Conservatives the chance to govern.
  The closure of Lulworth Court—a respite centre for disabled people—has been announced, not by the Conservatives but by Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors. Blenheim house—a residential home for elderly people—has been closed. That was the fault not of the Conservatives but entirely of the Labour—Liberal council.
  There has been hypocrisy over Hainault avenue, in Westborough—where a Labour activist has been campaigning to get the Liberal Democrats out and trying to hoodwink everyone into believing that, if they vote Labour in the May elections, the situation will change. As everyone knows, there are double yellow lines in Hainault avenue entirely because of the Lib—Lab council. If residents in Westborough want a change, they will have to vote Conservative in the next election.
  There has been a scandal with asylum seekers, affecting—although we cannot obtain a firm figure from the local authority—more than 600 people. The treatment of asylum seekers in Southend has been cruel, and it is entirely the fault of the Labour Government. Schools have written to me about unfair funding arrangements for
  110
  asylum seekers. Southend has more asylum seekers than Thurrock; it has received £17,000, whereas Thurrock has received £150,000.
  We have generally had an education fiasco in Southend. Although some hon. Members have said that they have not had many problems with formerly grant—maintained schools, I have had problems with them in Southend—in Westborough, for example, with nursery schools. I have also had complaints about the pupil retention grant and the standards funds.
  We have the Labour Government to blame for underfunding of police. We do not have enough police.
  Social services in Southend are charging. Day centres for the mentally handicapped are charging, and charges to many handicapped and elderly people have been increased vastly.
  Finally we have the fiasco over mobile phone masts. I have problems in Chalkwell lodge, Cottesmore court and Highlands boulevard.
  Sadly, apart from the performance of "A Christmas Carol", the scene in Southend, West is not a happy one. I entirely blame the Labour Government and our 12 Liberal councillors and eight Labour councillors.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: I had thought that mine might be the first partisan remarks tonight. I had not counted on the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I found a great deal to agree with in what he and others have said, but I shall not waste time going over that.
  I should like to tell the House a story of two reports that I received in the post in the same week. One was the Worcestershire health authority's health improvement programme. For all I know, it may be a controversial document with some members of the medical community in Worcestershire, but it is admirable in the sense that it is specific and can be pinned down. It has clear, measurable objectives and targets, and anyone can understand what the Worcestershire health authority is seeking to deliver.
  In almost the same post, I received the West Midlands regional development agency's strategy document, Advantage West Midlands. I am a long—standing critic of regionalism. I have spoken against the concept in the Chamber on many occasion. I hope that even the staunchest friend of regionalism would admit that this document is awful. It is facile gibberish of the worst possible kind. Apparently, it has been awarded the plain English crystal mark for clarity.
  In the chapter on "Developing a diverse and dynamic business base" under the heading "Developing Business Growth Task Groups", we read:
  "There may be opportunities for developing clusters as the networks become established. Its members (including sub-groups) may work on joint projects which have an end product. They would then be considered to be a 'cluster'… A force for converting into a cluster may be the action plans developed by the earlier networks."
  I hope that the House followed that clear exposition.
  Under the heading "The West Midlands Economic Strategy in context", we read about action plans, which are to evolve from that strategy. The document says:
  "Those working on the framework headings will be asked to advise the four pillar groups as to how the action plan should handle the framework."

  111
  Ah yes, of course. I could not have put it better myself.
  I hope that the chairman, Mr. Stephenson, did not write the chairman's introduction. Indeed, I hope that he did not even read it. It is either the worst kind of new Labour platitudes or simply wrong. It says:
  "Innovation should be the touchstone for the actions we hope to facilitate to create the West Midlands' advantage."
  That is dubious grammar to say the least, but what on earth does it mean? The document rightly cites entrepreneurs of whom the west midlands are proud—Abraham Darby, Josiah Wedgwood and Frank Whittle. They did not rely on Advantage West Midlands. The touchstone of their success was their personal ambition and talent. That is what matters.
  The chairman says:
  "It is quite radical to attempt to tackle economic, environmental and social objectives at the same time … We have to develop the holistic framework in which policies can be effectively 'joined up' to meet local needs."
  He is condemned out of his own mouth. It is not radical anyway. Governments have always sought to tackle economic, environmental and social objectives at the same time. The Conservative Government tried to do that and, to be fair, the Labour Government are trying to do the same, but are not doing it particularly well in my judgment.
  I had not intended to read the document, but I settled down to it on the train and found that it was better value than Private Eye. The tragedy is that it is supposed to be a serious economic strategy for the west midlands, but it is not. It sets out a series of spurious aims, which duplicate the work of Government Departments. There is only one that I agree with—the sixth aim
  "to provide sites and premises of the right size and quality, and in the right place."
  That was previously addressed by English Partnerships, led by Lord Walker of Worcester, my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Worcester. The advantage of English Partnerships was that it had one office, one chairman and one chief executive. Now we have seven regional development agencies, with seven chairmen, seven chief executives and seven bureaucracies. That is a hopeless over—provision of bureaucrats with much less work done on the ground.
  The seventh aim is extraordinary. It is
  "to encourage people to take part in economic and community life."
  The document goes on:
  "Regeneration programmes will deal with the need for childcare facilities, infrastructure, transport and premises … There will also be measures to tackle the problems of crime and ill health, as well as initiatives to improve health and housing conditions."
  The detailed exposition adds culture and sport as well.
  The document comes not from the government of the west midlands—although the Government would like it to be so in due course—but from a regional development agency. How can it cope with all that? To use a seasonal metaphor, this is a Christmas tree of a document on which every bauble of interest to every passing local councillor has been hung in the most shameless way.
  112
  A longer speech would enable me to dissect this document in more detail, and I should have liked to do so. However, let me pick out a couple of other solecisms from the report.
  "It is the blend of cultures, unique histories and shared futures that defines the West Midlands."
  What about London, or the east midlands or Yorkshire? What makes that distinctive of the west midlands?
  "West Midlands economic development partners are working together to build the regions role as a region of Europe".
  We know what that agenda means—the Balkanisation of England and the sidelining of this House.
  Where is the reference to cross-border co-operation? It is here. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) sitting on the Front Bench. We have many mutual, cross-border interests with Gloucestershire—but, of course Gloucestershire is in the south-west region, along with the Isles of Scilly. There is passing reference to co-operation with other regions, but it relates only to tourism. My hon. Friend and I sometimes fight, but we sometimes agree, and we know that many other more important issues than tourism unite and sometimes divide our two counties, which actually should be in the same region, not in different ones.
  I could go on, but I shall conclude with a quote from this totally inadequate and woeful document, which the Deputy Prime Minister should send back to the West Midlands regional development agency saying that he cannot understand it.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: He probably wrote it.
  Mr. Luff: It certainly reads as if he might have written it.
  The document says:
  "Regeneration activity works best when the focus comes from within the community, with local people dealing with local problems. Local communities will be best at recognising their own individual needs."
  That paragraph should be the obituary for the whole wretched concept of regional development agencies.
  9.26 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I wish to refer to a constituency case, which has implications for the whole Kingdom. It concerns the winter fuel grant to pensioners of £100. One of my constituents is a carer who is looking after her mother, who will be 95 next month. She received notification that she would receive £50 because there were two pensioners in the one household. She then discovered that there was no £50 for her mother. When she inquired, she was told that the dateline for allocation was September, during which time the care manager had arranged respite care in a residential home to allow my constituent and her husband to have a break. As the mother—who receives care and attention at home—was in a respite home for three weeks starting in September, when the weather is fairly decent, she was not permitted to have her £50 winter fuel allowance.
  It so happens that, on appeal, my constituent will get the money. However, she asked me to raise the matter of the interpretation of the law. When she went to the citizens advice bureau for guidance, she was told that

  113
  there had been a mistake. The CAB got in touch with the office at Newcastle, to be told that the law was being administered correctly. I ask the Minister to make sure that no other citizens are deprived of their genuine entitlement because they are in respite care during the application period.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to the millennium, and we heard from the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) that he has had difficulty with The Sunday Telegraph. We realise that those in the media and broadcasting have their own forms of censorship. I wish to put on record our congratulations to Sir Cliff Richard, who—despite the attention of those who, because of jealousy or other philosophical or irreligious reasons, were not prepared to allow him to have the best lyric of all, the Lord's prayer, set to a well-known tune in the tradition of Luther, Wesley and Booth—demonstrated that the devil does not get the best tunes. He has topped the pops and we congratulate him on celebrating the millennium and the year of our Lord, 2000.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: The House knows that overwhelmingly the most important issue in my constituency is the proposed closure of the Royal Hospital Haslar. In 1994, the previous Government decided, after careful consideration, that Haslar should be the tri—service hospital. Since then, matters have gone well, so we in the Gosport area were devastated a year and three days ago when we heard, in December 1998, that the present Government intended to change the structure of defence medical services.
  There were three elements in that decision. First, the Government intended to place more emphasis on Ministry of Defence hospital units. Secondly, they intended to open a centre of defence medicine in Birmingham; that announcement was made today. Thirdly, they intended to close Haslar.
  After several discussions with defence medical services staff, I am convinced that, although the MOD hospital units may have some merit in medical terms, they are a disaster in terms of the retention of the military ethos and morale. As for the centre of defence medicine, I cannot believe that its location in Birmingham will attract people and make them want to study and practise medicine as part of the Army, Navy or Air Force to the same extent that a location in the south would. Haslar is fairly adjacent to a wide range of naval facilities, for example, and the Army facilities at Aldershot, Salisbury plain and Warminster are nearby, as are the Royal Air Force bases at Brize Norton and Lyneham.
  I am therefore convinced that Haslar would be a better location for the defence medicine centre, and that Ministry of Defence medical services will lose personnel as a result of placing the centre in Birmingham. I plead with the Government even now to reconsider the matter. Defence medical services are crumbling, and we are losing doctors and nurses at an increasing rate. I have described to the House before the difficulties experienced by orthopaedic surgeons at Haslar. There should be eight such surgeons in the establishment there; the hospital in fact has six, and five have resigned.
  From a military point of view, there is everything to be said for retaining Haslar. The development of the Birmingham centre would make matters worse, as it will
  114
  take doctors and nurses away from Gosport. Moreover, people who moved to Gosport in the past five years will not be prepared to 'move again to Birmingham.
  There are also persuasive civilian arguments for the retention of the hospital at Haslar. The Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority and the Portsmouth hospitals trust realise that the retention of at least part of the Haslar facility is crucial for the provision of civilian medical care in Gosport and the rest of south Hampshire. The authority already has a waiting list of more than 15 months for all operations, and the waiting time at the accident and emergency unit at the Queen Alexandra hospital at Cosham is a completely unacceptable five hours. Haslar already provides significant resources to assist the hospital trust and health authority to provide medical care for people in south Hampshire.
  It is extremely important that the Haslar facilities, on which £35 million has been spent in the past 10 years, should not be closed. About 10 days ago, I wrote to the Prime Minister with the following plea. I asked that he or an appropriate Minister intervene to make the Ministry of Defence and the national health service display a co-operation that has not been greatly evident so far and ensure that medical facilities at Haslar can remain available to the local civilian community in the longer term.
  The Ministry of Defence has made available several redundant military sites in my constituency, among them the HMS Daedalus site at Lee-on-the-Solent. What happens is that, years after closure, the MOD remains the owner while the local community waits for a developer to emerge who will acquire the site. When that finally happens, the developer then sells part of the site off to an authority or institution.
  That would not be acceptable in the case of Haslar which, as I said, has had £35 million spent predominantly on the centre or cross block which contains the operating theatres. That would ideally suit the national health service as a facility to supplement those in the rest of south Hampshire and specifically to provide out—patient or other care in the Gosport peninsula.
  My plea today is for the Government to practise what they are proud to call joined—up government. The Ministry of Defence must not be allowed to walk away from Haslar without providing facilities for civilians in the Gosport area. I plead that this be done urgently so that we can plan ahead for health care in the area.
  9.36 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: We have had an extremely good debate in the past two hours. I congratulate all those who have taken part on responding to pleas from the Chair and, in some cases, cutting down their remarks. That has meant that for the first time since I have been replying to this debate, since July 1997, everyone who has wanted to speak has spoken. That, in the last of these debates to take place in the 1900s, is very appropriate.
  I think that there is a real affection throughout the House for this debate. I am delighted that when the Modernisation Committee made its recommendations for Westminster Hall, it specifically excepted this debate and said that it should continue to take place on the Floor of the House. Whatever the future of what I like to call the

  115
  "Grand Parliamentary Committee" in Westminster Hall, I hope that this debate will always remain on the Floor of the House.
  Hon. Members can use this debate to air grievances and hold the Government to account—the two prime responsibilities of any hon. Member. We have ranged tonight from the individual to the international. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) who, sadly, is no longer in his place, quite rightly decided to use this opportunity to highlight the case of a constituent who he believes is being victimised. I can make no comment on that, but it was an entirely proper use of the hon. Gentleman's time. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) used part of his speech to raise the case of a constituent baffled by regulation, and sought clarification for her. Although the Minister will not necessarily be able to provide that in his reply, I am sure that he will ensure that it is done, so far as it lies within his power.
  Then there was the great international issue of Cyprus, raised at the beginning of the debate by one of the most familiar participants in these Adjournment debates, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). He has used this opportunity before, and he rightly used it again. I hope that, in due course, his remarks will be drawn to the attention of the Foreign Secretary and that he will receive a detailed and satisfactory reply. There is no more potentially explosive situation in our continent than that of Cyprus. We would all like to see true peace and justice return to that island.
  The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) also used the opportunity, in an admirably brief four-minute speech, to raise that subject and also the position of Turkey, which many of us are glad to see accepted as a proper aspirant for membership of the European Union. Nevertheless, there are problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) went nuclear in a very literal sense. He talked about the dangers of nuclear terrorism, giving a chilling account of the consequences of the disintegration of a great super—power. Again, he brought to the attention of the House matters which we would all do right to ponder.
  Then we had what I would call the classic speech. For seven minutes, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) talked about a local issue. I have some knowledge of the Royal hospital in Wolverhampton because it served many of my constituents for many years. She rightly indicated that the hospital was endowed and supported, as it had been created, by local people. She made a plea that the accountants' formula should not be forced into play to deprive local people of a new amenity on the site of a service that has served them so well for so long.
  We heard next the bravura performance of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who was sadly deprived of an opportunity to speak in the last of these debates. He brought us the glad tidings that the Palace theatre is no longer dark, and urged us all to go to see "A Christmas Carol" there. Indeed, he said that he was missing the gala performance tonight, but I should
  116
  think that it is him who is being missed as he would have been the star turn. Instead, he used his not inconsiderable vituperative talents to berate the Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) did likewise, although he did not aim his remarks directly at the Government. He used the rapier of wit to puncture the balloon of bureaucracy. I am afraid that I did not read the dreadful document to which he referred. All of us were sent it, but I had a brief look, saw some of the perversions of the English language that so disfigured it and tossed it into the relevant filing cabinet, which was on the floor. I now rather regret having done so, as the document would doubtless have enlivened many an occasion on which I have been bored. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the utter pretentiousness of that sort of verbiage.
  One thing that has shone through the debate is the concern on both sides of the House about rural communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) talked about the police. Anyone who sits for a rural constituency, as I do, knows that the situation described by my hon. Friend is by no means unique. We all see real pressure on the police in rural areas. My hon. Friend's concern was adequately and properly expressed, and he made some positive suggestions that I hope the Home Secretary will take to heart.
  My hon. Friend was echoed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hykeham and Stroud—
  Mr. Drew: Stroud?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sorry. By Jove, what a wonderful constituency that would be. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), which is in my native county of Lincolnshire, talked eloquently about the police, but also about the problems faced by two of his constituents, whose anonymity he rightly preserved, and who were deprived of a life—enhancing drug, beta interferon. My right hon. and learned Friend deserves a full answer to his questions.
  The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) also talked about the police. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst)—now a regular in these debates—talked about the plight of the small slaughterhouse, highlighting the iniquity of the double inspection and the enormous economic burden that it places on vital local services. The hon. Gentleman rightly indicated the real problems caused, not least to animals, by the closure of small slaughterhouses.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) talked about rural sub-post offices. He spoke most eloquently, and I could have thought that he was describing my own rural sub-post office in the village of Enville. It is a centre of community life, and it has been run by the Smith family for three generations. The latest generation took it over just over a year ago. The family provides a valuable social service as well as an excellent post office. All over the country, people such as the Smiths serve rural communities, but their future is in jeopardy. The hon. Gentleman performed a real service to them all by using their situation for his speech.
  The hon. Gentleman also talked about what is being done in many villages to celebrate the millennium—God willing, I shall be in Enville on new year's eve—where

  117
  there shall be proper celebrations, often accompanied by church services to mark not the end of the 20th century, which will not come for another year, but the passage of the 1900s. I was pleased, too, to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South highlight the significance of the millennium, and he paid a much—deserved tribute to Sir Cliff Richard, who has been vilely castigated in recent days.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) made a brief personal statement about the way in which he had been maligned by a newspaper that many of us hold in high repute. He was right to do that. Members on both sides of the House nodded in sympathy as he described what must have been a pretty rotten ordeal. He has the sympathy of all Members of the House. He also talked about the planning system. Confidence in that system is essential for a true balance in our rural and urban communities. He correctly pointed out that that confidence was at risk.
  The hon. Member for Stroud, who echoed the concerns of other hon. Members about the police and sub-post offices, also talked about education and health. I find fellow feeling with him. Members representing Staffordshire constituencies believe that the county has been badly affected by the application of the funding formula. The hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the problems of health funding in areas to which people retire. When people retire, they are at the peak of fitness, but they spend their retirement years, which are also their declining years, in areas that are not necessarily funded to cope with that. He was right to highlight that point.
  We ended on another health note with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). He must deserve an accolade as one of the most conscientiously consistent of campaigning Members in the House. He has fought for his hospital with great courtesy, but complete tenacity. I wish him well and hope that the Government will respond.
  I now conclude my remarks because I promised that, as we had a few minutes extra for the winding—up speeches, I would, in true Christmas spirit, share them with the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. The debate has been extremely worth while. I wish you, Madam Speaker, all Members in the Chamber and all those who serve us in the House—all members of the staff—a very happy, joyful, tranquil Christmas and a peaceful and, if possible, a prosperous new year.
  9.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): This has been a wide—ranging, interesting and informative debate. I am delighted that 15 Back—Bench Members have had the opportunity to pursue issues relating to individual constituents and to constituency matters. That is the purpose of such debates. However, we have also heard about wider issues—foreign affairs and the need to examine nuclear plant and nuclear weapon decommissioning in the former Soviet Union, especially in Russia. Several hon. Members have made important speeches—others supported them—on the countryside, health and the police. I have been asked to pass several messages to my ministerial colleagues. I have got the messages—I will ensure that they are passed on and that everyone who has spoken in the debate receives a reply.
  118
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox)—a veteran of these occasions—was first off the grid. He was well supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis). They rightly told us of the challenges and opportunities in the long campaign to resolve the problems in Cyprus. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting told us of the slow and difficult discussions that were beginning in New York. The discussions that took place in Helsinki at the weekend, on which the Prime Minister reported to the House today, showed that, after 25 years of struggle, there are possibilities for progress, if there is good will on both sides.
  Several hon. Members, led by the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), made important speeches on the need for resources for the police. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman in two respects. First, he acknowledged that police forces throughout the country had received extra money. Secondly, he spelt out a range of possibilities, which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to increase recruitment and improve retention. The hon. Gentleman spoke about difficulties in his constituency where, as I understood it, police officers were being moved from one part of the area to another.
  One of the important initiatives that the Government have taken is to ensure that, each year, district commanders lay down a local policing plan, which is consulted upon. I believe that there will be increasing opportunities for people to have a say in how the police are used in their area. It is also important to get best value from the police. We look at failure in the public services too much and do not reward success enough. There is much to do on that.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) spoke about problems with the Lincolnshire police. I would simply say to him that the Lincolnshire police have a lot to do. They have a new chief constable. I believe that they have put a difficult period behind them. I am with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in wanting to do better for people who live in Lincolnshire.
  It seems to me that there is a need to review how we allocate resources to the police force. Several hon. Members spoke about a new study that has been undertaken at the Government's behest. I cannot promise immediate action on it, but I remind colleagues that the Government gave a commitment that they would consider the formula for allocation not just to the police, but across local authorities, in a three—year review. We have just announced the results of the second year review, and there is much to be argued about.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham also spoke about the problems facing sufferers of MS. I know Professor B, whom he spoke about—a leading international expert on the matter—and I know his views and have some sympathy with them. That is why the Government have set up the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness. The issue of MS and beta interferon is one of the first subject areas to be considered. Announcements will be made about that in the spring and summer. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that it is wrong that people in different parts of the country have different access to different services. I hope that NICE will enable us to move forward and meet his constituents' real needs, as he outlined in such a moving way.

  119
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South—West (Ms Jones) also spoke about a health issue in a sense—a derelict health issue. Her arguments about local consultation on planning are extremely important. It must be right to change blighted properties—blighted areas. What she described as a village in the community is the right way forward. That chimes with the Government's thinking through Lord Rogers's task force. I will of course ensure that she receives an early reply to her letter.
  The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has pursued the issue of Haslar hospital with vigour, in a robust campaign. He knows that careful thought has been given to that decision, and that it has been taken reluctantly. He knows of the volume of work and the patient mix at Haslar hospital, and he knows that the facility at Haslar will not close until new arrangements are in place at the Queen Alexandra hospital.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), who could not be with us for these winding—up speeches, spoke strongly for his constituent, Andrea Morgan. I do not want to prejudge the issue, but it seems to me that local authorities and all employers should treat such issues with sense and sensitivity. I felt that that might not have happened in this case. I remind the London borough of Hillingdon that it is subject to employment law and I undertake that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions will consider the case closely to see whether we can reach a proper outcome.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) spoke strongly on the important matter of the need for a post office network across the country and, especially, in rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) referred to opportunities as well as challenges and I think that the horizon scheme offers opportunities. The move to e—commerce and to new technology will also offer opportunities, but there is a real threat to post offices and we should not deny that. I offer the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome the undertaking that having a network of post offices across the country is a Government priority. We have asked the performance and innovation unit to consider closely how we can secure the future of sub-post offices. There are imaginative ways forward, but we have talked about how pubs and schools in rural areas have closed. Therefore, there is much more to be done.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) also discussed countryside issues. He pressed the case for the road in his constituency and I shall ensure that the Highways Agency and the relevant Minister are made aware of the points that he made. He also spoke strongly in support of small abattoirs and about the need for them on animal welfare grounds. He stressed the need to maintain the industry in rural areas, and the Government have done a fair amount to help small abattoirs. There has been a review of red tape and regulation, we have deferred the Meat Hygiene Service charges on specified risk materials and, importantly, we have fixed charges in abattoirs for next year at this year's prices—that will save the industry £7 million.
  Housing in the countryside raises other issues. The Crow report is before Ministers and the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) spoke properly and wisely about
  120
  the need to consult people and to take communities with us. I shall ensure that his views on the need to visit are considered. I also acknowledge the personal statement that he made.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud talked about a range of countryside issues and about the need for extra resources, particularly in his area. I remind him and other Members that the latest local government settlement is the best one since the council tax began. However, there is much more to be done.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) spoke about a millennium boom and the problems of nuclear plants and weapons in Russia. He made good points and I was particularly struck by the need for scientists in the former Soviet Union, the United States and western Europe to work together so that they are not isolated.
  I inform the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) that I have had my spies at the Palace theatre and I know that "A Christmas Carol" is worth seeing. I also know that the announcement on objective 2 funding that will come soon will be worth waiting for. I cannot promise the House a decision before Christmas, but it will not be long coming.
  There was pantomime season from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff)—a giant killer if ever I saw one. I also endorse the points that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) made about Cliff Richard and his millennium message.
  We go into a new millennium and a future that I hope will be better for our families, our children and our communities. I wish you, Madam Speaker, the staff of the House and all my colleagues a merry Christmas. In particular, I tell my friends in the Whips Office that both sides of the House look forward to a peaceful new year. I hope that they, in the spirit of Christmas, will grant us that.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 16th December, any Consolidated Fund Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time shall be proceeded with as if the Second Reading thereof stood as an Order of the day, and Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 16th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  COMMITTEES
  Madam Speaker: For the convenience of the House, I propose that we take motions 8, 9, 10 and 11 together.
  Ordered,

  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE
  That Caroline Flint and Mr. Bill Rammell be discharged from the Education and Employment Committee and Helen Jones and Mr. Stephen Twigg be added to the Committee.
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
  That Mr. Graham Stringer be discharged from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and Dr. Stephen Ladyman be added to the Committee.
  That Mr. Ivan Lewis be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr. Stephen Hesford be added to the Committee.
  NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
  That Mr. Martin Salter be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Dr. Nick Palmer be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
PETITION

  Exodus Collective
  10 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The background to the petition is the anti-social activities of an organisation known as the Exodus collective, which some two years ago squatted illegally at Long
  122
  Meadow farm. Since then, it has caused considerable misery to my constituents, by running illegal raves and having no consideration for my constituents, some of whom have not been able to get out of their homes while the raves have been going on and some of whom have been denied access to their homes. Those homes have been made filthy by the activities of those who have gone to the raves, and Exodus has acted in a thoroughly anti-social and unneighbourly fashion.
  The organisation tried to buy Long Meadow farm. It gave promises that it never kept and strung out the process to such a degree that, in the end, a Minister wrote to me saying that it was no longer realistic to sell the farm to Exodus, and it would therefore be re—advertised. Nine days later, the Minister reversed that decision.
  The petition states:
  The petition of the residents of Mid-Bedfordshire declares that there is great concern over the sale of Long Meadow farm in Chalton, Bedfordshire to the collective Exodus and over the continued harassment which has been suffered by the residents of Mid-Bedfordshire as a result of the activities of the Exodus collective, which has been squatting on Long Meadow farm for two years. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions decided on 25th October 1999 that the collective had failed after 18 months to pay a deposit and exchange contracts on Long Meadow farm and that the collective would be evicted from the land on 3rd November 1999, an eviction which has not been carried out despite the Highways Agency conclusion that the prospect of sale to the collective was no longer realistic.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to adhere to the decision to evict the Exodus collective from Long Meadow farm, and to cancel the contract to sell the property and instead to sell the property to those who will act in a responsible and neighbourly manner.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Arthritis
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  10.3 pm
  Mrs. Eileen Gordon: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to raise the issue of arthritis. The subject is of keen interest to me, as hon. Members will realise when I say that today is my 30th wedding anniversary, and I am here rather than out with my husband. Some would say that it is a case of familiarity breeding contempt, but I prefer to think that it is one of absence making the heart grow fonder.
  As you know, Madam Speaker, Members of Parliament are invited to many events and asked to support many causes. Sometimes one of those events sparks a particular interest, and that is how I became involved with pain management and arthritis. Two years ago, I attended an exhibition put on by the Havering branch of Backcare, which is run by Peter Moore. He has developed an holistic approach to the self-management of back pain. Too often in the past and, unfortunately, still today, people with back pain are told that nothing can be done. They are given painkillers and sent home.
  Peter Moore's programme of self-help, "Fighting Back", is based on appropriate exercise, relaxation and techniques for lifting and moving things. The results from those attending the programme show less use of drugs, more confidence and better mobility—in effect, a much improved quality of life. If the Minister wishes to know more about that programme, I should be only too happy to provide more information.
  Backcare is a member of the British League Against Rheumatism—BLAR. BLAR is an umbrella organisation for 23 groups including Arthritis Care—which has produced an excellent document, "Arthritis: getting it right"—the Lady Hoare Trust for Physically Disabled Children, the British Society for Rheumatology, Lupus UK and many more.
  In this debate, I am using the term "arthritis", although there are of course many different types of arthritis. I hope that the groups concerned and those suffering from arthritis will forgive me for using just the generic term.
  I became interested in BLAR's work on musculoskeletal conditions and its self-management course, "Challenging Arthritis", which has similar aims to "Fighting Back". Last week, I hosted an exhibition for BLAR and a reception at the Palace of Westminster, which was very well attended and well received. I heard sufferers from various age groups give moving testimonies of the problems associated with the condition. I thank BLAR for the information and help that it has given me, and especially thank Sophie Edwards, its chief executive.
  Musculoskeletal conditions are the biggest cause of physical disability in the United Kingdom. More than 8 million people suffer from arthritis in the UK, and if we include back pain, the figure rises to 11 million. There are some 11,000 sufferers in my constituency and approximately 1,300 of them are under 45 years of age. An estimated 70 Members of Parliament have arthritis. I remember Jo Richardson, who challenged arthritis and battled against pain. She was a role model for many of us. I think also of my assistant Vanessa, who has arthritis of the hip.
  124
  Given the statistics, we must all know someone with the condition, yet we constantly underestimate the numbers affected. In a recent survey among Members of Parliament, 90 per cent. of those polled underestimated the total number of people in the UK who have arthritis; 50 per cent. put the number at 3 million or fewer, yet, as I have said, the true figure is 8 million.
  The conditions have a massive effect on the individual, the national health service and the country. The cost to the NHS is estimated to be £600 million a year, involving more than 4 million general practitioner consultations each year. That number is set to rise. There were 10,000 knee replacements in 1989. Between 1985 and 1990—the years for which we have the most recent figures—the national rate almost doubled in patients aged between 65 and 84.
  The cost to the individual is great. The major symptom of arthritis is pain. Indeed, 37 per cent. of people with arthritis are in pain all the time, and 60 per cent. have their sleep regularly disturbed. There is no cure, although joint replacement helps, and we still do not know the cause of many forms of arthritis.
  For people in constant pain, the impact on established relationships can be dramatic. A spontaneous hug can cause excruciating pain, resulting in tension in the relationship. For people in work, arthritis can mean the abrupt end of a successful career: 50 per cent. of all people with rheumatism and arthritis are forced to stop working within five years of diagnosis—some because employers will not adapt the working environment to allow them to continue.
  Arthritis does not only affect elderly people. Of the 8 million people whom I mentioned earlier, 1.2 million are under the age of 45 and more than 14,500 are children. For young people, there can be problems at school. The student may look no different from any other, but will need care, may need medication during the day and may have mobility problems. Teachers need to be aware of how to deal with the condition. Adaptation of school buildings is often suggested and, if not done, can result in a student's inability to take part in the full range of school activities.
  A young man at the reception spoke of access problems. His choice of exam subjects had been restricted, and he felt that his life chances had been badly affected. Young patients may have time off school because of hospitalisation, and there must be better support for tuition in hospitals. Fellow students need to understand the condition and its impact on those affected.
  If we as a Government are keen to promote social inclusion, the effects of arthritis must be considered, from access to buildings and services to access to goods—people with arthritic hands find it difficult, if not impossible, to cope with modern packaging.
  Unlike sufferers from other chronic conditions, arthritis patients bear their own prescription charges. A recent study shows that the cost to the individual for drugs and adaptations or special equipment averages £4,000 a year. For many people, that is a considerable burden.
  Although arthritis cannot be cured—as I mentioned, joint replacement helps in many cases—there is effective pain relief, and new drugs are being developed. Groups such as BLAR welcome initiatives such as the establishment of NICE—the National Institute for Clinical Excellence—and the Commission for Health Improvement, but they are

  125
  concerned that those should not become a barrier to access to treatment or a device for rationing. I would welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's assurance on that matter.
  There is a need for further training for general practitioners and for consultant expansion, if the Royal College of Physician's target of one rheumatologist per 85,000 population is to be met. Currently in the UK, there are 420 consultants working in rheumatology in 242 rheumatology departments, so there is a long way to go. The best provided region is North Thames, with one rheumatologist per 154,384 population. I hope that my hon. Friend will look into expansion in this specialty.
  I mentioned the self-management programmes, "Challenging Arthritis" and "Fighting Back". I hope that my hon. Friend will endorse those initiatives and, if possible, make money available to set up and broaden the availability of self-management courses. Those could form a central part of the expert patients programme. Self-management of pain empowers people to be more independent. It helps to reduce pain and the anxiety and depression that often accompany constant pain.
  Those courses are run by volunteers, but arrangements may be made for health and social services professionals to visit the local course—indeed, many already refer patients to them. The courses do not offer medical advice and are not intended as a substitute for medical treatment. They are complementary, but their effect not only benefits the patient, but can have long-term advantages for the health and benefits budget by helping people to return to work and gain independence.
  I ask my hon. Friend to encourage health authorities to take up and fund such courses so that they become available to all arthritis sufferers. I urge fellow Members of Parliament to ask their health authorities what services they provide for people with arthritis. Can my hon. Friend give me an assurance that the national service framework on older people will address the needs of older people with arthritis and other conditions, such as Paget's disease, osteoporosis and osteoarthritis? Many older people feel that they do not receive the best treatment because of their age. The National Association for the Relief of Paget's Disease can provide my hon. Friend with many examples of such ageism. It would be good to have a national service framework for arthritis.
  I should welcome a special meeting between my hon. Friend and representatives of BLAR to discuss all these issues. Such a meeting would be appropriate, as the decade of bone and joint begins in 2000. That initiative has been endorsed by the United Nations and the Government.
  Arthritis Care is running a roadshow next year from March to November, which will be travelling throughout the United Kingdom. The roadshow will provide information, advice and support to people with arthritis. It will also give information to the public. It will have 43 stops on its route and it hopes to reach 100,000 people. I hope that time will be found to visit Romford.
  I thank the Minister for his attention during the debate and his consideration of the matters that I have raised. I am asking for more awareness, social inclusion, better access to school, work and health care and for the needs of 8 million people to be taken into account in future health planning.
  10.15 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) on raising this important issue and on her thoughtful and well—informed comments. She has often shown a keen interest in health issues in the past, and the management of arthritis, as she has said, is an important aspect of health care.
  Arthritis means inflammation of the joints and it is the principal cause of physical disability in the United Kingdom. The term "arthritis" encompasses more than 100 diseases affecting joints, the surrounding tissues and other connective tissues. These diseases and conditions include osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, which was a particular concern of my hon. Friend, and fibromyalgia.
  Arthritis has a significant impact on health and community services, on those who experience its painful symptoms and resulting disability, and on their family members and carers. Its main symptoms are pain and loss of mobility, but the extent and severity of the condition vary from one individual to another.
  Arthritis can, and does, affect people of all ages, as my hon. Friend has made clear, from young children to older people, but prevalence generally increases substantially with age. For example, it is estimated that about 70 per cent. of 70–year—olds suffer from some form of arthritis, mostly osteoarthritis. The leading charity in this area, Arthritis Care, believes that between 8 million and 10 million people in the UK suffer from some form of arthritis. This includes about 1 million adults under the age of 45 and about 15,000 children.
  The pain and disability accompanying arthritis can be minimised through early diagnosis and appropriate management. These management tools include physical activity, self-management, physical and occupational therapy and joint replacement surgery. There are several ways in which arthritis can affect individuals. As my hon. Friend has said, the main impact is clearly physical. Arthritis sufferers endure pain, loss of joint motion and fatigue. As a result of these symptoms, people with arthritis are significantly less physically active than the rest of the adult population, even after taking their disability into account. Such a lack of activity puts them at greater risk of other diseases, including premature death, heart disease, diabetes and higher blood pressure.
  Arthritis can make people more prone to stress, depression, anger and anxiety, and they may experience difficulty coping with pain and disability. That can lead to a feeling of helplessness, lack of self-control and changes in self-esteem and image. People with arthritis frequently experience decreased community involvement and can have problems finding suitable employment. These were both issues to which my hon. Friend was right to draw attention.
  Rheumatoid arthritis is a family of related diseases, not a single entity. The problems are primarily a consequence of persistent inflammation of the joints. While any joint can be affected, it is usually in the small peripheral joints, such as the fingers or wrist, that the condition is first noticed. Rheumatoid arthritis currently affects about 5 per cent. of women and 2 per cent. of men in Britain. Sadly, the causes of RA are still unknown.
  Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis includes the use of non-drug treatment such as rest and physiotherapy, but drugs may also be required both to control symptoms and

  127
  to slow down the progression of the disease. That is important because the longer the disease persists, the more the joints will become damaged.
  The arthritis self-management programme is a promising development in the field of arthritis care and treatment—I know that my hon. Friend is especially interested in that aspect of arthritis management. Arthritis Care has developed a self-management programme for people with arthritis that is based on work undertaken in the United States. That has demonstrated major benefits to people with arthritis in America and has reduced the use of health services.
  Encouraged by those developments, the Department of Health provided funds for Arthritis Care from 1996–97 to 1998–99 to help develop and pilot a self-management programme for people with arthritis in England. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), when she was a Health Minister, launched the initiative in November 1997.
  The arthritis self-management programme is a major project and has several components. It involves the development and provision of self-management courses around the country for people with arthritis. It is a user-led programme, in which all the course leaders are people with arthritis. The programme is delivered by volunteers, is community based and is concerned with empowerment and the development of self-effectiveness. The Department funded the evaluation of this programme, which has demonstrated improved pain management, reduced depression and also resulted in less drug dependency among those participating in the courses.
  The Long-term Medical Conditions Alliance also uses the model to ascertain whether people with other conditions find it helpful in managing their illnesses. The Department is providing the LMCA with funding of almost £100,000 over a three-year period to 2001. The aim is to increase knowledge about self-management programmes and the availability of information about living a healthy life with chronic conditions. My hon. Friend expressed anxiety that the Government were not doing enough about such issues. I hope that she is reassured that we take them seriously and that we are trying to respond to them.
  In the White Paper "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", the Government announced their intention to set up an expert patients task force, led by the chief medical officer, Professor Liam Donaldson. Its task is to develop a programme to help people with chronic conditions to maintain their health and improve their quality of life by supporting them to take an "expert" role in managing their conditions.
  Arthritis Care's self-management programme was used as an example of good practice in the White Paper. The programme, which is equally applicable to people with other chronic conditions, helps participants to develop a range of skills to deal with their conditions. The pioneering, patient-led project will inform the work of the task force and the approach is likely to form an important component of the final programme. Another vital part of the task force's work will be to link self-management programmes, developed in the voluntary sector, with
  128
  mainstream NHS and social care services. My hon. Friend gave an example of such a development programme and I should be happy for her to explain her interest in that scheme in more detail at some other time.
  The Government also support medical and clinical research into several conditions, including arthritis. The main agency through which the Government support research is the Medical Research Council. The council is an independent body which receives its grant in aid from the Office of Science and Technology, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry. The most recent figures, for the year 1998–99, show that the council spent nearly £1.3 million on research into osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatism. That included £160,000 on projects involving juvenile arthritis.
  The Department of Health's policy research programme funded a study entitled "Primary Care Interventions in Osteoarthritis". It was a four—year study undertaken by the university of Nottingham, and designed to determine whether exercise could lessen the burden of knee pain in the general population. The report of the study's findings is now at the final draft stage.
  Several other studies into arthritis are currently under way, including one in Oxford to investigate key design features of the current hip replacement. Another major investigation at Stoke—on—Trent into the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis aims to identify whether the disease should be treated aggressively, with the aim of suppressing the inflammatory response, or symptomatically, with the aim of minimising functional loss and pain. All patients in the study will be over 18 and will have been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis that has had a duration of between five and 20 years. The study is on—going and will cost around £600,000.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the availability of drugs to treat arthritis. She will be aware that many different classes of drugs are used to treat patients who suffer from the condition. They include, for example, analgesics to control pain and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The latter decrease the body's inflammatory response to disease or injury, but have little or no effect on the underlying disease and therefore cannot prevent the progression of joint destruction or organ damage. There are also a number of side effects associated with most drugs currently used to treat arthritis.
  Cox–2 inhibitors, which are a new class of pharmaceuticals, are being developed. They promise similar benefits to other similar drugs, but with a much lower risk of causing ulcers. There is likely to be uncertainty over the appropriate use of these products, especially in relation to simple over—the—counter alternatives such as paracetamol. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has been asked to review the evidence on Cox–2 inhibitors, make recommendations that will forestall any possible variations in uptake and help to ensure that patients are appropriately targeted. It is expected to report in January 2001.
  There is, of course, always hope that new technologies will be developed that can alleviate pain and disability for arthritis sufferers. We have, for example, asked NICE to assess the possible benefits of a new treatment in which damaged hip or knee cartilage is taken out, repaired in the laboratory and replaced in the patient's body. We need to know whether the procedure is cost—effective and whether,

  129
  over time, it could lead to a reduction in the prevalence of debilitating osteoarthritis. Such a scientific breakthrough could have a major impact in the future. Today, however, patients may be offered interventions ranging from heat treatment to major surgery. Keyhole surgery techniques, through the use of arthroscopes, are commonplace in orthopaedic departments for assessing osteoarthritis of the knee or removing damaged cartilage, and 100,000 such procedures are carried out annually in NHS hospitals. However, for many, mainly older, patients, the total hip or knee replacement offers the most effective treatment for the debilitating and distressing health problems associated with osteoarthritis. Those are the treatments of choice for most older patients and the latest figures show that 35,000 primary hip replacement operations and 25,000 primary knee replacements are carried out annually by the NHS in England.
  My hon. Friend will be reassured to know that the Government are determined to cut NHS waiting lists and thus reduce waiting times for all patients. Patients needing orthopaedic procedures are already benefiting from the action we have taken: during 1998–99, the number of patients waiting for NHS treatment was reduced by 225,000 and almost 500,000 extra patients were treated in the same time. Since March 1998, the number of people waiting for hip and knee replacements and other orthopaedic procedures has fallen by 12 per cent., and the number of people waiting more than 12 months has fallen by 13 per cent. I hope that she welcomes those figures.
  Such operations represent two of the great success stories of the NHS. People move from being confined to a wheelchair or their homes and become mobile and free of pain. They are then able to lead more independent lives, with all the benefits that that brings to them, their carers and the wider community. The national Horizon scanning centre has also identified several other new drugs that treat musculo—skeletal disorders. NICE is currently considering whether they should also be fast—tracked for assessment because they could provide a substantial added benefit to a large group of patients suffering from arthritis.
  130
  My hon. Friend expressed her concerns about measures to help disabled people into work, especially those suffering from arthritis. Most disabled people are able to make very effective use of mainstream employment and training programmes. However, for some people who are unemployed, such as people with arthritis, their disability represents an additional hurdle in their search for work. That is why there are specialist programmes to help them find, keep and train for work. The Employment Service plans to spend £189 million this year on specialist programmes to help those with disabilities, including people with arthritis.
  My hon. Friend also expressed her concern for children. The Education Act 1996 sets out arrangements for identifying and providing for children with special educational needs in accordance with a statutory code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs. Parents who think that their child may have special educational needs can ask their local education authority to assess their child's needs. The authority has responsibility for determining whether the child has special educational needs and what provision should be made to meet them.
  The schools access initiative gives capital support for projects to make mainstream schools more accessible for pupils with disabilities, including those suffering from arthritis. In 1999–2000, £20 million will be available, which is a fivefold expansion of the £4 million inherited from the previous Government. That forms part of a £100 million programme over the next three years.
  I have tried to outline some of the measures that we have taken or set in train to improve the quality of life for arthritis sufferers. There is clearly still a great deal to do. We look forward to working in partnership with Arthritis Care and others who share our ambition, as my hon. Friend does, to see that services for people who suffer from this condition continue to develop and improve in the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty—nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  External Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been spent by his Department on external consultants and advisers since May 1997 funded from (i) his Department's programme provision and (ii) his Department's running costs; [99486]

  (2) how much his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have spent on external consultants and advisers since May 1997. [102097]

  Mr. Straw
  I am sorry that I am unable to provide this information at present. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Integrated Casework Directive
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library details of the performance of the Integrated Casework Directorate against its four key performance indicators for each week since those performance indicators were first applied. [101491]

  Mrs. Roche
  The four key indicators are those against which it was agreed that the recovery of the Integrated Casework Directorate's (ICD) business would be measured in the first instance. I have put in the Library a chart giving a breakdown of the weekly output in these four categories since January 1999. The categories are: general and settlement casework; asylum first decisions; asylum appeals dispatched to the Immigration Appellate Authority; and European casework. The chart shows that cumulatively the ICD first exceeded the target on week ending 22 May, and has consistently done so since 10 September.

  Public Interest Defence
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the consistency between the absence in UK law of a public interest defence to breaches of the Official Secrets Act 1911 and(a) the UK's membership of the Council of Europe and (b) the UK's human rights obligations. [101390]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: I am advised that the absence of a public interest defence act in the Official Secrets Act 1911 is compatible with the United Kingdom's international obligations.

  Prisons (Religious Advisers)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many religious advisers are employed to work within the Prison Service; and what is the cost of their salaries. [101627]
  2W
  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service obtains advice on religious matters from a range of sources including the Prison Service Chaplaincy, visiting ministers and the advisory group on religion in prisons. It employs one religious adviser. The salary for this post is within the Prison Service grade 7 range of £29,152-£45,984 and the post attracts £1,842 Inner London Weighting.

  Fire Authorities
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which fire authorities retain day staffing. [101895]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The fire authorities in England and Wales which have day-crewed fire stations are:

  Avon

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes

  Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

  Cheshire

  Cornwall

  Derbyshire

  Devon

  Dorset

  East Sussex

  Essex

  Gloucestershire

  Greater Manchester

  Hampshire

  Hereford and Worcester

  Hertfordshire

  Isles of Scilly

  Kent and the Medway Towns

  Lancashire

  Lincolnshire

  Norfolk

  North Yorkshire

  Northamptonshire

  Northumberland

  Oxfordshire

  Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire

  Suffolk

  Warwickshire

  West Sussex

  West Yorkshire

  Wiltshire

  Mid and West Wales

  North Wales

  South Wales.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many section 19 applications arising from the Fire Services Act 1947 have been submitted from each fire authority since 1994; how many have been refused; and what was the basis for each refusal. [101894]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of section 19 applications submitted since 1 January 1994 (excluding some which were later withdrawn by the fire authority)
  3W
  was 259. One application was refused and one refused in part. Eight applications are still outstanding. These details with a breakdown of the applications by authority are:

  Fire authorities

  Total

  Avon

  1

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  1

  Berkshire

  4

  Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes

  1

  Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

  2

  Cheshire

  10

  Cleveland

  3

  Cornwall

  3

  Cumbria1

  6

  Derbyshire

  5

  Devon

  5

  Dorset

  7

  Durham and Darlington1

  4

  East Sussex

  3

  Essex

  3

  Gloucestershire

  2

  Greater Manchester

  4

  Hampshire

  9

  Hereford and Worcester

  3

  Hertfordshire

  3

  Humberside

  3

  Isle of Wight

  1

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Kent and the Medway Towns

  6

  Lancashire1

  10

  Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland1

  1

  Lincolnshire

  2

  London2

  15

  Merseyside

  6

  Norfolk

  3

  Northamptonshire

  0

  Northumberland

  4

  North Yorkshire

  5

  Nottinghamshire and the City of Nottingham

  9

  Oxfordshire1

  5

  Shropshire and the Wrekin

  7

  Somerset

  4

  South Yorkshire

  7

  Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire

  6

  Suffolk

  6

  Surrey

  6

  Tyne and Wear

  8

  Warwickshire

  10

  West Midlands1

  11

  West Sussex3

  4

  West Yorkshire1

  11

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  9

  Mid and West Wales4

  3

  North Wales5

  8

  South Wales6

  10

  1 One application still under consideration; two in the case of West Yorkshire.

  2 One application mostly approved, but a proposal to remove one appliance and 24 posts refused on the grounds that the Home Secretary was not satisfied that the Authority had given adequate consideration to representations that had been made about arrangements for dealing with special fire risks.

  3 Application to remove nine posts refused on the grounds that there were insufficient retained firefighters at the fire station in question for the Home Secretary to be satisfied that the Authority would be able to maintain the national standards of fire cover.

  4 Pre 1 April 1996 Powys, West Glamorgan. Dyfed.

  5 Pre 1 April 1996 Clwyd, Gwynned.

  6 Pre 1 April 1996 Mid Glamorgan, South Glamorgan, Gwent.

  Young Offenders (Custody)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children below the ages of(a) 15 and (b) 18 years have been held in custody in each of the last five years. [102036]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on the number of receptions into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales of persons aged 15–17 between 1994 and 1998 is given in the table. This information is also published in successive volumes of "Prison statistics England and Wales" (Table 3.10 of the 1998 edition, column 4430) copies of which are in the Library. In addition, 107 Secure Training Orders were made between 1 March 1998, the implementation date, and 31 December 1998. Such persons would, at that time, have been accommodated in either a Secure Training Centre or in local authority secure accommodation.

  Information on the population of persons aged less than 15 years in local authority secure accommodation is published in a Department of Health statistical bulletin entitled "Children Accommodated in Secure Units". This information is presented on a financial year basis with the last report (Bulletin 1999–6) covering the year ending 31 March 1998.

  Receptions1 into prisons in England and Wales of 15–17 year olds by type of custody 1994–98

  Year

  Remand

  Sentenced

  1998

  6,482

  5,585

  1997

  6,625

  5,617

  1996

  6,513

  5,285

  1995

  5,960

  4,671

  1994

  5,716

  4,120

  1 Total receptions cannot be calculated by adding together receptions in each category because there is double counting. However, double counting has been allowed for in the figures of receptions of prisoners under remand where the figures for 'remand' record only once a person received as an untried prisoner who is subsequently received also as a convicted unsentenced prisoner.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children below the ages of(a) 15 and (b) 18 years are currently serving custodial sentences. [102037]

  Mr. Boateng
  The latest available provisional information is for 31 October 1999 and shows that there were 1,770 sentenced persons aged 15–17 in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on that date. In addition, a further 99 sentenced 12–14 year olds were held in Secure Training Centres with a further two persons being placed in local authority units in England and Wales.

  Information on the population of persons aged 15–17 years in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales is published in "Prison statistics England and Wales" (Table 3.2 of the 1998 edition, column 4430) a copy of which is in the Library.

  Information on the population of persons aged less than 15 years in local authority accommodation is published in a Department of Health statistical bulletin entitled "Children Accommodated in Secure Units". This

  5W
  information is presented on a financial year basis with the last report (Bulletin 1999–6) covering the year ending 31 March 1998.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Brussels on 2 and 3 December; and if he will make a statement. [102095]

  Mr. Straw
  The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), and I represented the United Kingdom at the Council. The main matters dealt with were as follows:"A" points
  The Council agreed as an "A" point, among other things, the draft Council Conclusions on the implementation of measures to combat child sex tourism.
  Follow-up to the Tampere Council
  The European Commission presented its proposals for a "scoreboard" to monitor the implementation of the conclusions of the Tampere Special European Council and commitments arising from the Treaty of Amsterdam.
  Draft Mutual Legal Assistance Convention
  Good progress was made on the negotiation of this important instrument and a number of Member States were able to lift their reservations.
  Counterfeiting the Euro
  The Council agreed the substance of the proposed Framework Decision subject to a small number of, mainly procedural, reservations.
  Draft Insolvency Regulation
  All aspects of this draft instrument were agreed, except for the question of territorial application on which discussions are continuing.
  Draft Service of Documents Regulation
  The Council agreed the text of the proposed Regulation subject to a United Kingdom Parliamentary scrutiny reservation and reserves relating to the instrument's scope.
  Draft Directive on Electronic Commerce
  The Council discussed the criminal law aspects of this draft Directive, the overall objectives of which the United Kingdom fully supports.
  Organised Crime
  The Council considered progress of work on two draft documents: "Prevention and Control of Organised Crime: A European Strategy for the New Millennium"; and the 1998 European Union "Organised Crime Situation Report".
  Draft Eurodac Regulation
  The Presidency reported that considerable progress had been made on the draft regulation. It was noted that the European Parliament would need to be re-consulted on the draft instrument and that the United Kingdom maintained a Parliamentary scrutiny reserve.
  Commission Proposal on Admission on Family Reunification
  The Commission introduced its proposal to give European Union citizens and legally resident third country nationals the right to have non-European Union family members join them. Member States gave a general welcome to the proposal which was remitted to the relevant working group for detailed consideration.
  Draft Negotiations mandate on Dublin Parallel Agreement with Norway and Iceland
  The Council noted that the negotiating mandate had effectively been agreed, other than as regards the question of its territorial application.

  Prisons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate(a) the prison population and (b) spending on prisons in the next five years. [101964]

  Mr. Boateng
  New short-term prison population projections as at October 1999, and revised long-term projections, have been prepared by the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. A summary is in the Library and available in the September prison population brief on the Home Office website at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm.

  The projected average population for 1999–2000 and each of the next five years for the central scenario is given in the table.

  The budget for the Prison Service was set following the comprehensive spending review. The figures, which incorporate some minor subsequent adjustments are listed in the table. The budget for 2002–03 and 2003–04 will be determined in the next spending review.

  Prison population projections 1999–2000 to 2004–05

  Year

  Number

  1999–2000

  65,300

  2000–01

  68,100

  2001–02

  70,100

  2002–03

  70,800

  2003–04

  71,300

  2004–05

  71,900

  Prison Service budget 1999–2000 to 2001–05

  Year

  £ million

  1999–2000

  1,925.280

  2000–01

  1,981.280

  2001–02

  2,004.912

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Eccles will receive a reply from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate Board to his letter of 6 July, reference number 915495/99. [101935]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles on 8 December requesting additional information.

  Swords
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the law regarding retail availability of swords and similar weapons, with particular reference to the age limits for intending purchasers. [101937]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is an offence under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1999 for any person to have with them an offensive weapon in a public place, including private premises to which the public have access. In addition, the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as amended, prohibits the sale of any knife, knife blade or other article with a blade or which is sharply pointed, to a person under
  7W
  the age of 16, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches and a permanently enclosed razor blade cartridge.

  We have no immediate plans to amend this legislation but will keep the matter under review.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female prison officers were currently suspended from duty for alleged misconduct on 1 December. [102405]

  Mr. Boateng
  The table shows the number of prison officers suspended for alleged misconduct on 1 December.

  Prison officers

  Male

  Female

  Number suspended

  97

  11

  Prevention of Torture
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when in the last five years the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture has visited the United Kingdom; how many months elapsed between each visit and the publication of the Committee's report; and when he expects the report of the Committee's most recent visit to be published.[102186]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The report of the Committee's third visit to the United Kingdom, in May 1994, was published in March 1996. The report of the Committee's fourth visit, in September 1997, has not yet been published; that is a matter for the Committee. The Committee's fifth visit took place between 30 November and 8 December 1999.

  Prisons (Disinfecting Tablets)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the findings of the pilot project into the provision of disinfecting tablets in prisons to reduce transmission of HIV and hepatitis viruses will be made available. [102206]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service is currently considering a report from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine evaluating the pilot project for the re-introduction, on a trial basis, of disinfecting tablets in 11 prisons in England and Wales. I expect to be able to make an announcement on the results and outcome of the evaluation in the New Year.

  Operation Lancet
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of Operation Lancet into the Cleveland Police Force under its recently appointed investigating officer. [102146]

  Mr. Boateng
  There is nothing I can add at present to the extensive comments made by the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Mr. Clarke), in responding to my hon. Friend in an Adjournment Debate on 10 November 1999,Official Report, columns 1093–95.

  Operation Dollar
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Cleveland Police on matters concerning Regulation 6 disciplinary notices relating to senior police officers and Operation Dollar;[102196]

  (2) if he will meet the Chairman of the Cleveland Police Authority to discuss matters concerning Regulation 6 disciplinary notices relating to senior police officers and Operation Dollar. [102197]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) on 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 392W.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of Operation Dollar into the Cleveland Police Force, indicating the person responsible as the investigating officer of the operation. [102147]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Mr. Lloyd Clarke, Deputy Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police, is the Investigating Officer for Operation Lancet and for Operation Dollar, which is linked to Lancet. Both operations are currently on-going.

  Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training is being given to(a) the police service and (b) the Prison Service on the implications for their work of the incorporation of the Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law.[101979]

  Mr. Boateng
  Training in Human Rights issues is already included in a number of courses provided by National Police Training (NPT) including the Probationer Training Programme, when recruits to the police service are made aware of the extent and limitations of their powers as police officers. Human rights issues are also covered in the Strategic Command Course and the Accelerated Promotion Course which are delivered by NPT at Bramshill, and NPT have also held executive seminars for senior officers at Bramshill.

  The majority of police training (about 87 per cent.) is delivered in forces. NPT is working with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) on an audit of ACPO policy which may identify service-wide training needs. Work is almost complete on the development of a Human Rights competency framework and further work is under way on the identification of the generic and role specific training needs of officers up to inspector. All NPT courses will be reviewed to ensure that Human Rights awareness is incorporated. Role specific training will focus on those roles, such as that of Custody Officer, which are most likely to be exposed to Human Rights issues.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will estimate how many people claiming political asylum arrived in the United
  9W
  Kingdom in each of the last five years for which figures are available; [102210]

  (2) how many people were (a) accepted and (b) rejected for political asylum in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [102209]

  Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions, 1994 to 19981

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  19982

  Applications

  32,830

  43,965

  29,640

  32,500

  46,015

  Total decisions

  20,990

  27,005

  38,960

  36,045

  31,570

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  825

  1,295

  2,240

  3,985

  5,345

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

  3,660

  4,410

  5,055

  3,115

  3,910

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave

  16,500

  21,300

  31,670

  28,9450

  22,315

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest five

  2 Provisional

  Electoral Costs
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of a person voting by post at a(a) parliamentary and (b) local government election.[102543]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In England, Wales and Scotland(a) for parliamentary elections, no separate records of the administrative costs of processing postal votes are kept; and (b) local authorities are responsible for the cost of conducting local government elections and this information is not collected centrally.

  In Northern Ireland the cost for a person voting by post is estimated to be £1.27 both for parliamentary and local elections.

  2 Marsham Street
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 391W, on 2 Marsham Street, if he intends to maintain the current rate of expenditure in 2000. [102193]

  Mr. Straw
  A large proportion of the costs are for reactive maintenance rather than routine preventive maintenance. This makes it difficult to finalise a firm budget until part-way through the year. However, at present, we anticipate that next year's cost will not exceed the current budgeted cost for the year ending 31 March 2000.

  Hemp Seed
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the proposal for a Council regulation amending Reg(EC) No. 1251/99 on the use of hemp seed. [102496]

  Mr. Boateng
  Representations regarding the application of Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 licensing controls under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 have been received from Hemcore Ltd. and the National Farmers Union. I also understand that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department in the lead for Regulation (EC) No. 1251/99, is considering representations from the Hemp Food Industries Association and others.
  10W
  Mrs. Roche
  Information on persons applying for asylum on or after entry to the United Kingdom is given in the table. Information on the number of asylum applications and decisions received in 1999 can be found on the Home Office internet site at:
  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm.

  Drug-misusing Offenders
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of the money awarded to police forces in England and Wales to fund arrest referral schemes for drug-misusing offenders is to be derived from(a) his Department's office budget and (b) the overall drugs misuse strategy and UK National Plan budget; how much money this will be; and if he will make a statement; [102567]

  (2) what proportion of the money awarded to police forces in England and Wales to fund arrest referral schemes for drug-misusing offenders is in addition to the Government's current total drugs misuse strategy and UK National Plan Budget; and if he will make a statement. [102566]

  Mr. Boateng
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 14 July, at the Association of Chief Police Officers summer conference, that an extra £20 million was to be made available to police forces to support the spread of arrest referral schemes across all custody suites in England and Wales. This £20 million is part of the Government's Crime Reduction Programme and is in addition to the money that is committed to the delivery of the anti-drugs strategy, Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain.

  Police forces, with the support of their local Drug Action Teams, were invited to bid for matched funding to help meet the cost of arrest referral workers and to bid for a contribution to the anticipated costs of providing treatment for drug-misusing offenders picked up by arrest referral schemes. Initial bids were received from 39 forces who are now being asked to prepare more detailed action plans. The initial allocations to the forces concerned, which were announced on 3 December, total of £19.7 million over the period up to March 2002.

  Immigration
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reasons underlie the length of time taken by his Department to consider the urgent request to a Minister for permission to visit the UK in the case of the Sengunes family. [102598]

  Mrs. Roche
  I am sorry it has taken so long to consider the hon. Member's urgent request to consider the Sengunes family's request to be given indefinite leave to
  11W
  remain in the United Kingdom on compassionate grounds. This is a complicated case which has needed careful consideration. An interim reply was sent on 1 December and I wrote substantively today.

  Port of Liverpool Police
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his duties and responsibilities in respect of the Port of Liverpool Police. [101678]

  Mr. Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Port of Liverpool Police were established under the Mersey Docks and Harbour (Police) Order 1975. The provisions of the Order impose no specific duties or responsibilities on the Government.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Military Exports
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which(a) Ministers and (b) officials discussed the export of Hawk aircraft to Indonesia with representatives of British Aerospace between 23 August and 16 September, indicating the dates; and if he will make a statement. [100838]

  Mr. Byers
  There were no discussions in this period between DTI Ministers and British Aerospace regarding the export of Hawk aircraft to Indonesia. As far as DTI officials are concerned, on 15 September the Director of the DTI's Export Control Organisation did ask British Aerospace if the three Hawk aircraft exported from the UK on 31 August under a licence issued by the previous Administration had been delivered to Indonesia.

  Motorway Services
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about excessive charges for items for sale at motorway service areas. [100912]

  Mr. Byers
  I have received a number of letters from MPs on behalf of their constituents and from members of the public about prices at Motorway Service Areas (MSAs).

  Those letters have been passed to the Director General of Fair Trading who, under UK competition law, has in the first instance responsibility to investigate allegations of anti-competitive behaviour. The Office of Fair Trading are currently investigating the levels of prices charged at MSAs to determine whether they are the result of anti-competitive practices or exploitation of a monopoly position.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy in the WTO Millennium Round, to ensure that the principle of sustainable development is respected in international agreements on trade. [101675]
  12W
  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are committed to the principle of sustainable development and to maintaining an open, non-discriminatory and equitable multi-lateral trading system. These aims are regarded as complementary and mutually supportive. We are committed to ensure that sustainable development is a key objective for any new round of trade negotiations.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the(a) dates, (b) places at which meetings were held and (c) purposes of conferences of the World Trade Organisation since its inception and those of the former General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or other conferences relating to its preparations, together with the names of (i) members of the Government and (ii) officials who were present when draft rules were (1) considered and (2) agreed. [101920]

  Mr. Caborn
  The dates, locations, and main purposes of GATT and WTO Ministerial Conferences and Special Sessions are as follows:

  1946 United Nations Economic and Social Council in London establishes a Preparatory Committee to prepare for a United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment for the purpose of promoting the expansion of trade and production, exchange and consumption of goods.

  1947 Preparatory Committee in Geneva—tariff negotiations and drafting of the GATT

  1947 GATT Conference in Geneva—Signing of the "Final Act" covering tariff reductions and trade rules (GATT Articles);

  1948 GATT enters into force. GATT Session in Geneva to incorporate elements of the Havana Charter into the GATT;

  1949 GATT Conference in Annecy—tariff reductions;

  1951 GATT Special Session in Torquay—tariff reductions;

  1956 GATT Conference in Geneva—tariff reductions;

  1957 GATT Ministerial in Geneva—tariff reductions and rules;

  1959 GATT Ministerial in Tokyo to establish Trade Negotiations Committee for a new Round of negotiations on tariffs (Dillon Round);

  1961 GATT Ministerial in Geneva to discuss tariff reductions, trade in agriculture, and obstacles to the trade of least-developed countries;

  1963 GATT Ministerial in Geneva to agree measures to benefit exports from developing countries and establish the Trade Negotiations Committee for a new Round of negotiations on tariffs and anti-dumping measures (Kennedy Round);

  1964 Trade Negotiations Committee met in Geneva at Ministerial level to agree guidelines for and formally launch the Kennedy Round;

  1964 and 1965 GATT Special Session in Geneva to approve GATT Part IV (trade and development);

  1967 GATT Ministerial in Geneva to conclude the Kennedy Round;

  1973 GATT Ministerial in Tokyo establishing Trade Negotiations Committee for a new Round of negotiations on tariffs, non-tariffs and "framework" agreements (Tokyo Round);

  1982 GATT Ministerial in Geneva to agree a work programme and priorities for future work (which failed to launch a Round);

  1986 GATT Ministerial in Punta del Este, Uruguay to establish Trade Negotiations Committee for what became known as the Uruguay Round (negotiations covering tariff reductions, non-tariff measures, rules, services, intellectual property, dispute settlement, textiles, agriculture, and the creation of the WTO);

  1988 GATT Ministerials in Montreal and 1989 in Geneva—mid-term review of Uruguay Round;

  1990 GATT Ministerial in Brussels to discuss the closing of the Uruguay Round;

  1994 Ministerial in Marrakesh to conclude the Uruguay Round Agreements establishing the WTO;

  13W

  1996 First WTO Ministerial in Singapore to discuss future WTO work programme;

  1998 Second WTO Ministerial Conference in Geneva to mark 50th Anniversary of the GATT and start preparations for a possible new Round of trade negotiations (to be launched at the third Ministerial Conference);

  1999 Third WTO Ministerial in Seattle to discuss the launch of a new Trade Round.

  Records of Ministerial and Official attendance at meetings where rules were considered and agreed could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps were taken at the World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Seattle to address the concerns of developing countries that existing agreements to put an end to dumping subsidised agricultural products have not been implemented; and if he will make a statement. [101182]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: The commitments made by WTO members, as part of the Uruguay Round, to reduce subsidised exports of agricultural products have been fully implemented. Negotiations mandated in the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture on further commitments to reduce agricultural support, including subsidised exports, will start in January 2000. This process will go ahead even though discussions on a wider Round of negotiations were suspended in Seattle.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps were taken at the recent World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Seattle to address the concerns of developing countries about the Trade-Related Aspects of the Intellectual Property Rights Agreement. [101183]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: Many developing countries with concerns about TRIPS relate to their ability to implement and enforce the agreement effectively. These concerns can be addressed through capacity building and technical assistance to which the UK is committed. If we had been successful in launching a new trade Round at Seattle, other issues of concern to developing countries in particular those relating to the protection of traditional knowledge and skills and increasing the protection for geographical indications could have been included. Opportunities do, however, remain to discuss some of these issues, for example in the built-in agenda of the TRIPS Council and in the forum of the World Intellectual Property Organisation.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps were taken at the World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Seattle to increase market access in sectors of interest to developing countries, particularly agriculture and textiles; and if he will make a statement. [101184]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: The WTO Ministerial meeting in Seattle was suspended without formal agreement between Members to new improvements to market access for developing countries. However, improvements will be made as part of obligations entered into under agreements which were concluded as part of the Uruguay Round—the so-called built-in agenda. This means, for Agriculture, that negotiations will start in January 2000 in Geneva to continue the process of liberalising agricultural support
  14W
  and protection. For textiles, the planned progressive phase-out of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement will continue, and is due to be completed by 1 January 2005.

  In addition we will be pressing the EU to go ahead with its commitment to duty free access for essentially all products from the Least Developed Countries as soon as possible, and with the minimum of exceptions.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures the Government have taken to enhance the capacity of developing countries to participate in World Trade Organisation negotiations; and if he will make a statement. [101197]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: The Government are working bilaterally and with a wide range of other organisations, including UNCTAD, the World Bank, ITC and the Commonwealth Secretariat, to help build the capacity of developing countries to participate effectively in WTO and the multilateral trading system. To date, the UK has committed over –15 million to trade-related capacity building programmes of this type and a full list of activities has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  More specifically, in terms of helping developing countries participate in the WTO negotiations at Seattle, the UK has supported bilateral technical assistance programmes in Bangladesh (£0.56 million), Malawi (£0.25 million), South Africa (£0.1 million), Zimbabwe (£0.5 million) and the 14 CARICOM countries in the Caribbean (£1.1 million). A project in Pakistan is currently under review. This technical assistance comprises expert technical advice, training, trade policy studies and negotiating skills and is typically provided to a broad base of stakeholders from national Governments, the private sector and civil society organisations who are involved in trade policy negotiations.

  At the multilateral level, developing countries' participation in the WTO negotiations is being particularly supported by a major World Bank Trade Policy Development Programme (TPDP), to which the UK has committed £3 million. TPDP comprises trade policy research and analytical studies; seminars on key issues for the WTO negotiations; training for trade policy officials; and a handbook for trade negotiators from developing countries.

  In addition Commonwealth developing countries in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific are benefiting from the Commonwealth Trade and Investment Access Facility (TIAF), to which the UK has committed –1.4 million. TIAF's technical assistance projects include full-time specialist WTO and Trade Policy Advisers based in Geneva and in the Pacific, who have played a key role in helping Commonwealth developing countries prepare for, and participate in, the WTO Seattle Ministerial meeting.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will raise with the Council of Ministers ways of increasing the role of low-income countries in the WTO' s decision-making process. [102302]

  Mr. Caborn
  Reflecting the concerns of developing countries about their effective participation in the decision-making process, the UK in Seattle tabled a proposal in the EU Council of Ministers for a WTO
  15W
  Reform Conference during 2000 to look at improving formal and informal decision-making processes in WTO. This is one idea, there may be others; but the UK is pressing the issue of WTO reform within the EU as an issue which needs to be urgently addressed.

  Research Council
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the Research Council held in Brussels on 2 December; and if he will make a statement. [101692]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Research Council of 2 December:

  1. Concluded bilateral scientific and technological co-operation agreements with Argentina and China and approved a decision to sign a similar agreement with Russia;

  2. Adopted Conclusions on the preparation of future Community RTD Framework Programmes;

  3. Adopted a Resolution on developing a coherent European space strategy;

  4. Adopted Conclusions concerning waste management and decommissioning obsolete nuclear installations of the Joint Research Centre (JRC);

  5. Adopted a Decision approving a supplementary programme for the High Flux Reactor at Petten in the Netherlands;

  6. Received information from the Commission on the implementation of the Fourth and Fifth Framework Programmes including the participation of associated CEECs and Cyprus, on women and science in light of the recent European Technology Assessment Network (ETAN) report and from the Presidency and the Commission on the ASEM Ministerial Conference of 14-15 October 1999. There was also a discussion on the possible co-ordination of various member states' "Science Week" activities with a European Science Week.

  Trade Negotiations
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how he intends to consult the public about the Millennium round of trade negotiations. [101649]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department has consulted widely in forming the UK position on a new round of trade negotiations. DTI Ministers and Officials have held regular meetings with Non-Governmental Organisations; the Department has issued a document "The UK and the World Trade Organisation: An Introduction to the Next Round" for public comment in addition to consultation documents on WTO services negotiations and possible WTO negotiations on industrial tariffs; and a DTI trade policy website has also been established.

  We fully recognise the importance of public consultation and will continue to consult all interested parties on future trade liberalisation in the WTO.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the minimum wage will be implemented for company directors who wish to elect not to pay themselves a salary during periods of low or negative profits. [101836]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Company Directors are office holders. Office holders are not covered by national minimum wage legislation, which applies to employees and other workers. Only in exceptional circumstances will 16W
  office holders also have employment contracts making them "workers" for the purposes of employment law. If a company director chooses to work for a company under such an arrangement, his or her right to the minimum wage is the same as that of any other worker. There is no suspension of this right due to the company's hardship.

  Cash Dispensers
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to ensure that the providers of cash dispensing machines indicated if any charge will be made for the use of their machines. [102038]

  Mr. Byers
  My view is that any charges made for using cash machines should be displayed clearly before the transaction proceeds. I am aware that the industry is considering this and I hope that they will reach a voluntary agreement to do this but if not I will use my powers under the Prices Act 1974 to require them to do so.

  Mineworkers' Pensions
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what would be the estimated cost to the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme of introducing an entitlement to a full pension at age(a) 58 years, (b) 55 years and (c) 53 years; [102091]

  (2) what would be the estimated cost to the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme of introducing pensions at 50 years for miners who are made redundant. [102092]

  Mrs. Liddell
  These are matters for the Trustees of the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme.

  Digital Television
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what restrictions apply to the siting of digital television transmitting and receiving stations on rooftops; who can apply for permission for such siting; and to which Government Department. [102053]

  Ms Hewitt
  The siting of digital television transmission and reception equipment is a matter for local planning authorities in the context of Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications (PPG8 revised), and circular 4/99: Planning for Telecommunications, copies of which are available from the Library of the House.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many digital television transmitting and receiving stations there are in London. [102055]

  Ms Hewitt
  There is one prime Digital Terrestrial transmitter site that covers London. This is located at Crystal Palace. With respect to receiving stations, this is potentially every household that has a UHF aerial. In addition, a number of broadcasters up-link their programmes material from within the London area to satellites for onward transmission, either direct to the home (e.g. for some BskyB services), or to cable head ends for subsequent distribution to the home through cable networks.
  17W
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the lowest permissible height for digital television transmitting and receiving stations. [102054]

  Ms Hewitt
  Digital equipment is sited to deliver the best transmission and reception arrangements. For digital UHF, the higher the aerial the better the reception. Higher sited transmit antennas will also send a signal further, but with a greater potential for interference with other radio transmitters. The siting of the transmission masts and stations is a matter for local planning authorities in accordance with Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications (PPG8 revised) and circular 4/99: Planning for Telecommunications, copies of which are available from the Library of the House.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which frequencies have been granted to News International Digital Television by the Radio Authority. [102052]

  Ms Hewitt
  Racal Telecom hold a number of licences which are issued by the Radiocommunications Agency, under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, to use the radio spectrum to up-link material to satellites for onward transmission from the News International building at Wapping. The bands used for this purpose are at 14GHz. The Radio Authority has issued no licences under the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996 in relation to sound broadcasting services over these frequencies.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he granted a licence for News International to place a digital television transmitting and receiving station on the roof of its building in Wapping. [102056]

  Ms Hewitt
  Licences under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 for the use of radio transmission equipment (satellite up-links) at the News International Building in Wapping were issued to Racal Telecom on 12 January 1999, 2 February 1999 and 31 March 1999. For the most part, (with the notable exception of the Television Reception Licence used to finance the BBC), receiving stations are exempt from licensing under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949.

  Trade Union Recognition
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the timetable is for implementation of those provisions of the Employment Relations Act 1999 relating to trade union recognition. [102304]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government intend to bring these provisions into force shortly after Easter next year.

  Ghana
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total value of trade between the UK and Ghana for each of the last five years; and what is his estimate for the current year. [101969]
  18W
  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: Information on UK trade in goods with Ghana is given in the following table. Information on trade in services is not available.

  £ million

  Year

  UK exports

  UK imports

  1994

  190.7

  138.7

  1995

  240.1

  163.8

  1996

  279.1

  189.3

  1997

  270.2

  135.0

  1998

  222.2

  155.2

  19991

  144.1

  139.7

  1 January to October

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, HM Customs and Excise.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the timescale for the review of Objective 2 and assisted areas status [102341]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department has been discussing with the Commission the proposals for the new Objective 2 areas which we submitted on 8 October. We hope that the Commission will approve the areas in principle before Christmas and give formal approval in January.

  The four-month timetable for the submission of draft Objective 2 programmes to the Commission starts running from the date on which the map is approved. However, the Regulation allows funding to begin from 1 January 2000 provided that draft programmes are submitted by 30 April.

  Discussions are continuing with the Commission on the proposed new Assisted Areas map which we submitted in July. We are seeking early approval of our new Assisted Areas and will formally announce the new map as soon as possible.

  Terminal Illness
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to provide employment protection to employees taking compassionate leave to care for terminally ill relatives and friends. [102538]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  From 15 December 1999, all employees will be entitled to take a reasonable amount of time off work to deal with an emergency involving a dependant, and will be protected from dismissal or detriment for doing so. For the first time, employees will be able to take a short amount of leave when a dependant falls ill, which will help them make longer term care arrangements.

  As part of our wider strategy of promoting family friendly employment policies, we will be encouraging employers to go beyond the legal minimum, for example, by providing longer periods of leave to employees on compassionate grounds.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  International Court of Justice
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what international agreement the International Court of Justice at the Hague would act in respect of action taken by armed military force of the European Union. [101896]

  Mr. Vaz
  As is the case with the Western European Union, the European Union would, if new crisis management arrangements are agreed, only use force if it would be lawful under international law.

  The International Court of Justice can exercise jurisdiction only if the States concerned have both accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. This can be done by an ad hoc agreement; by being parties to a treaty which confers the necessary jurisdiction on the Court; or by matching acceptances of jurisdiction under Article 36 of the Statute of the Court.

  The EU, like the WEU, is not itself subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. Only States are subject to it.

  British Deaths (Nigeria)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 1999,Official Report, columns 405–06W, what assessment he has made of the factors underlying the inability of the British High Commission in Nigeria to obtain the complete police report on the death of Mr. Mark Davey. [102135]

  Mr. Hain
  The British High Commission in Abuja has done everything it properly can to obtain this report from the Nigerian authorities. Sadly, difficulties in obtaining such formal reports from the appropriate authorities are not unusual. Changes in the political system over the last year, and subsequent changes in personnel in the Government, civil service and police have been contributing factors.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps K-For is taking to secure the return of Kosovar coal and mineral mines to their former owners; and what reports he has received on the extent of shareholdings in the Trepca Company by President Milosovic and his family. [101962]

  Mr. Vaz
  The United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) has responsibility for the Trepca industrial complex. UNMIK has said it will run state property for the benefit of all communities in Kosovo, with issues of ownership, which are inevitably complex in Kosovo's present circumstances, to be resolved later. The priority is to promote a functioning economy in Kosovo as quickly as possible.

  The exact balance of involvement by the FRY/Serbian regime and its supporters in the ownership of the Trepca industrial complex is difficult to assess. The Government in Belgrade exercises extensive control over the public and private sectors of the economy, both directly and through banks and businesses manipulated by the regime.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date was the Government's last reassessment of the situation in Sri Lanka with respect to the appropriateness of granting export licences for controlled exports to that country. [102185]

  Mr. Hain
  Our policy on defence exports to Sri Lanka, as with all other countries, is constantly kept under review. Each export licence application is considered scrupulously on a case by case basis in accordance with national and EU criteria. Particular attention is paid to the Sri Lankan Government's human rights record and its legitimate defence and domestic security interests.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Government of Sri Lanka concerning human rights violations by the Sri Lankan army and security forces. [102183]

  Mr. Hain
  We maintain a dialogue with the Sri Lankan Government and the armed forces on a wide range of issues including human rights and the importance of bringing to justice those responsible for abuses.

  UN Security Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the composition of the UN Security Council; and if he will make a statement. [102312]

  Mr. Hain
  We believe early enlargement of the Security Council is essential to make the Council more representative of the world today. Making the Council more representative will enhance its authority and credibility.

  We support expansion of the Security Council from 15 members to 24. We propose five additional permanent seats: two for Germany and Japan plus three for developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America respectively. We also support four new non-permanent seats: one each for Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe.

  British Embassies
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy that British mineral water be served at British embassies in Europe. [102770]

  Mr. Hain
  No. The Government's Public Purchasing Consolidated Guidelines require goods and services to be acquired by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. The selection of a particular product or supplier solely on the grounds of national preference would run counter to this policy.

  UN Co-ordinator, Baghdad
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason he seeks to terminate the employment of Mr. Hans van Sponeck as a UN co-ordinator in Baghdad. [102449]
  21W
  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 26 November 1999,Official Report, column 257W.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have spent on external consultants and advisers since May 1997. [102074]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Torture
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 406W, on the use of torture in OSCE participating countries, if he will list the parts of the OSCE region in which instances of abuse persist. [102321]

  Mr. Vaz
  As noted in my previous answer to the hon. Gentleman, instances of torture can occur even in countries with strong human rights protections. While in some countries there are effective mechanisms for the reporting and investigation of such abuse, in others there are not. It is not, therefore, possible to give an accurate and comprehensive list of countries where instances of torture persist.

  At the OSCE Review Conference in Istanbul reports of torture in various countries in the OSCE region, especially the Central Asian republics, were raised. Several states, including Turkey, Russia and the United States of America, also acknowledged that their own systems were not perfect and outlined measures they were taking to strengthen protection of the human rights of detainees.

  Jonas Savimbi
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) representations he has received from and (b) meetings he and his officials have held with, which organisations concerning the indictment of Jonas Savimbi for war crimes and crimes against humanity. [102490]

  Mr. Hain
  The Angolan Government has made public its view that Savimbi should be indicted for war crimes on a number of occasions in the United Nations Security Council, at meetings of the Southern Africa Development Community and in Luanda. We have received similar representations both in London and overseas on behalf of the Angola Emergency Campaign some of whose representatives I met on 8 November.

  Venice Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will announce the name of the United Kingdom representative to the Venice Commission. [101980]

  Mr. Vaz
  We are in the process of appointing a UK member, and expect to make an announcement in the new year. For the sake of transparency we have consulted 22W
  non-governmental organisations and academic bodies for nominations. We have also appointed an external member to the selection panel.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Portadown, RUC
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations were made by(a) individuals, (b) businesses, (c) churches and (d) political representatives to the Portadown Sub Division of the Royal Ulster Constabulary between 1 January 1997 and 27 April 1997 regarding the security and safety of nationalists in Portadown town centre; and what steps were taken by the RUC in respect of such representations. [101809]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no record of any such representations having been made during this time.

  Company Numbers
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the change in the number of companies in Northern Ireland in the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available. [102482]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

DEFENCE

  EU Co-operation
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on defence co-operation with other EU member states. [100970]

  Mr. Hoon
  We continue to develop our bilateral and multilateral defence relations with the other EU member states.

  In particular, we want to strengthen the EU' s Common Foreign and Security Policy, so that Europe can speak with authority and act decisively in response to crises where the North Atlantic Alliance as a whole is not engaged.

  We are making good progress with our Allies and Partners both in the European Union, in the Western European Union and in NATO.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made since the St. Malo agreement in promoting Anglo-French co-operation in defence. [100974]

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made since the St. Malo agreement in promoting Anglo-French co-operation in defence. [100991]

  Mr. Hoon
  Work has been taken forward on planning for non-combat evacuation operations; joint exercises; improved links between operational headquarters;
  23W
  co-ordination of naval deployments; information exchanges on peacekeeping activities; Year 2000 computer problems; logistics; and arrangements for dealing with the media.

  Specific examples of co-operation are: the posting of liaison offices into operational headquarters, the attachment of HMS Somerset, and later HMS Grafton, to the French Foch Carrier Task Group in the Adriatic during the Kosovo conflict; and co-operation on media handling during the Kosovo conflict. We also signed a Mutual Logistics Support Agreement at the UK/France Summit held on 25 November.

  Ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent meetings he has had with his US and European counterparts to discuss ballistic missile defence. [100971]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have a continuous dialogue with the US, and with our European allies on ballistic missile defence issues. The US has briefed us—nationally and in NATO—on their current thinking on the possible deployment of a National Missile Defence System.

  Departmental Land
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total value of MOD land and property sold since July 1998. [R] [100972]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Gross total receipts from the disposal of land and buildings in Financial Year 1998–99 was £158 million. We expect to receive £261 million in Financial Year 1999–2000. The Strategic Defence Review set a four-year target of £700 million for Financial Year 1998–99 to 2001–02 and we are on track to achieve this.

  Invincible
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the Government's plans to procure replacements for the current Invincible class of aircraft carriers. [100973]

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the Government's plans to procure replacements for the current Invincible class of aircraft carrier. [100988]

  Mr. Hoon
  Competitive contracts for the Future Aircraft Carrier Assessment Phase were awarded on 23 November to British Aerospace Land and Sea Systems and Thomson-CSF Naval Combat Systems. The Assessment Phase will investigate options for carrier design and by 2003 deliver proposals for the demonstration and manufacture of the vessels. The carriers are scheduled to enter service in 2012 and 2015.

  Aircraft Wiring
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum estimated life of wiring in military aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [100975]

  Mr. Spellar
  Replacement intervals for electrical wiring are not prescribed in advance. Wiring is rigorously inspected during maintenance and replaced as necessary.
  24W
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military aircraft have been grounded as a result of advice on the safety of Kapton wiring. [100925]

  Mr. Spellar
  None. However, following two instances of electrical fires on RAF Harrier aircraft in 1991, the Harrier GR5 and GR7 fleets were restricted to operational flying only for a short period. Subsequent investigation showed that the fires had occurred as a result of the mis-routeing of wires. Modifications were subsequently introduced to improve the electrical installation.

  Rapid Intervention
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the prospects for creating a European force for rapid intervention in crises. [100977]

  Mr. Hoon
  We need to address the shortfalls in European military capability, as highlighted by experience in Kosovo and identified in the Western European Union's audit of European assets and capabilities, and in NATO's Defence Capabilities Initiative.

  EU member states have committed themselves to strengthening their existing military capabilities so that European nations are able to assemble, deploy rapidly and sustain more effective forces for specific NATO or EU-led operations. We are not proposing to create a standing European Rapid Reaction Force.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the work of the force research unit of the intelligence corps in Northern Ireland during the past decade. [100978]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Force Intelligence Unit (FIU) provides analytical support and security advice to assist the RUC in defeating terrorism.

  Medical Services
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much extra the Government are spending on the Defence Medical Services over the next three years as a result of the comprehensive spending review. [100979]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Defence Review made an additional £140 million available for the Defence Medical Services over the four years from 1998–99 to 2001–02, of which around –125 million falls in the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

  Efficiency Programme
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a list of all the efficiency measures taken in 1998–99 that contribute to the overall efficiency programme. [100980]

  Mr. Spellar
  Some 1,300 measures contributed to the successful achievement of £594 million worth of efficiency in 1998–99, –89 million more than the target. A list of representative measures and a further list of the most significant measures for this period has been supplied to the House of Commons Defence Committee. The representative list is contained in the Minutes of Evidence Taken before the Defence Committee on
  25W
  21 April, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. My Department does not hold a centrally compiled list of efficiency measures, nor does it duplicate activities delegated to managers for proper control of the detail of the efficiency programme.

  Kosovo
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on troop levels in Kosovo. [100981]

  Mr. Spellar
  British forces in Kosovo currently contribute a framework Brigade headquarters and two battle groups plus supporting elements. As our Allies have increased their contribution to KFOR operations, we have been able to make a commensurate reduction to the number of British forces deployed in the region without detriment to KFOR' s overall capability. Our contribution to KFOR now numbers less than 4,000—down from a peak of 10,400. KFOR as a whole continues to operate at its intended strength of around 50,000.

  RAF Buchan
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received regarding the possible closure of RAF Buchan; and if he will make a statement. [100982]

  Mr. Spellar
  In addition to a letter from the hon. Member of 4 October 1999, I have received a letter regarding the future of RAF Buchan from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) as well as correspondence from MSPs. My Department has also received three letters from local authorities and agencies and one from a former MP for Banff and Buchan. In addition, I received a delegation of representatives from Aberdeen Council on 20 October 1999. Some of the issues raised during consultation require further investigation before a final decision can be made on the future of RAF Buchan. I would hope to be able to make an announcement on this subject in the new year.

  Service Families
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by the Service Families Task Force in promoting welfare and support provision for service families; and if he will make a statement. [100983]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Service Families Task force has made good progress. The needs of service children are now recognised in the Department for Education and Employment's Codes of Practice on Schools Admission and Appeals. Service Children's Education, a Defence agency, now sits on key local education authority admission forums. The Department of Health has established incentive schemes for NHS dentists in 24 areas where there are large numbers of service families. The Department for Social Security and the Department for Social Security (Northern Ireland) have established simpler procedures for transferring claims for child benefit when moving to and from Northern Ireland.
  26W
  We are now working with the Department for Education and Employment to address the eligibility of service children for student loans, and with the same Department and the Department for Social Security to address the rules for claiming Jobseekers' Allowance.

  Green Transport Plans
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress his Department is making in developing green transport plans. [100984]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Green Transport Plans are being taken forward as part of my Department's development of a corporate Environmental Management System. Plans are being prepared for sites across the Defence Estate where the potential impacts on travel patterns are thought likely to be significant. Initially, 23 sites have been asked to develop plans. Plans for headquarters buildings in London have not been drawn up due to the refurbishment of Main Building and the planned reduction in the number of other buildings.

  Albion and Bulwark
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the anticipated date in service of the new HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. [100985]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, the two Landing Platform Dock (Replacements), were planned to enter service in 2002 and 2003 respectively. These dates have, however, slipped due to industrial loading problems at the BAe Systems shipyard at Barrow. The current estimate of the slippage indicates delays to the in service dates of around one year for the first ship and some nine months for the second ship. Discussions with the company continue, with the aim of reducing these delays.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on recruitment to the Territorial Army. [100986]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) earlier today,official Report, columns 7–8.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Territorial Army are currently serving(a) in Kosovo, (b) in Bosnia and (c) elsewhere overseas. [100976]

  Mr. Spellar
  As of 3 December 1999, there were 288 members of the Territorial Army serving in Bosnia, 229 serving in Kosovo and two serving elsewhere overseas.

  European Strategic Defence Initiative
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the European strategic defence initiative. [100987]

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the European security and defence identity. [100989]
  27W
  Mr. Hoon
  At the Helsinki European Council, EU member states committed themselves to strengthening their military capabilities so that European nations will be able to assemble, deploy rapidly and sustain more effective forces for specific NATO or EU-led operations. EU member states also agreed to develop the military structures necessary for the EU to decide and act on crisis management operations.

  These aims are complementary to work under way in NATO and the Western European Union, all of which will have the effect of strengthening the European contribution to NATO.

  Gurkha Pensions
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his review of Gurkha pensions. [100992]

  Mr. Spellar
  The examination of Gurkha pensions and gratuities is still continuing. We hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

  Command Vehicles
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of adding the Raven 2V frequency-hopping digital radios and the ROVIS digital harnesses to the Scimitar and Sultan command vehicles. [99413]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  There are no plans to fit the Raven 2V frequency-hopping radio or the ROVIS digital harnesses into operational Scimitar or Sultan command vehicles. However, as part of a series of studies, my Department was provided with, free of charge, Raven radios and a ROVIS harness for trials involving Scimitar and Sultan. These trials, the result of which were shared with industry, were to improve the Department's ability to evaluate digitisation technology. As part of the partnership arrangement with industry, BAe carried out the installation and its cost is therefore not available to MOD.

  RAID System
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many United Kingdom aircraft the Rangeless Airborne Instrumented Debriefing Systems will be installed; and if he will make a statement. [101658]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Rangeless Airborne Instrumented Debriefing System requirement is for all current RAF fast jets to be capable of operating with the system.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the operational life of the Royal Air Force's Rangeless Airborne Instrumented Debriefing System. [101660]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Rangeless Airborne Instrumented Debriefing System requirement is for a system operational life of 20 years with each pod having a life of 8,000 flying hours.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of installing Marconi Electronic Systems' Rangeless Airborne Instrumented Debriefing Systems on an aircraft. [101657]
  28W
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  We are currently in the process of tender evaluation of competing proposals for Rangeless Airborne Instrumented Debriefing Systems and it would be inappropriate to comment on aircraft installation costs at this time.

  Tornado Crash
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received of the most recent Royal Air Force Tornado crash. [101662]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I await the report of the Board of Inquiry convened following the crash of an RAF Tornado F3 from RAF Conningsby on 17 November 1999. A summary of the Board of Inquiry's findings will be placed in the Library of the House once this is completed.

  Staff Dispositions
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Royal Navy he expects to be(a) at sea and (b) in a non-United Kingdom post on 25 December 1999, 31 December 1999 and 1 January 2000; what percentage of overall strength of the Royal Navy this represents; and if he will make a statement. [101729]

  Mr. Spellar
  Projections of the number of personnel serving overseas or at sea cover the Christmas period as a whole and are not available on a day-to-day basis. During the period 25 December 1999 to 1 January 2000, it is expected that some 647 Naval Service personnel will be at sea. Some 964 personnel will be serving in non-UK posts over the same period. The combined figure of 1,611 represents approximately 4.2 per cent. of the Naval Service Trained Strength.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Royal Navy were(a) at sea and (b) in a non-United Kingdom post on (i) 25 December 1998, (ii) 31 December 1998 and (iii) 1 January 1999; and what percentage of overall strength of the Royal Navy that represented. [101713]

  Mr. Spellar
  Statistics on the number of personnel serving overseas or at sea cover the Christmas period as a whole and are not available on a day-to-day basis. During the period 25 December 1998 to 1 January 1999, 594 Naval Service personnel were at sea. A further 948 personnel were serving in non-UK posts. The combined figure of 1,542 represented approximately 3.9 per cent. of the Naval Service Trained Strength.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of(a) the RAF, (b) the Army and (c) the Royal Navy were serving (i) abroad accompanied, (ii) abroad unaccompanied and (iii) deployed in front-line duties on (1) 25 December 1998, (2) 31 December 1998 and (3) 1 January 1999; and what percentage of overall strength of each force this represented. [101711]

  Mr. Spellar
  Statistics on the number of personnel serving overseas cover the Christmas period as a whole and are not available on a day-to-day basis. During the period 25 December 1998 to 1 January 1999, the RAF had 4,403 married personnel serving abroad, 1,574 single personnel serving abroad and 2,382 personnel deployed on front-line duties. The combined figure of 8,359 represented 16.1 per cent. of the RAF's Trained Strength.
  29W
  During the same period, the Army had 14,404 married personnel serving abroad, 10,034 single personnel serving abroad and 5,197 personnel deployed on front-line duties. The combined figure of 29,635 represented 30.7 per cent. of the Army's Trained Strength.

  Also during the same period the Naval Service had 703 married personnel serving abroad, 143 single personnel serving abroad and 696 personnel deployed on front-line duties at sea and ashore. The combined figure of 1,542 represented 3.9 per cent. of the Naval Service's Trained Strength.

  Information on whether married personnel were accompanied or unaccompanied is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of(a) the RAF, (b) the Army and (c) the Royal Navy he expects to be serving (i) abroad accompanied, (ii) abroad unaccompanied and (iii) deployed in front-line duties on (1) 25 December 1999, (2) 31 December 1999 and (3) 1 January 2000; what percentage of overall strength of each force this represents; and if he will make a statement. [101712]

  Mr. Spellar
  Projections of the number of personnel serving overseas cover the Christmas period as a whole and are not available on a day-to-day basis. During the period 25 December 1999 to 1 January 2000, it is expected that the RAF will have 3,641 married personnel serving abroad, 1,160 single personnel serving abroad and 2,252 personnel deployed on front-line duties. The combined figure of 7,053 represents 13.8 per cent. of the RAF's trained strength.

  During the same period, the Army is expected to have 12,851 married personnel serving aboard, 14,544 single personnel serving abroad and 5,800 personnel deployed on front-line duties. The combined figure of 33,195 represents 34.4 per cent. of the Army's trained strength.

  Also during the same period the Naval Service is expected to have 691 married personnel serving abroad, 154 single personnel serving abroad and 766 personnel deployed on front-line duties at sea and ashore. The combined figure of 1,611 represents 4.2 per cent. of the Naval Service's trained strength.

  Information on whether married personnel were accompanied or unaccompanied is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Large Transport Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's requirement for the procurement of large transport aircraft. [101655]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on 8 November 1999,Official Report, column 397W.

  Naval Vessels
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the planned deployments overseas by naval vessels which have been cancelled this year, indicating the reasons for cancellation. [101614]
  30W
  Mr. Spellar
  Three deployments away from the UK/Northern European theatre have been cancelled this year. These were the deployment of an Amphibious Task Group to the West Indies in May and June for operational reasons related to Kosovo; a deployment by an Aircraft Carrier Group to the USA and Caribbean from February to April for operational reasons relating to the Gulf; and a submarine deployment to the Gulf in March for operational reasons relating to Kosovo. I gave details on 8 December 1999,Official Report, column 560W of the naval vessels which had been withdrawn this year from exercises in the UK/Northern European theatre.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Tony Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what advice he has sought on the legality of British nuclear deterrence policy; [102127]

  (2) what review of nuclear targeting policy he has conducted since the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons of 8 July 1996; and if he will make a statement. [102126]

  Mr. Hoon
  Legal considerations are always taken into account in the formulation and application of defence policy. I am confident that our nuclear policy and posture, as set out most recently in the Strategic Defence Review, is entirely compatible with our obligations under international law.

  Mr. Tony Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which section or sections of his Department are responsible for nuclear targeting policy. [102125]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our nuclear missiles are not targeted. Within the Ministry of Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff acts as principal adviser on the operational deployment of our nuclear deterrent. He is supported in this role by a range of senior officers and officials.

  Royal Marines (Women)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in respect of the employment of women in posts in the Royal Marines. [101936]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are committed to equality of opportunity in the Armed Forces, and some 73 per cent. of the posts within the Naval Service are already open to women. The possibilities for further extending employment opportunities for women were considered in the Strategic Defence Review. It was decided that posts in the Royal Marines General Service, and similar posts in the other Services whose primary role in battle is to 'close with and kill the enemy', should be subject to further work to assess the potential impact on combat effectiveness of opening such posts to women. This work is currently in hand.

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what correspondence he has received in the past two years concerning paramilitary infiltration of the Royal Irish Regiment(a) at Alma barracks, Catterick and (b) elsewhere; and what standing orders have been

  31W
  issued concerning (i) display of paramilitary insignia and emblems and (ii) possession or distribution of documents and other materials. [102031]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date rules governing the security of classified documents and sensitive personal information were changed to restrict access by units of the Royal Irish Regiment; and if he will make a statement. [102032]

  Mr. Spellar
  Members of the Royal Irish Regiment are afforded the same access to classified information as any member of the British Army holding similar rank, position and responsibility. That access is strictly limited on a 'need to know' basis.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for each of the buildings under his Department's control how many rooms are set aside for(a) ethnic minority religious use, (b) pregnant and nursing mothers and (c) smokers. [102329]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  There are over 90,000 buildings on the Defence Estate of which a number will have rooms allocated for religious observances of staff, pregnant and nursing mothers and smokers as required. The number of rooms set aside for such purposes is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Satellite Television
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in fitting satellite television facilities on Royal Navy ships. [102343]

  Mr. Spellar
  The majority of the RN's major warships are currently fitted with conventional domestic satellite equipment which provides reception while in harbour in European waters. To allow reception while at sea, two of the aircraft carriers, HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious, have been fitted with a gyro-stabilised satellite television dish. This type of dish will be also fitted to the third aircraft carrier, HMS Ark Royal, during her current refit at Rosyth. As there is no room to fit these dishes on the remaining major warships, an alternative system, which utilises existing satellite communications equipment, is currently being trialled. This system would allow the ship's crews to see broadcasts within about 12 hours of transmission. If the trials are successful, we plan to commence installation on board the major warships.

  The minor war vessels receive terrestrial television, and there are currently no plans to enhance this facility to include satellite television.

  Medical Assessment Programme
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance produced by his Department's Medical Assessment Programme for the administration of tests to monitor the effects of depleted uranium exposure experienced by military and medical auxiliary personnel involved in the Gulf War in 1991. [102175]
  32W
  Mr. Spellar
  MAP policy on testing for uranium was set out in a MOD paper published on 19 March 1999 entitled "Testing for the Presence of Depleted Uranium—The Current Position". A copy of the paper is in the Library of the House. In summary, testing for uranium is carried out when, in the judgment of the MAP physician, there is a clinical need. The patient is required to provide urine over a 24-hour period which is then tested by a suitably accredited laboratory. Advice on Depleted Uranium is contained in the MOD' s publication intended for GPs and other health professionals entitled "Gulf Veterans' Illnesses: Information Pack" dated May 1999. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  I have in addition offered to arrange independent testing specifically for depleted uranium for those Gulf veterans who have privately had their urine tested for depleted uranium in Canada. This offer was made specifically to address the concerns of those tested. A draft protocol, under which this testing will take place, has been passed to veterans associations and others for comment. I will place a copy of the agreed protocol in the Library of the House in due course.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 December 1999,Official Report, column 454W, on the terms of service of young people in the armed forces, if he will list the steps to which he referred and by which his Department will ensure the compatibility of personnel policies with the Human Rights Act 1998. [102445]

  Mr. Spellar
  Further to my answer of 7 December 1999,Official Report, column 454W, my Department maintains a constant review of its personnel policies. We have not yet identified any need to make changes to the current terms of service of young people in order to ensure compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998.

  RAF Chinook
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the inquiry by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch into the RAF Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre was independent of his Department; and if he will make a statement. [101402]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) is an independent part of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is not unusual for the Ministry of Defence to take advantage of their expertise to examine the site of a military aircraft accident and/or undertake a full or limited wreckage analysis; this was the case with the Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre.

  Military Air Accident Investigations
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if reports by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch into military accidents are placed in the public domain. [101403]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) investigate all accidents involving civil aircraft in the United Kingdom and its reports are published by The Stationary Office. If both
  33W
  military and civil aircraft are involved, a military Board of Inquiry will run in parallel with the AAIB investigation whose report will be published in the usual way.

  If a civilian aircraft is not involved, a RAF Board of Inquiry may, if it wishes, seek the assistance of the AAIB to examine the accident site and/or undertake a full or limited wreckage analysis. The AAIB report then forms part of the evidence of the Board of Inquiry. These reports are not published but may be provided to the next of kin in the event of a fatality as an Annexe to the Board of Inquiry findings. The next of kin are not restricted on copying the report further.

  Depleted Uranium Ordnance
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the firing of depleted uranium shells at the Kirkcudbright range; and if he will estimate the approximate number of shells which landed in the waters of the Solway in the last 15 years. [102452]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Tam Dalyell, dated 13 December 1999:
  I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about Depleted Uranium (DU) firings at the Kirkcudbright Range since these firings are now conducted by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) on behalf of MOD.
  DU has been fired at the Kirkcudbright Range since 1982 and there is a continuing need for proof testing of the ammunition while it remains in service. Over the last 15 years, some 6350 rounds have been fired into the Solway Firth. A programme of environmental monitoring has been in place at the range since 1982. The monitoring programme has confirmed that there are only low levels of DU contamination which are well below anything that could be considered a health hazard either to those who work at the sites or those living nearby.
  In addition, in 1993 the MOD commissioned the consultants WS Atkins to conduct an independent environmental impact assessment of the firing of DU. The report of the study concluded that there was no significant risk to the public or to site personnel form air emissions from malfunctioning DU projectiles or marine food chain sources. A copy of that report has been placed in the House Library. Our own comprehensive environmental monitoring programme continues to confirm that this is still the case. The monitoring reports are all within the public domain; the most recent one was presented at a public meeting of the Dumfries and Galloway Stewartry Area Committee on 22 September 1999.
  DERA, however, is not complacent about these results. We work, closely, as you may know, with local interested parties and, in particular, have a close relationship with the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA). To this end, a meeting between representatives from DERA's Test & Evaluation Ranges Sector and Radiation Protection Services and SEPA was held on 29 November to review the progress on monitoring and to discuss plans for the future.

  Hostile Aircraft
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hostile aircraft have been shot down by Royal Air Force and Royal Navy fighters in the past 25 years; and if he will make a statement. [102455]

  Mr. Spellar
  The only conflict in the last 25 years in which Royal Navy and Royal Air Force aircraft have shot down hostile aircraft was the Falklands conflict of 1982.
  34W
  Twenty-three Argentine aircraft were shot down, of which 17 were downed by Fleet Air Arm pilots and six were shot down by RAF pilots serving with Naval Air Squadrons.

  Beef Suppliers
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the country of origin of beef sold to UK forces(a) in the UK, (b) in Gibraltar, (c) in the Falkland Islands, (d) in Kosovo and (e) in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement. [102456]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The supply of food to our Armed Forces in the UK and overseas is contracted out. My Department does not specify the source from which our contractors should obtain beef (or any other products) but expects them to seek the best market price, whilst giving full consideration to British products. The beef currently supplied to our Armed Forces based in the UK is 100 per cent. British beef. The beef supplied for our service personnel based in Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, Kosovo and Bosnia is presently sourced primarily from Australia, New Zealand, Uruguay and Brazil.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if any zones in the Millennium Dome will not be fully functioning by(a) 10 December, (b) 24 December and (c) 31 December. [98822]

  Janet Anderson
  Work continues to complete the individual exhibit zones within the Dome. Zones are being completed in phases so as to enable the effective management of the overall site logistics, including contractor vehicle and staff movements. I am advised that all the zones will be fully functioning by the time of the opening celebration on 31 December 1999.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many parking spaces are currently allocated for very important persons at the Millennium Dome. [99320]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 24 November 1999]: Through its marketing and ticketing strategies, the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is encouraging visitors to leave their cars and join public transport as close to their homes as possible. In addition, travel and tour operators are offering attractive travel and Dome admission packages. NMEC has parking capacity away from the Dome but close to good public transport links to North Greenwich using existing car parks where possible. When, in exceptional circumstances, NMEC is advised that parking is required for a particular VIP visit, it will be accommodated. There are no parking spaces dedicated for use by VIPs visiting the Dome.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many tickets to the Millennium Dome within the first eight weeks for which they were on sale were(a) sold at full single adult rate, (b) sold at full single child rate, (c) sold at full family rate, (d) sold at discounted rates, (e) given away to sponsors, (f) given away in competition and (g) otherwise disposed of. [99335]
  35W
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is concerned not to affect the ongoing success of ticket sales through publication of selected statistics at this stage. Ticket sales and reservations are running ahead of expectations and, at over one million, are far outstripping advance sales for any visitor attraction anywhere in the world for 2000. I am confident that NMEC will achieve its 12 million visitor target and that the resulting income targets will also be met, enabling the project, over its lifetime, to be delivered within the –758 million cash budget set for it in February 1997. I can confirm categorically that no tickets have been given away free to sponsors.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he intends to write to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central concerning ticket sales for the Millennium Experience following his answer of 11 November 1999,Official Report, column 834W. [100677]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]: I wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) on 6 December and arranged for a copy of my response to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the Mayor and Assembly of London will be permitted to make a bid during the eventual sale of the Millennium Dome. [101315]

  Janet Anderson
  The competition for the future of the Dome is well underway and we hope to announce a final shortlist of bidders early in the new year. This is prior to the Mayoral election and formation of the Assembly.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the timetable for the disposal of the Millennium Dome. [100260]

  Janet Anderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 2 December 1999,Official Report, column 324W.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the criteria are for allocation of tickets for the Millennium Dome celebrations on 31 December 1999; and if he will make a statement. [99854]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The New Millennium Experience Company, in liaison with the Government and others, has aimed to achieve an inclusive, exciting event, embracing a wide range of people of all ages and backgrounds and with the majority from "ordinary" life, and others who have made a contribution to, or have a responsibility for some aspect of, the project. The criteria for the allocation of tickets has been framed accordingly. As NMEC announced in June 1999, up to 3,000 of the approximate 10,000 guests are being drawn from national and local newspaper competitions; other public tickets are going to Millennium Commission Award Winners and members of the public associated with Millennium Commission projects, together with residents from the London Borough of Greenwich as the "host" borough. In addition, some of the project's sponsors are running public competitions. NMEC's further press release on 4 November gave details
  36W
  of how the celebration to open the Dome will be a passionate, powerful and spectacular event befitting the nation's welcome to the new Millennium.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which celebrities have agreed to perform in the Millennium Dome on 31 December. [101619]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]: As the New Millennium Experience Company announced on 4 November, there will be a combined cast of over 900 performers using music, dance, and carnival, to move and inspire the audience within the Dome and the world-wide television audience of billions on 31 December 1999. The celebrations will start with the arrival of Her Majesty the Queen, following which the Archbishop of Canterbury will read the Lord's Prayer. The celebrations will feature Paul Daniel (Director of the English National Opera) directing an 80 piece orchestra, a mixed choir of more than 400, Jools Holland and his big band, and celebrity soloists from the worlds of popular and classical music. Announcements about other individual performers will be made in due course.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been spent on publicity for(a) the Millennium Dome and (b) the Big Time Millennium eve celebrations; what is the total budget for these projects; and in terms of both current spend and projected budgets, if he will break this down by (i) consultants, including outside PR agencies, (ii) press offices, (iii) advertising and (iv) other expenses. [101618]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]: The New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) marketing, communications and commercial budget, for the Millennium Experience, which includes the costs of publicity is set out in the company's Annual Report and Financial Statements to 31 March and was published in July 1999. NMEC considers that individual components of that budget are commercially confidential and that publication of the information in the categories requested would adversely impact on the company's ability to obtain optimum value for money from future procurement of the services set out, and would adversely impact on the company's relationship with its existing contractors in those fields. In the absence of a London-wide authority, and at the invitation of relevant Government Departments, statutory authorities, and the Millennium Commission, NMEC agreed in December 1998 to take responsibility for the co-ordination and management of the Big Time event, which focuses on new year's eve celebrations in central London on and alongside the River Thames between Vauxhall Bridge and Tower Bridge and at other specific locations nearby. Big Time is supported by the Millennium Commission as part of its Millennium Festival programme and London is one of 22 cities being supported in this way. The resources for Big Time are separate from those of the Millennium Experience's £758 million cash budget, but they will be accounted for by NMEC in the company's next Annual Report and Financial Statements, which will cover the period 1 April 1999 to 31 December 1999 and will be published in the new year. Details of the individual contracts relevant to Big Time are considered by NMEC to be commercially confidential.

  Departmental Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much his Department has spent on Ministerial transport in each of the last two years. [98700]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The total cost of providing the Government Car Service for my Department was £318,807 in 1997–98 and £351,875 in 1998–99.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many representations he has received(a) in favour of and (b) against the suggested supplement to the licence fee for digital television purposes. [99322]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 24 November 1999]: To date we have received 543 representations on the independent review panel's recommendation for a digital licence supplement. Of those (a) 14 were in favour and (b) 529 were against the proposal.

  BBC World Service Television
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what recent representations he has received concerning the BBC's decision to remove current affairs and analysis programmes from the schedules of the BBC World Service Television; and if he will make a statement; [101361]

  (2) if he will meet the Chairman of the BBC to discuss the proposed reductions in resources and personnel in BBC World Service Television. [101377]

  Janet Anderson
  We have received three representations from hon. Members and their constituents. I have no present plans to meet the Chairman of the BBC to discuss BBC World, as it is a long standing principle that the Government do not intervene in the BBC's programming and editorial issues.

  BBC Funding
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the resolution of the National Assembly for Wales of 16 November concerning the future funding of the BBC; and what response he plans to make. [101646]

  Janet Anderson
  We are currently considering the recommendations of the independent review panel on the future funding of the BBC in the light of the responses to the public consultation and will take the National Assembly for Wales' resolution into account as part of that process. We expect to announce our final decisions in January.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if Pannell Kerr Forster will accept external submissions to their review of the future funding of the BBC; [102418]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that the views of the commercial broadcasting sector will be taken into account in the review of the BBC's funding being undertaken by Pannell Kerr Forster. [102417]
  38W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  Pannell Kerr Forster are carrying out a tightly focused but detailed study of the BBC's finances to give us the information we need to reach a decision on the appropriate level of funding for the BBC up to 2006. It is not part of Pannell Kerr Forster's terms of reference to take account of views submitted in response to the public consultation or to accept external submissions. We will, of course, be taking account of the views of the commercial broadcasting sector, and everyone else who responded to the public consultation, in reaching our conclusions.

  World Cup 2006
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the current situation in respect of England's bid for the 2006 World Cup. [101349]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: The Government are providing the fullest diplomatic and promotional support for the Football Association's bid to stage the 2006 World Cup. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), in his capacity as the Government's Special Envoy on 2006, was in New Zealand, Thailand and Korea recently with a Football Association delegation to promote the bid. We will continue to do so between now and the decision by the FIFA Executive Committee next July. It is an excellent bid.

  In late October, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, and myself, met a FIFA Inspection Group. The FIFA delegates, who visited England to inspect the facilities, described England's bid and its stadiums as "outstanding".

  Tourism (North-West)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimates he has made of the value of the tourism industry to(a) the North West, (b) Greater Manchester and (c) Bolton in each of the last three years. [101666]

  Janet Anderson
  Tourism expenditure in(a) the North West and (b) Greater Manchester by visitors who stayed at least one night is as follows for each of the last three years:

  £ million

  1996

  1997

  1998

  North West

  1,850

  1,919

  1,790

  Greater Manchester

  413

  444

  405

  Source:

  UK Tourism Survey, International Passenger Survey.

  Official sources do not provide reliable estimates of tourism expenditure in Bolton or any other sub-county local authority areas.

  It is likely that the inclusion of the spending during tourism day visits would at least double these amounts.

  James Bond Film
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what location fee was paid to the New Millennium Experience Company by the producers of the film, "The World is not Enough". [101647]

  Janet Anderson
  A commercial rate was paid to NMEC by the makers of the film. The contractual arrangements reflect normal practice in the commercial sector and are subject to confidentiality requirements applicable to both parties.

  Duty Free
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations his Department has received from international tourism organisations on travellers' understanding of the new duty free system. [101629]

  Janet Anderson
  Since the abolition of duty-free sales to intra-EU travellers on 30 June 1999, my Department has received no representations from international tourism organisations about passengers' understanding of the new successor regime for ships and aircraft. I am advised that Customs and Excise are working very closely with the trade to ease the transition and make sure that accounting arrangements are made as simple as possible.

  Religious Organisations (Broadcasting Licences)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his plans to review the law prohibiting religious organisations from holding national radio broadcasting licences. [102215]

  Janet Anderson
  We are considering the introduction of early broadcasting and communications legislation to ensure that a regulatory framework is in place which recognises the developments across those industries. The ownership of radio licences for religious broadcasting will be one of the issues for consideration in that context.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Nuclear Deterrence Policy
  Mr. Tony Benn
  To ask the Solicitor-General what advice he has sought on the legality of British nuclear deterrence policy. [102132]

  The Solicitor-General
  As a matter of convention (observed by successive Governments) neither the substance of the Law Officers' advice on a question, nor the fact that they have been consulted, is disclosed outside Government, other than in exceptional circumstances. I can however confirm that legal considerations are always taken fully into account in the formulation and application of defence policy. The Government are confident that Britain's nuclear policy and posture, as set out most recently in the Strategic Defence Review, are entirely compatible with our obligations under international law.

  Mr. Tony Benn
  To ask the Solicitor-General what representations he has received about permission for a private prosecution of those responsible within 40W
  Government for infringements of international humanitarian law based on the Government's nuclear deterrence policy. [102131]

  The Solicitor-General
  My office receives letters from the public from time to time on the Government's nuclear deterrence policy. A request for permission for a private prosecution under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 was received last year. However, the Law Officers take the view that the application of the Government's nuclear deterrence policy does not involve an infringement of either domestic or international law, and accordingly permission was not given.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Spending Revisions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 25 November 1999,Official Report, column 197W, on spending revisions, if he will provide a breakdown of the savings arising from changing disability benefit caseloads broken down between the different disability benefits. [101063]

  Mr. Darling
  The information is in the table.

  The figures are consistent with those published in the November 1999 pre-Budget Report, and show expenditure in Great Britain.

  £ million

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Attendance Allowance

  —45

  —114

  —161

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  —28

  —50

  —71

  Disability Living Allowance

  —131

  —330

  —545

  Incapacity Benefit

  —47

  —90

  —142

  Total

  —250

  —585

  —920

  Notes:

  1. The figures may not appear to sum due to rounding.

  2. The forecast of expenditure on these benefits has used administrative data newly available since the forecast made for the March 1999 Budget. The new information on awards of the benefits indicated that estimates of future caseload levels should be lower than those underlying the Budget forecast.

  Departmental Organisation
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he received the review of the work and organisation of his Department carried out by the permanent secretary at his Department; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [100913]

  Mr. Darling
  The departmental management study involves a wide-ranging programme of work which it is envisaged will continue for some time. I shall announce the conclusions in due course.

  Payment Cards
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library the results of the assessment of the recent Payment Card trials carried out by his Department in the North East and South West of England. [100914]

  Mr. Rooker
  As part of the BA/POCL project, limited trials of the Benefit Payment Card were conducted with 37,000 customers in 204 post offices in the north east and
  41W
  south west of England. In the trials, benefit payments were made using plastic magnetic stripe cards, the Benefit Payment Card, instead of outdated paper-based methods of payment. This was supported by a new automated system at post offices. The trials undertaken were limited to Child Benefit and were carried out to provide experience of live running and to inform later stages of the BA/POCL project, including a full scale live trial of all aspects of the Card method of payment and the technology to support it.

  The project, which was commissioned in 1996, suffered a series of setbacks and delays and the key milestone of a full scale live trial of the Card was not delivered. There were concerns that the project was too complex and would be undeliverable and in May 1999, the Government announced a new way forward to achieve the original objectives of the project, while simplifying it and reducing risk. Under this approach, the Benefit Payment Card element of the project was removed and, from 2003 DSS will move from paper-based methods of paying benefits to payment by automated credit transfer, a more modern, secure and efficient method of payment.

  It was clear that the Benefit Payment Card had added substantially to the complexity of the BA/POCL project, and hence to the delay that had occurred and that its continuation could only increase the risk of further slippage to the programme. There were also increasing concerns that even if the Benefit Payment Card could have been delivered, the magnetic stripe technology on which it was based looked increasingly outdated as banks and others turned their attention increasingly to smart card technology. This, together with the combination of a three year delay to the project and the escalating trend of people opting for payment by ACT, had substantially reduced the role that the Benefit Payment Card could expect to play.

  Parental Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of calculating entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit for non-resident parents on the basis of income net of any maintenance they have been assessed as liable to pay under the proposed new child support scheme. [101204]

  Angela Eagle
  We estimate that the cost of an income disregard for maintenance paid by non-resident parents in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit would be in the order of –30 million a year.

  Notes:

  1. Based on data taken from the 1996–97 Family Resources Survey uprated to 2000–2001 prices, benefits and earnings levels.

  2. Assumes an October 2001 start date. Caseloads have been projected forward on the basis of actual growth in the CSA caseload between 1996–97 and August 1999, and subsequent forecast growth until October 2001.

  3. The cost has been rounded to the nearest –10 million.

  4. This cost will include a small element of spousal maintenance, plus child maintenance which is not organised through the CSA.

  Students
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefits are available to support 19-year-old students who wish to remain in full-time secondary education at(a) maintained schools and (b) further education colleges. [101665]
  42W
  Angela Eagle
  Most students who are undertaking a full-time course of study, whether in a maintained school, college of further education or elsewhere, are not entitled to benefits as a means of supporting themselves while studying. Primary financial support for students comes from the education student support systems. However, certain students in vulnerable groups, including disabled students and students who are responsible for a child are eligible to claim Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. In addition, partners of students, who are not full-time students themselves, may claim benefits on behalf of the couple, providing they satisfy the relevant criteria.

  War Disablement Pensions
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many times over the last five years he has exercised his discretion in granting war disablement pensions in cases where claimants failed to make claims within three months of termination of service. [101667]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of War Pensions Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Gordon Hextall. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Gordon Hextall to Mr. David Crausby, dated 9 December 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question. You asked how many times over the last five years he has exercised his discretion in granting war disablement pensions in cases where claimants failed to make claims within three months of termination of service.
  The War Pensions Agency does not keep statistics relating to the information that you require. This information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  It may help if I were to explain that the legislation under which such pensions are awarded is Schedule 3, Article 65 of the Naval, Military and Air Forces (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983. This provides that where a claim is not made within 3 months from termination of service, payment of pension shall not be made for any period before the date of claim, unless the Secretary of State's discretion is used.
  The Secretary of State's discretion is only used in exceptional circumstances where it is considered reasonable to do so. Examples would be where there has been Departmental error or misdirection, or where the claimant was prevented by illness from, or had some other good reason for, not claiming earlier. The Agency considers the individual merits of each case when considering the claim.
  I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, I will be happy to assist.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners are currently in receipt of a United Kingdom state pension in(a) the USA and (b) the EU, excluding the UK; and if he will estimate how many (i) United States citizens and (ii) citizens of the EU, excluding the United Kingdom, who are domiciled in the United Kingdom are in receipt of a retirement pension from their country of origin. [102124]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  The number of overseas pensioners who were in receipt of a United Kingdom State Retirement Pension or Widow's Benefit at July 1999 is estimated at 110,000 in the USA and

  43W
  222,000 in the EU (excluding UK). At September 1999 there were some 23,000 former US residents in the UK receiving US retirement or widow's benefits.

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Benefits (Automated Credit Transfer)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on the Government's plans for payment of benefits by automated credit transfer. [102238]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) on 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 374W.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it is his intention that, by 2005, all benefits will be paid into bank accounts through the automated credit transfer system. [102450]

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that recipients of benefits who do not choose to have benefits paid by automated credit transfer retain the option of payment by order book. [102241]

  Mr. Rooker
  Starting in 2003 we will be moving to a more modern, secure and efficient method of paying benefits through automated credit transfer (ACT). Payment by ACT will become the norm for paying benefits and the move to ACT will be completed in 2005.

  Final consultancy expenditure

  Management consultants

  IT consultants

  Total

  1997–98

  Headquarters

  448,955.30

  1,480,765.97

  1,929,712.27

  Independent Statutory Body

  34,182.70

  35,214.33

  69,397.03

  Benefits Agency

  7,749,889.74

  3,026,673.24

  10,776,562.98

  Contributions Agency

  196,832.43

  433,165.36

  629,997.79

  Child Support Agency

  334,344.96

  —

  334,344.96

  War Pensions Agency

  113,646.04

  44,714.25

  158,360.29

  Information Technology Services Agency

  2,690,542.90

  3,298,078.42

  5,988,621.32

  Total

  11,568,394.07

  8,318,602.57

  19,886,996.64

  1998–99

  Headquarters

  2,958,491.58

  1,644,500.02

  4,602,991.60

  Independent Statutory Body

  112,130.29

  2,240.00

  114,370.29

  Benefits Agency

  7,153,738.38

  7,302,862.98

  14,456,601.36

  Contributions Agency

  419,792.10

  673,328.50

  1,093,120.60

  Child Support Agency

  198,868.56

  0.00

  198,868.56

  War Pensions Agency

  306,915.25

  73,326.65

  380,241.90

  Information Technology Services Agency

  1,829,312.36

  4,532,311.51

  6,361,623.87

  Total

  12,979,248.52

  14,228,569.66

  27,207,818.18

  1999 to October 1999

  Headquarters

  1,822,083.84

  313,644.84

  2,135,728.68

  Independent Statutory Body

  21,602.48

  0.00

  21,602.48

  Benefits Agency

  10,021,830.60

  3,997,569.32

  14,019,399.92

  Contributions Agency

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Child Support Agency

  377,982.29

  24,490.19

  402,472.48

  War Pensions Agency

  7,699.68

  3,808.00

  11,507.68

  Information Technology Services Agency

  854,986.87

  1,218,525.51

  2,073,512.39

  Total

  13,106,186.76

  5,558,037.87

  18,664,223.63

  44W
  However, there will have to be some, limited, exceptions. We have given an assurance that those benefit recipients, whether paid by ACT or otherwise, who wish to collect their benefits in cash at Post Offices, will continue to be able to do so.

  Information Technology Services Agency
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the objectives of the strategic outsourcing project of the Information Technology Services Agency. [102422]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department faces ever more complex business change in order to deliver a modern, responsive welfare service to the public. Key to the successful achievement of the required business change is the provision of modern IT services. In defining the Department's strategic direction, the overall objective has been to achieve a sustainable organisation in support of DSS IS/IT provision which also preserves the best possible career opportunities for staff. We believe that outsourcing the Department's IT provision will provide the best way of delivering its IS/IT needs while securing a better long-term future for it's staff.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have spent on external consultants and advisers since May 1997. [102077]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.
  45W

  Independent statutory bodies (ISB) breakdown

  Management consultants

  IT consultants

  1997–98

  The Appeals Service

  0.00

  0.00

  Central Adjudication Service

  0.00

  0.00

  Pensions Ombudsman

  0.00

  35,214.33

  Independent Review Service

  34,182.70

  0.00

  Total

  34,182.70

  35,214.33

  1998–99

  The Appeals Service

  0.00

  0.00

  Central Adjudication Service

  0.00

  0.00

  Pensions Ombudsman

  0.00

  2,240.00

  Independent Review Service

  112,130.29

  0.00

  Total

  112,130.29

  2,240.00

  1999 to October 1999

  The Appeals Service

  0.00

  0.00

  Central Adjudication Service

  0.00

  0.00

  Pensions Ombudsman

  0.00

  0.00

  Independent Review Service

  0.00

  0.00

  Total

  21,602.48

  0.00

  Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA)

  Year

  Management Consultants

  IT consultants

  1997–98

  377,000.00

  395,000.00

  1998–99

  485,980.83

  943,541.52

  1999 to October 1999

  436,538.98

  301,446.39

  Note:

  OPRA expenditure—(OPRA is classed as an Independent Statutory Body and an executive non-departmental public body. It is not funded directly from vote 3, it is funded by grant in aid).

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the total cost was of Housing Benefit in

  Housing benefit recipients in Great Britain and Scotland

  Great Britain

  Scotland

  Recipients of:

  Thousand

  Percentage

  Thousand

  Percentage

  All housing benefit

  4,372

  10

  518

  13

  Local authority

  2,590

  6

  383

  9

  All private (excluding Housing association)

  923

  2

  55

  1

  Housing association

  859

  2

  80

  2

  Notes:

  1. The figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and percentages to the nearest whole per cent.

  2. The percentage quoted is a proportion of the population aged over 16 in the relevant country, and is an estimate based on 1996 mid-year Population estimate figures provided by the Office for National Statistics.

  3. Recipients refer to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  4. The Question asks for details of how many people in privately owned accommodation receive Housing Benefit. However, people who own their accommodation are not entitled to Housing Benefit.

  5. Information is for Great Britain only. For information about Northern Ireland the hon. Member should refer to the Minister for the Department of Social Development.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, quarterly 100 per cent. caseload counts, taken in February 1999.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social report was published in October 1998 and a copy is Security what estimate he has made of the level of available in the Library. housing benefit fraud among benefit claimants living in public sector accommodation. [102384]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is contained in tables 16 and 17 of the Government Statistical Service's report on the methodology and findings of the 1997–98 National Housing Benefit Accuracy Review. The
  46W
  (a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland in each of the last five years; and what his estimate is of the cost of Housing Benefit in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) Scotland in each of the next three years. [102381]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Total cost of Housing Benefit in Great Britain and Scotland in each of the last five years and the estimated cost for each of the next three years

  £ million cash

  Great Britain

  Scotland

  1994–95

  10,103

  864

  1995–96

  10,876

  907

  1996–97

  11,380

  967

  1997–98

  11,180

  1,017

  1998–99

  11,156

  1,034

  1999–2000

  11,485

  1,069

  2000–01

  12,115

  1,124

  2001–02

  12,731

  1,177

  Notes:

  1. The information for 1994–95 to 1997–98 is final outturn, 1998–99 information is estimated outturn and the figures for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 are forecasts.

  2. This Department can only provide information on Great Britain. For information about Northern Ireland the hon. Member should refer to the Minister for the Department of Social Development.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many housing benefit recipients there are in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland in (i) council housing, (ii) private rented accommodation, (iii) privately owned accommodation and (iv) other public sector rented accommodation broken down by type; and what proportion this represents in each case of the relevant population. [102383]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  report was Published in October 1998 and a copy is available in the Library.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what (i) percentage and (ii) number of households in the UK claim one or more(a) in-work and (b) means-tested benefits. [102246]
  47W
  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Percentage and number of households in Great Britain claiming one or more in-work and means-tested benefit

  Number of households (millions)

  Percentage of private households (Great Britain)

  In-work benefits

  1.0

  4

  Means-tested benefits

  6.8

  29

  Notes:

  1. Figures are given at a point in time. For In-work benefits this is May 1998, for estimates for means-tested benefits this is 1997–98 which is the latest information that is available.

  2. Means-tested benefits are Income Support, Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Family Credit, Disability Working Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, Social Fund and Back to Work Bonus.

  3. In-work benefits are Family Credit, Disability Working Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Claimants aged 60 or over are only included where the claimant and or partner have earnings (either part-time or full-time) recorded.

  4. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  5. Where benefits overlap, only one benefit has been taken into account.

  6. In-work benefit data includes second adult rebate cases.

  7. Estimates from the FRS are based on sample counts, which have been adjusted for non response using multipurpose grossing factors that control for region, Council Tax and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non response.

  8. All data relate to Great Britain rather than the United Kingdom as FRS data Cover GB.

  Source:

  1. Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards

  2. Disability Working Allowance 100 per cent. count of claims

  3. Housing Benefit Management Information system annual 1 per cent. sample May 1998

  4. Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance Family Resources Survey 1997–98

  Terminal Illness
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to provide financial support for partners and close relatives of terminally ill people. [102537]

  Mr. Bayley
  A person who is diagnosed as terminally ill can be awarded, among other benefits, the highest rate care component of Disability Living Allowance or the higher rate of Attendance Allowance. This award may entitle someone caring for that person, including a partner or close relative, to Invalid Care Allowance and, if appropriate the carer premium of Income Support.

  The National Carers strategy commits us to keeping financial support for carers under review, which we are doing.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Pakistan
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the total value of overseas aid; to what projects such aid is allocated in Pakistan; and if she will make a statement. [102406]
  48W
  Clare Short
  DFID spent £2,354 million on overseas development assistance in the 1998–99 UK Financial year, of which £25.18 million was for Pakistan.

  Our bilateral programme to Pakistan targets poverty reduction and improved access by the poor to basic services, such as elementary education and primary health care. Following the military coup on 12 October, I announced a freeze on all direct development assistance to the Government. Our support is continuing through non-governmental channels. These include the Aga Khan Development Network and the Save the Children Fund.

  The projects which we are continuing to support include rural development and health programmes for poor communities in Chitral and Northern Areas, and measures to reduce child labour in Sialkot. We have recently allocated £800,000 through a local nongovernmental organisation to provide 'micro-credit' for poor women in and around Lahore to improve their income earning opportunities. The full list of projects is as follows:
  Aga Khan Rural Support Programme, Chitral District;
  Aga Khan Rural Support Programme, Gilgit District;
  Primary Health Care Programme, Chitral District;
  Family Planning Association of Pakistan: 'Doorsteps' Community Based Family Planning;
  Marketing of Hormonal Contraceptives through the Private Sector (Futures Group);
  Social Marketing of Condoms (Population Services International);
  Family Planning Association of Pakistan: Audio Visual Vans to inform Communities in remote areas;
  Pakistan Association for Voluntary Health and Nutrition (PAVHNA): Reproductive Health in Sindh and Punjab;
  Protecting the Rights of Working Children in Sialkot, Punjab Province;
  Lachi Poverty Reduction Project, North West Frontier Province;
  Kashf Foundation: Micro-Credit for Poor Women (Lahore);
  Sindh Education Foundation: Community Primary Schools in Sindh Province;
  Frontier Education Foundation: Community Primary Schools in North West Frontier Province;
  Small Grants Scheme: Miscellaneous small grants to non-government organisations engaged in poverty reduction and human rights.

  Departmental Employees (Disabled People)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of the total workforce in her Department is registered as disabled; and what steps she is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people in her Department. [102045]

  Clare Short
  At present, 1.8 per cent. of staff in my Department have declared a disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  Our recruitment adverts say that we are committed to a policy of equal opportunities and encourage applicants from all sectors of the community. At the recruitment stage applicants are invited to tell us if they have a disability for which they need reasonable adjustment made during the selection process. We have met all requests so far. We also make adjustments for staff who develop disabilities during the course of their employment with us.

  Southern Africa
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to her European counterparts concerning the development of a regional action programme on small arms in Southern Africa. [101929]

  Clare Short
  DFID funded a seminar last year organised by Saferworld and the South African Institute for Security Studies to consider how to tackle the proliferation of small arms in Southern Africa. The conference was attended by representatives from a number of EU countries and Governments from the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) region, plus other Governments and organisations interested in small arms proliferation.

  Participants identified a number of practical ways in which countries in Southern Africa could co-operate and how the EU might help. Participants agreed an EU/SADC regional action programme which set out four main elements for action, namely measures to combat illicit trafficking including strengthening laws and operational capacity, strengthening regulations on accumulation and transfer of arms, promoting collection and destruction of surplus arms, and enhancing transparency and information exchange on arms issues. The Programme was subsequently endorsed by EU/SADC Ministers in Vienna in November 1998.

  I discussed the issue of small arms proliferation with other Development Ministers in the European Council in May this year. The Council subsequently adopted a Resolution on small arms.

  Target Strategy Papers
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she will release for consultation the target strategy papers currently being drafted. [102203]

  Clare Short
  We shall be releasing the Target Strategy Papers individually for external consultation as they become ready. The first paper has just been sent out for consultation and the other will be issued over the next few months.

  Civil Society Strengthening
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will set out her Department's strategy on strengthening civil society following the consultation process earlier this year. [102202]

  Clare Short
  A report on the civil society consultation process was published in February this year.

  This led on to the announcement of the launch of The Civil Society Challenge Fund and partnership Programme Agreements. I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 26 July 1999, Official Report, columns 12–13W, which set out the objectives of these mechanisms.

  The Guidelines on the Civil Society Challenge Fund were published in September. In my forward I set out the reasons why a strong civil society is a crucial element in the fight against poverty and the importance we attach to strengthening civil society, in both poor and transition countries.

  Drugs Control Programme
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how she plans to evaluate the effectiveness of the UN International Drugs Control Programme's drug reduction programme in drug-producing regions. [102494]

  Clare Short
  My Department routinely monitors and periodically reviews all the major projects we fund to assess their effectiveness, including those managed by the UN International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP). Monitoring and review is systematically undertaken in order to assess DFID-assisted interventions in terms of their relevance, effectiveness and efficiency and, as far as possible, their impact and sustainability. We also subject a small proportion of our projects and programmes to rigorous ex-post evaluation. We have also welcomed UNDCP's plans to strengthen their own evaluation and monitoring procedures.

  Kashmiri Refugees (Pakistan)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department provides for Kashmiri refugees in Pakistan. [102495]

  Clare Short
  We are not currently providing any assistance for these refugees, but would be willing to consider doing so if a suitable channel for our funds could be identified. At present, neither the UN High Commissioner for Refugees nor the International Committee of the Red Cross is operating on the Pakistan side of the Line of Control.

  So far as bilateral assistance is concerned, our freedom and ability to operate effectively is constrained by the difficult security and other circumstances which prevail there. However, two British non-governmental organisations have been assessing the humanitarian needs in the region, and we await their reports.

HEALTH

  National Burn Care Review
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the terms of reference are of the National Burn Care Review. [100497]

  Mr. Denham
  This is a professionally led review being carried out by the British Burn Association. Copies of the terms of reference have been placed in the Library.

  Primary Care
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he will give to primary care groups to ensure that they apply a policy of equal opportunities in their planning and service delivery. [101612]

  Mr. Denham
  As sub-committees of a health authority, primary care groups are bound to follow the guidelines and legislation set out in respect to equal opportunities. Existing health authority guidance states that services must be equitable, both in terms of accessibility and range, in order to ensure that high standards of care exist across the entire National Health Service.
  51W
  Primary care trust guidance will be issued shortly, which emphasises PCTs' responsibility to promote equality of opportunity in their treatment of staff and the provision of services to the whole community.

  Nursing Vacancies
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nursing vacancies and (b) hard to fill nursing vacancies there are, broken down by region. [101611]

  Mr. Denham
  The available information is contained in the table.

  Department of Health recruitment, retention and vacancies survey Vacancies in NHS Trusts by region; all nursing staff, including midwifery, as at 31 March 1999

  whole time equivalents

  Qualified nurses

  Total vacancies1

  3 month vacancies2

  England total

  14,950

  6,820

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1,040

  390

  Trent

  930

  360

  West Midlands

  1,530

  700

  North West

  1,640

  680

  Eastern

  1,280

  550

  London

  4,880

  2,350

  South East

  2,620

  1,450

  South West

  1,020

  350

  whole time equivalents

  Unqualified nurses

  Total vacancies1

  3 month vacancies2

  England total

  1,170

  360

  Northern and Yorkshire

  120

  40

  Trent

  70

  20

  West Midlands

  120

  30

  North West

  120

  30

  Eastern

  180

  30

  London

  150

  60

  South East

  300

  130

  South West

  100

  20

  whole time equivalents

  All nurses

  Total Vacancies1

  3 month vacancies2

  England total

  16,120

  7,180

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1,170

  420

  Trent

  1,000

  380

  West Midlands

  1,650

  740

  North West

  1,760

  710

  Eastern

  1,460

  580

  London

  5,030

  2,410

  South East

  2,910

  1,570

  South West

  1,120

  360

  1 Posts that Trusts were actively trying to fill at 31 March 1999.

  2 Posts that had been vacant for 3 months or more at 31 March 1999.

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Department of Health Recruitment, Retention and Vacancies Survey 1999

  Hospital Beds
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the minimum and (b) the maximum occupancy of intensive care and high dependency beds (i) at the Royal Bolton Hospital and (ii) in each region of England during the winter months of 1998–99. [101676]

  Mr. Denham
  Available information is the average daily number of available and occupied beds by ward type for each National Health Service Trust. This is published annually in "Bed Availability and Occupancy, England", copies of which are available in the Library. However, as wards classified as "intensive care" may contain high dependency beds and general beds, we have piloted a new census focusing specifically on adult intensive care and high dependency beds. We expect to publish the results shortly.

  Runwell Medium Secure Unit
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health what plans he has to close Runwell Medium secure Unit, Essex; and if the make a statement. [101734]

  Mr. Hutton
  Southend Community care Services National Health Service trust is preparing plans for the reprovision of all services currently on the Runwell Hospital site, including the Medium Secure Unit.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many professional care workers, care assistants and registered nurses there are in England caring for the elderly outside the NHS.[101897]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally. For directly employed local authority care workers, I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 24 November 1999,Official Report, column 144W. Information is not available on staff working in the independent and voluntary sector or on nursing staff employed by local authorities.

  Nurses
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered nurses practising outside the NHS have been struck off the national register held by the UK Central Council for Nurses and Midwives and have subsequently been reinstated; and in what time period this reinstatement occurred since the creation of the UK Central Council for Nurses and Midwives for all disciplinary issues and cases involving care of the elderly. [101902]

  Mr. Denham
  The national register held by the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting does not distinguish between those nurses practising outside the National Health Service and those practising within it.

  Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's policy towards treatment for Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy. [102093]
  53W
  Mr. Hutton
  Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP), also known as Factitious Illness by Proxy, is a form of abuse, usually perpetrated against a child. The term refers to a complex range of behaviours in which a person deliberately produces or feigns physical or psychological symptoms in another person who is under the individual's care. Typically the victim is a young child and the perpetrator is the child's mother.

  We recognise that suspected cases of MSBP are among the most difficult and demanding areas of activity for paediatricians and other professional groups devoted to child care and protection.

  The professionals involved are best placed to decide on the most appropriate means of determining whether MSBP is at issue and, if so, how to act in the best interests of the child and the carer throughout any intervention.

  Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients in the Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust area have waited more than 18 months for treatment; [101941]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the announcement by the North Essex Health Authority concerning patients in the Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust area who have waited more than 18 months for treatment; [101939]

  (3) what reasons a number of patients in the Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust area have been waiting more than 18 months for treatment. [101940]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: As a result of work carried out to review waiting lists and tighten procedures, a number of patients at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust have been identified as waiting over 18 months for treatment as at the end of November 1999.

  The figures for November 1999 are not due to be published until the week commencing 10 January 2000. However, Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust, in conjunction with the North Essex Health Authority and the Eastern Regional Office, are taking steps to ensure that patients identified as waiting over 18 months are treated as soon as possible.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he proposes to answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for Waveney on 24 November concerning the terms of reference of the National Burn Care Review (ref. 100497). [102600]

  Mr. Denham
  I replied to my hon. Friend today at column 50W.

  Biomedical Scientists
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the pay scales of trainee biomedical scientists in the NHS. [102346]

  Mr. Denham
  Biomedical scientists are classed as medical laboratory scientific officers (MLSOs) for pay and grading purposes. Their pay scales are attached to 54W
  a common pay spine for National Health Service professional and technical staff. The current pay scale for trainee MLSOs, effective since 1 December 1998 is:

  Spine point

  £

  00

  7,476

  01

  7,726

  02

  7,988

  03

  8,260

  04

  8,544

  05

  8,839

  06

  9,146

  07

  9,463

  08

  9,796

  Pay is negotiated in the Professional and Technical Staffs Whitley Council. The staff side is consulting their members on the NHS management side's offer of:
  An increase in national pay scales for professional and technical B staff of 3 per cent.
  An increase of 13.5 per cent. in London Weighting Allowances which will restore them to 1995 values.
  Additional increases for staff working in cytology screening, with trainee cytology screeners getting 6.6 per cent. and qualified cytology screeners getting up to 11.4 per cent.
  Additional increases for staff in the MLSO grades, with trainee MLSOs getting up to 26 per cent., and MLSO1s and some MLSO2s getting 7.1 per cent.

  If accepted this offer would produce a new pay scale for trainee MLSOs effective from 1 April 1999 of:

  Spine point

  £

  00

  9,420

  01

  9,747

  02

  10,090

  03

  10,443

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many biomedical scientists are employed in each NHS hospital trust; and at what grade. [102303]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what educational and training qualifications biomedical scientists require to gain state registration. [102347]

  Mr. Denham
  The title "state registered biomedical scientist" is not protected in law. Most biomedical scientists become state registered as medical laboratory technicians following acquisition of an approved honours degree in biomedical science and a minimum of one year's practical training in an approved laboratory. The approval of courses, qualifications and institutions for the purpose of state registration as a medical laboratory technician is a matter for the Medical Laboratory Technicians Board of the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine.

  Social Care Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safety training is mandatory for social care staff. [102386]
  55W
  Mr. Hutton
  Social care employers are under a duty to ensure that their staff are trained to lift properly and to use any equipment that is regulated by the Health and Safety Executive. The Training Organisation for the Personal Social Services will incorporate health and safety issues in the new induction training it is preparing to be made available for all social care staff.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents of violence have been recorded against social workers in each of the last five years; what measures his Department takes to monitor such incidents; and what plans he has to review the monitoring process. [102385]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information about the number of incidents of violence against social workers is not collected centrally. However, we are determined to reduce substantially the incidence of violence towards everyone working in social care. We have set up a taskforce to produce a national action plan by November 2000 with recommendations and timescales for action to reduce violence against social care staff and to promote the safety and welfare of social care workers.

  In particular, the taskforce will advise the Department on the setting of targets that social care employers will be set for the reduction of violence against social care staff, and the arrangements for monitoring progress. They will also advise social care employers on the development, implementation and monitoring of strategies to reduce violence, to train the workforce in handling confrontational situations, and to support staff who have been the victims of violent incidents.

  Social Service Authorities
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis, and on what assessment of performance, each of the local social service authorities were identified for special Government scrutiny; and in what form, and over what period, this scrutiny is to take place. [102421]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are 17 local social service authorities which are the subject of special monitoring arrangements by the Department's Social Services Inspectorate (SSI). Of these, five received adverse joint review reports; nine received adverse SSI inspection reports and three received an adverse external inquiry report into their care practices.

  These authorities have been on the monitored list from between 2 and a half years and one month. All authorities are required to develop an action plan to resolve the problems which resulted in their being monitored by the SSI.

  All 17 authorities will continue to receive special monitoring until further inspections and other assessments of their performance indicate that the requirements for improvements in their action plans have been met and that the changes are sustainable.

  Children (Leaving Care) Bill
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of extending eligibility as defined in Clause 1 of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill[Lords] to young people up to the age of 21 years. [102201]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is essential that any new duties introduced through the Children (Leaving Care) Bill are fully and properly funded as part of our commitment to improving the life chances of these young people. Work is currently under way to estimate the costs of extending assistance to young people up to the age of 21.

  Referring to the duty to assess and meet the needs of young people in and leaving care, our response to the Children's Safeguards Review stated
  "the Government is also minded to extend this duty until the young person reaches the age of 21. However, it will first study the costs, limitations and affordability of doing so".

  We remain committed to extending the duty to 18–21-year-old care leavers when finances allow. The Children (Leaving Care) Bill makes provision for this at Section 24A 4(a).

  Health and Social Care Concordat
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the health and social care concordat. [102693]

  Mr. Milburn
  The text of the Health and Social Care Concordat which will guide the work of officials has been agreed with the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales, without prejudice to the position of the Northern Ireland Executive Committee. Copies were placed in the Library on 9 December.

  Children's Homes (Regulation)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his progress towards regulating children's homes where four or fewer children are accommodated.[102213]

  Mr. Hutton
  We introduced the Care Standards Bill on 2 December into another place. Clause 38 of the Bill is intended to amend the Children Act 1989 to allow local authorities to extend regulation to small homes which are currently not registered or inspected. These are small private children's homes which accommodate fewer than four children.

  Home Chiropody Services
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of home chiropody services by health authorities in England and Wales. [102214]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is the responsibility of individual health authorities in England and Wales to assess the broad health care needs of their population, and to secure a range of hospital and community health services such as home chiropody services to meet those needs. Decisions about health care and the use of resources are best taken at local level because it is there that people's needs are best known and services can be tailored accordingly.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department will reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Witney of 5 May regarding a constituent, Dr. Kate Cropper.[102191]

  Ms Stuart
  I replied to the hon. Member on 8 December.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if any of the field trials in the UK of GM maize crops during 1999 under part C of Council Directive 90/220/EEC have not appeared on the DETR public register for GMO releases. [101716]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  A Part C consent for cultivation of a GM crop, issued under EU Directive 90/220/EEC, permits growing anywhere within the geographical region specified in the consent. There is no formal requirement to notify the locations of where the crop is being grown.

  AgrEvo holds a Part C consent for cultivation of GM maize (Ref: C/F/95/12/07). Information on field trials of this maize has not been placed on the statutory public register, as there is no requirement to do so. However, information on the locations of the farm-scale evaluations has been published by my Department.

PRIME MINISTER

  Appointments (Religion)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the(a) disbarments and (b) special requirements based on religion relating to appointment to positions within the Government and to functions carried out by Government Ministers. [99809]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: Special requirements apply to certain functions carried out by the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in relation to some Church of England appointments. If any of the first three of these are either Roman Catholic or Jewish, his or her ecclesiastical functions are carried out by another Minister; in the same circumstances it has been customary for the Chancellor of the Duchy's functions to be carried out by the Clerk of the Council.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the impact of the Statute Repeals Act 1989 on his ability to appoint individuals to positions within the Government on the basis of their profession of the Jewish religion. [99657]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: I am not aware that the impact of the Statute Repeals Act 1989 has any effect on my ability to appoint individuals to positions within the Government on the basis of their profession of the Jewish religion.

  Royal Family
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to seek to amend 58W
  the law to (a) allow members of the Royal family to marry a Catholic without losing their right to inherit the throne and (b) allow Roman Catholics to inherit the throne; and if he will make a statement. [99658]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The Government have always stood firmly against discrimination in all its forms, including against Roman Catholics, and it will continue to do so.

  The Government have a heavy legislative programme aimed at delivering key manifesto commitments in areas such as health, education, crime and reform of the welfare system. To bring about change to the law on succession would be a complex undertaking involving amendment or repeal of a number of items of related legislation, as well as requiring the consent of legislatures of member nations of the Commonwealth. It would raise other major constitutional issues. The Government have no plans to legislate in this area.

  Galileo Project
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Government policy towards the Galileo project; what is the assessed cost of the project; what representations he has received on the issue; what is the current status of the project; for what reasons it had been rejected by the Council; and if he will make a statement. [101015]

  The Prime Minister
  The Transport Council of the European Union, at its meeting in June, adopted a Resolution which invited the European Commission to proceed with the definition phase of Galileo in conjunction with member states and the European Space Agency. This work has begun. The Commission is required to put forward proposals to the Council on the best way to proceed with the project either independently or in co-operation with international partners by the end of 2000.

  The cost of the project is estimated to be at least £2 billion but the definition phase work will help to clarify the overall cost and the arrangements for a possible public-private partnership to fund these.

  Following the consultation exercise the Government believe further analysis needs to be done on issues such as cost, the public-private partnership, benefits to users and security arrangements. The work now being undertaken by the Commission should enable decisions on the best way forward to be taken.

  Cologne Council
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the discussions held between the European Council and President-nominate Prodi at the Cologne Council on 3 June; what were the questions raised; if he will deposit the presentation on the future Commission's work and reform programme in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [101016]

  The Prime Minister
  At the Cologne European Council, President Prodi outlined his intention to implement far reaching reform of the Commission. This will include improved financial and personnel management, a better standard of integrity and a clearer
  59W
  division of responsibilities. The Commission will publish a full programme for reform in early 2000. This will be deposited in the Library in due course.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reason the mandate of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference was set at consideration of the voting mechanics of the European Council and size of the Commission; if policy areas may also be negotiated; which policy areas he called for negotiations to cover; and if he will make a statement. [101023]

  The Prime Minister
  The Cologne European Council agreed that next year's IGC should deal with the institutional reforms necessary for the next enlargement of the Union. The Government welcome this. Enlargement is not just about the applicant countries preparing for accession, but also about the EU preparing to receive them.

  As for specifying agenda items, Cologne agreed that the IGC should focus on three key issues: the size and composition of the Commission, the reweighting of votes in the Council and a possible extension of QMV. Some related items may be added to the agenda, but these too should focus on institutional, not policy, issues.

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister what the budget is of the Performance and Innovation Unit's for(a) the current financial year and (b) for each future year for which budgets for the unit have been set. [101174]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: The Performance and Innovation Unit's budget for 1999–2000 is £2,243,000. Future years' budgets have not been set.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister how many staff there were in the Performance and Innovation Unit in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c)1999; and what plans he has for future staffing levels in the period 2000 to 2002. [1001175]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: I announced the setting up of the Performance and Innovation Unit on 28 July 1998, Official Report, columns 132–34W. The Unit was fully up and running by early 1999. Staff numbers will vary depending upon the number of projects under way and the size of the teams. Staff numbers, on a whole-time basis, were 36 at the end of 1998 and are expected to be 51 at the end of 1999. Future staffing levels will depend upon future projects.

  Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Prime Minister when the last meeting of the Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee was; and if he will publish its agenda and minutes. [101501]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 5 July 1999,Official Report, column 362W.

  Helsinki Council
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the documents relating to authority for further policy 60W
  commitment, or action, able to be given approval at the European Council Meeting at Helsinki on 10 and 11 December, indicating the parliamentary scrutiny to which the documents were subject in each case. [101616]

  The Prime Minister
  All appropriate documents are submitted for parliamentary scrutiny in accordance with the guidelines for scrutiny of European Union business.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister how many special advisers are employed in 10 Downing Street. [101454]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]: Twenty-five, one of whom is part-time and unpaid.

  Interdepartmental Ministerial Group on Animal Issues
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how often the Interdepartmental Ministerial Group on Animal Issues has met in the past year; [101747]

  (2) which is the lead Department for the Interdepartmental Ministerial Group on Animal Issues; and which Department provides the secretariat for this group; [101850]

  (3) which Ministers are represented on the Interdepartmental Ministerial Group on Animal Issues; [101746]

  (4) on how many occasions the Interdepartmental Ministerial Group on Animal Issues has discussed equine issues; and if he will indicate the specific issues discussed. [101849]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]: Ministers from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Home Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have twice met informally to take forward preparations for the Interdepartmental Ministerial Group on Animal Welfare. An announcement of the membership and remit of the Group, and of how it will take account of UK-wide animal welfare responsibilities, will be made as soon as possible.

  Chinese Embassy Bombing (Belgrade)
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has received from the United States an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade on 7 April; and if he will make a statement. [102058]

  The Prime Minister
  The circumstances which led to the accidental strike against the Chinese Embassy on 7 May were considered in detail by NATO at the time.

  State Visits
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if, when Her Majesty the Queen makes a state visit overseas, she does so in her capacity as Head of State of the United Kingdom as well as in her capacity as Head of State of the other Commonwealth countries of which she is Queen. [101404]
  61W
  The Prime Minister
  The British Government advise The Queen to undertake State Visits as Head of State of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty the Queen welcomed the President of China to London in her capacity as Head of State of the United Kingdom or as Head of State of all the Commonwealth countries of which she is Head of State; and if he will make a statement.[101405]

  The Prime Minister
  The British Government advised The Queen, as Head of State of the United Kingdom, to invite the President of the People's Republic of China on a State Visit to Britain.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Concrete
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives he is pursuing to help concrete manufacturers search for alternative fuels.[100035]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government recognise that using high calorific value wastes to replace conventional fuels in industrial processes can deliver benefits, where it is the best practicable environmental option for the waste stream. The use of alternative fuels must also meet stringent environmental controls under Integrated Pollution Control.

  The use of alternative fuels on cement kilns must represent the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost. Trials of alternative fuels are regulated by the Agency under the Substitute Fuels Protocol, which sets out detailed requirements for emissions monitoring and public consultation. If trials are successful, the Environment Agency issues authorisations which set stringent emissions limits on emissions to all environmental media, so as to protect human health and the environment.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what estimate he has made of the number of homes each year which will be removed from fuel poverty by the Government's policies; [100824]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the length of time required for the Government's programmes to end fuel poverty; [100823]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the cost of eradicating fuel poverty. [100825]

  Mr. Meacher
  Households who would require to spend more than 10 per cent. of their total households income on fuel in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime are commonly regarded as being fuel poor. 4.3 million households in England in 1996 were in this situation.
  62W
  The Government's New Home Energy Efficiency Scheme is designed to treat 460,000 households between now and April 2002 at a cost of £260 million for these years. These households should be substantially moved away from fuel poverty.

  In addition an unknown number of households will be taken out of fuel poverty as a result of other programmes including the liberalisation of the energy markets and the energy efficiency standards of performance schemes (EESOPs) which are being extended to gas suppliers and customers in the New Year.

  The inter-Ministerial group chaired jointly by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will consider the impact of these programmes. The group will then seek to develop a more accurate picture of the extent of the problem, how quickly it can be addressed, and at what cost, so that a target date can be set for the elimination of fuel poverty in England. Some of the policy initiatives in this area, such as the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, are devolved functions. Therefore a target date for Scotland and Wales would be a matter for the Parliament and Assembly respectively.

  A41 (Aylesbury)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his latest estimate of the average number of vehicles using the(a) A41 ring road, Aylesbury, and (b) A41 Bicester road, Aylesbury (i) each day and (ii) during peak hours. [101118]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Richard Thorndike, on behalf of Mr. Peter Nutt, to Mr. David Lidington, dated 13 December 1999:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, Keith Hill, to reply to your recent parliamentary question about the latest estimates of the average number of vehicles using the A41 ring road, Aylesbury and the A41 Bicester Road, Aylesbury. I am replying in the absence of the Chief Executive, Peter Nutt.
  The following figures were recorded in June 1999. The Highways Agency has a traffic counter in Friarage Road, and this recorded an average two-way traffic flow of 30,676 vehicles per day. The highest hourly flows were 2,655 vehicles between 8.00am and 9.00am, and 2,442 between 5.00pm and 6.00pm both during the week. There are no counters on Bicester Road, but the closest on the A41 is near Fleet Marston approximately 1 mile away. This recorded two-way flows of 15,041 vehicles per day, and the highest weekday hourly flows were 1,437 vehicles and 1,466 vehicles, again between 8.00am and 9.00am and 5.00pm and 6.00pm respectively.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to what extent public transport services will be reduced in London as a result of arrangements for public transport to the Millennium Dome. [101158]

  Mr. Hill
  There will be no reduction in public transport. On the contrary, the extended Jubilee Line, new river services and new bus services will enhance public transport provision in the capital city. The maximum number of visitors attending a single session at the
  63W
  Millennium Dome will be 35,000, which equates to less than 1 per cent. of the passenger traffic in the capital on any weekday morning.

  There are many potential choices of mode and route for journeys to the Dome from within the London area. These journeys are therefore expected to be accommodated with only minimum impact on the capital's public transport system. Around 60 per cent. of visitors are expected to arrive at the Dome on the new extended Jubilee Line, which has sufficient capacity to carry up to 24,000 people per hour. A further 14 per cent. are expected to arrive on either the new river or Millennium Transit bus services, which are being introduced as part of the Millennium Experience Transport Strategy.

  Ladbroke Grove
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the rail layout at Ladbroke Grove was designed, approved and installed. [101596]

  Mr. Hill
  The track layout at Ladbroke Grove is part of a larger scheme extending from Paddington station to past the Heathrow Airport turnoff at Airport Junction. The layout was designed and installed during the late 1980s and early 1990s by British Railways. The works were staged over a number of years and railway privatisation occurred during that time. The works included Airport Junction and electrification on the overhead line system for Heathrow Express. Statutory approval by Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) matched the stage at which the works had reached. Some of the works were approved but approval of the signalling was not completed before the accident at Southall occurred. After the Southall accident the remaining signalling approval was held in abeyance by HMRI pending the findings of the public inquiry.

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will encourage local authorities which do not currently run concessionary fares schemes to visit those which do. [101688]

  Mr. Hill
  This is a matter for the local authorities concerned, though it would always seem sensible for local authorities to consider whether they might usefully draw on the experience of others.

  Rail Services (Northampton/Euston)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress on his discussions with Railtrack on the protection of access for local rail services between Northampton and Euston following the upgrade of the West Coast main line. [101490]

  Mr. Hill
  The Rail Regulator is consulting on a draft order which, if confirmed, would require Railtrack to complete by the end of February 2000 various strategic reviews, including one of the scope for faster services between Euston and Northampton following the upgrade of the West Coast Main Line. The review is intended to provide sufficient information to enable train operators 64W
  and the shadow Strategic Rail Authority (sSRA) to take informed decisions on the existing access arrangements and on the potential for improved services.

  GM Farm-scale Trials
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the requirements are for informing the public of the existence of GM farm-scale trials in their area; and if he will make a statement. [101718]

  Mr. Meacher
  In the case of consents for crops in the farm-scale evaluation programme issued in conformity with Directive 90/220/EEC Part B (ie research and development consents), there is a requirement under the GMO legislation to make available the locations of the sites. These are held on a public register, and advertisements are placed in the local press. For crops which have approval for Part C consent (ie placing on the market), under the GMO legislation there is no requirement for companies to make the locations of these sites publicly available. At the present time, this applies to herbicide tolerant maize within the farm-scale evaluations. However, the locations of all fields within the farm-scale evaluations are notified to my Department, and the Department makes the information available to the public, including via the DETR website.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations he has received against GM farm-scale trials in each month from 1992; and if he will make a statement. [101715]

  Mr. Meacher
  I announced the setting up of the farm-scale evaluation programme in October 1998. Since then, approximately 4,400 letters from members of the public have been received across the whole range of biotechnology issues. My Department does not classify these according to individual subject, but I estimate that approximately one third of these are concerned with the farm scale evaluations programme. I have received approximately 260 representations concerned with the farm-scale evaluations from Members of Parliament. In addition, approximately 36,550 representations have been received to date through campaigns and signatures on petitions. My Department is still receiving individual representations.

  Pesticides Tax
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the reduction in pesticides use which will be achieved as a result of the Government's proposed pesticides tax. [101831]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government published a consultants' report in March this year on the design of a tax or charge scheme for pesticides which contained estimates of the reduction in pesticide use which might be expected under various assumptions. No decision has been taken yet on whether to proceed with a tax. The current position is set out in the Chancellor's November Pre-Budget Report.

  Carbon Monoxide Emissions
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the reduction in carbon monoxide emissions over a 10-year period that would be achieved by replacing two 1200MW coal-fired power stations with two gas-fired power stations of the same capacity. [101832]

  Mr. Meacher
  The amount of carbon monoxide emitted over a 10-year period will depend on a number of factors including, critically, the number of hours that the plant will operate over that time. For this reason an answer in tonnage cannot be given. We might expect, however, that a combined cycle gas turbine power station would emit approximately 5 per cent. of the carbon monoxide a similar capacity and similarly loaded coal-fired power station would. In total, power stations contribute only 1 per cent. to total carbon monoxide emissions in the UK.

  Trains (Telephone Links)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is a requirement that all trains be equipped with telephones that are operational at all times. [101482]

  Mr. Hill
  It is not a requirement that all trains be equipped with telephones that are operational at all times. The provision of telephones for passenger use is, along with other facilities provided on trains, a commercial matter for the train operating company concerned.

  Most trains are fitted with radio communication systems to enable contact with signalling or control centres by train crew. In areas where the ability of radio communication systems to reliably operate is restricted or possibly not available at all, line side telephone equipment is available.

  Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will carry out a full investigation of the operation of the Marine Rescue Co-ordination Centre, Dover, having particular regard to the adequacy of(a) physical and (b) human resources at the time of maximum communications traffic in the operation of the Channel Navigation Information Service. [101823]

  Mr. Hill
  There is no perceived basis for an investigation into the physical or human resources at the Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre at Dover in the operation of the Channel Navigation Information Service.

  The physical and human resources required to execute the tasks of the Centre are adequate for its primary role of search and rescue and the Channel Navigation Information Service roles.

  At times of maximum communications traffic, exceptionally, ships may experience a wait of no more than ten minutes. This has no effect on the safe navigation of vessels within the Dover Strait.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what additional resources are to be made available at the 66W
  Marine Rescue Co-ordination Centre, Dover, following the suspension of the Channel Navigation Information Service, on 24 August; [101825]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the dangers to shipping as a consequence of suspension of the Channel Navigation Information Service at the Marine Rescue Co-ordination Centre, Dover. [101824]

  Mr. Hill
  The Channel Navigation Information Service at the Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre in Dover has not been suspended. Therefore, there have been no dangers caused to shipping as a consequence.

  The responsibility for the safe navigation of vessels passing through or across the Dover Strait remains with the Masters of those vessels. The recently introduced mandatory reporting requirements for vessels of 300 gross tons or more is a means of assisting French and British coastguards in identifying vessels should they fail to comply with international regulations for preventing collisions at sea, specifically Rule 10 which covers the use of Traffic Separation Schemes.

  The very brief, rare and temporary suspension of the mandatory reporting, not the Channel Navigation Information Service, following the serious collision between the Norwegian Dream and Ever Decent on 24 August 1999 did not endanger shipping within the Straits of Dover.

  Ivanhoe Line
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has held with Leicestershire County Council about the extension of the Ivanhoe Line rail service. [101442]

  Mr. Hill
  None. However, the shadow Strategic Rail Authority met with Leicestershire County Council on 23 September to discuss rail service development plans for Leicester and Leicestershire. Leicestershire County Council indicated that they would submit two bids early in the new year under the Rail Passenger Partnership scheme, one of which was Stage two of the Ivanhoe Line.

  A6 Bus Lane
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the A6 bus lane in Loughborough during its trial period. [101440]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Andrew Reed, dated 13 December 1999:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, Keith Hill, to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the bus lane on the A6 in Loughborough.
  Proposals for a busy lane on the A6 between Quorn and Loughborough were developed by the Agency and the Loughborough Bus Partnership.
  Following public consultation on the proposals in October 1998, the bus lane was introduced on an experimental basis in March 1999.
  The results have been encouraging. Bus journey time reliability has improved in the morning peak, maximum queue lengths have been reduced, traffic flows have improved and car journey times at

  67W
  the height of the morning peak have improved. If you require any further details on the results gathered to date please contact Peter Adams, Project Manager for the scheme, on telephone number 0121 678 8215.
  We have consulted with the local authorities and the police about the future of the bus lane and are minded to make it permanent. This would require the publication of draft Orders, on which the public may make representations.
  We expect to announce a decision early next year and I shall write to you again nearer the time.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the drink driving rehabilitation scheme; and what plans he has to extend it to other parts of the country. [101919]

  Mr. Hill
  The experimental rehabilitation scheme for drink drive offenders has been running since 1993 and 175 court areas are currently designated to refer offenders to courses. Research carried out for the Department has shown that those who attend a rehabilitation course are three times less likely to reoffend than those who do not. Having now been approved by both Houses of Parliament, the scheme will be made permanent and will operate throughout Great Britain from 1 January 2000. We are issuing guidance about the scheme to all course providers and to the courts, and will place a copy in the Library of both Houses.

  Thatched Roofs
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action the Government are taking to ensure that those who have houses with thatched roofs are able to maintain and keep the thatch. [101892]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has supported research in collaboration with the industry which has provided guidance on the use of thatch, on growing, selection, performance, best practice and fire safety. English Heritage has helped to develop various publications on thatch and a new publication "Thatch and Thatching", aimed at providing user-friendly guidance, will be published very shortly. English Heritage is also running exhibitions and half day conferences for thatchers and local authority planning officers starting early in the new year.

  Al2
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the five worst accident blackspots on the Al2 in Essex. [101847]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]: I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Bernard Jenkin, dated 13 December 1999:
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Keith Hill, has asked me to write in response to your recent written Parliament Question about the five worst accident black spots on the Al2 in Essex.
  68W
  The following table lists the sites which have the highest level of recorded personal injury accidents over the 3 years ending June 1999.

  Location

  No. of Accidents

  Al2 Junction with B1024 South Slip Roads at Kelvedon

  9

  Al2 South Slips at junction with A1023/B1002 Mountnessing

  8

  Al2 Junction with B1024 North Slip Roads at Kelvedon

  8

  Al2 Junction with B1389 South Slip Road at Witham

  8

  Al2 400 metres north of Lynfields Bridge, Witham

  8

  The Highways Agency does not keep records where damage is to the vehicle only.
  If you would like further information please contact Simon Amor, the Route Manager for the Al2, telephone 01234 796173.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many persons have been(a) killed and (b) seriously injured on the
  A12 in Essex in each of the past 10 years; and what is the corresponding figure in the current year so far. [101848]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Casualties on the Al2 in Essex: 1989–98

  Year

  Fatal

  Casualties Serious

  All

  1989

  12

  46

  347

  1990

  9

  43

  340

  1991

  15

  47

  357

  1992

  5

  37

  273

  1993

  9

  60

  307

  1994

  3

  42

  323

  1995

  2

  39

  235

  1996

  12

  48

  277

  1997

  7

  62

  333

  1998

  6

  35

  256

  Data for 1999 are not available yet.

  Land Reclamation Programme
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will allow parish councils to apply for grants under the Land Reclamation Programme;[101956]

  (2) what factors underlay the decision to restrict the granting of and application for grants under the Land Reclamation Programme to district and county councils. [101955]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Land Reclamation Programme (LRP) provides funding to local authorities to enable them to reclaim derelict land where there is no incentive for the private sector to undertake the task, typically because the land has no immediate prospect of development. LRP meets 100 per cent. of the approved eligible cost of approved projects because local authorities do not receive central government funding specifically for land reclamation. The widely accepted definition of local authority used for the purposes of LRP includes district, county and unitary authorities but excludes parish councils.
  69W
  The vast majority of LRP projects have been promoted by local authorities within the context of an agreed land reclamation strategy for their area. They have therefore, on the whole, been large projects, which require intensive professional administration. It is unlikely that most parish councils would have the resources to manage such projects. However, a parish council can ask a borough, district or county council to champion a scheme on their behalf.

  LRP is now administered by the Regional Development Agencies (RDA) and paid for from physical regeneration budgets.

  Local Government Bill
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish draft regulations on each of the matters for which powers to make regulations will be conferred on him under the Local Government Bill [Lords]. [102089]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions indicated during the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill in another place that, as our response to the report of the Joint Committee indicates, draft regulations concerned with executive functions, policy framework and petitions will be available in time for Committee stage in the upper House. Draft of other regulations and key statutory guidance will be produced during the passage of the Bill.

  The Government's response to the Joint Committee's report on the draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill (Cm 4529), which preceded the current legislation, was published on 2 December and has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish a regulatory impact assessment in respect of the Local Government Bill [Lords]. [101951]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Explanatory Notes to the Local Government Bill, which were published along with the Bill on 26 November, make it clear that none of the measures under Parts I-IV of the Bill will impose any burden on business, charities or voluntary bodies.

  The provisions on welfare services in Part V will not in themselves impose any direct burden on such organisations, but the new arrangements for funding support services that the Government intend to implement through the new provisions will have implications for service providers. Elements of the new arrangements to scrutinise value for money more closely and which will separate the funding of accommodation and support services to improve service flexibility may involve additional management and administration for some service providers. This will be a factor that will need to be taken into account both locally and centrally.

  A copy of the Regulatory Impact Assessment is available from my Department.

  Charter of Local Self-Government
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of the European Charter of Local Self-Government; [101952]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the conformity of the Local Government Bill [Lords] with the European Charter of Local Self-Government; and if he will make a statement. [101953]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Our policy on the European Charter of Local Self-Government is set out in the Explanatory Memorandum which we laid before the House on 2 March 1998, prior to ratification of the Charter on 24 April 1998. As made clear in that Memorandum, our intention, which we are satisfied the Local Government Bill fulfils, was that any future legislation affecting local government should further strengthen the degree of compliance with aspects of the Charter and ensure continued compatibility with its provisions.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out in the case of farm-scale trials of genetically modified crops(a) with which party those farmers hosting the trials have a contract, (b) what fees and compensation payments are involved, (c) what protocols have been agreed for growing the crops, (d) what arrangements have been made for access to the farms for research or publicity purposes, (e) what are the procedures for harvesting the crop and (f) what are the procedures for destroying the crop after harvest. [101755]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: (a) Farmers have contracts with member organisations of the industry biotechnology body SCIMAC (supply chain initiative on modified agricultural crops) which hold consents for the release to the environment of GM crops for the purpose of the farm-scale evaluations.

  (b) Under the renewed agreement with industry announced on 5 November covering the conduct of the farm-scale evaluations, no direct commercial benefit will be sought by the consent holders from the plantings or obtained from use of the crops during the farm-scale evaluation period. Our understanding is that the farmers growing the crops in the farm-scale evaluations are likely to be compensated by the consent holders; that would be a matter for them.

  (c) The crops are grown according to a Government-endorsed industry code (the SCIMAC code), which sets out best practice in planting, managing and using GM crops.

  (d) The independent contractors conducting the biodiversity research through the farm-scale evaluations have all necessary access to the farms. Other research on the crops may be allowed where this does not conflict with the primary purpose of the farm-scale evaluations to investigate their effects on biodiversity: research on gene

  71W
  flow has been added in this way. We are unaware of any other arrangements for access to the farms for publicity; that would be a matter for the farmers.

  (e) Crops are harvested according to the conditions of the consent issued under Directive 90/220/EEC, and procedures in the SCIMAC code.

  (f) The fate of the crops is set out in the consents for growing them and the approvals for use of pesticide. In the unlikely event that any of the crops within the farm-scale evaluations obtain full regulatory clearance to enter the UK food or feed chain during the farm-scale evaluation period, the produce would be used within identity-preserved channels.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will outline the circumstances which he has identified whereby a crop from a GM farm-scale trial could enter the human or animal food chain; and what procedures there are for ensuring identity preservation and labelling of such crops and products of livestock fed on such crops. [101756]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: The circumstances whereby a crop from a GM farm-scale evaluation could enter the human or animal food chain are when it has received food and feedstuffs approval through the EU regulatory system, and where a pesticide has been applied, approval under the UK pesticide regulations. The crops will be grown in accordance with the SCIMAC guidelines which ensure segregation and identity preservation on the farm. Currently, none of the GM crops within the farm-scale evaluations have all the necessary approvals to enter the UK food or feed chain. Should any of the crops receive full clearance during the farm-scale evaluation period the produce, to ensure consumer choice can at all times be respected, would be used within identity-preserved channels. This would include any products reaching the consumer from livestock fed on such crops. The particular procedures chosen to achieve this, including labelling, would be established at the appropriate time.

  LSVT
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to reform the voting rights of council tenants under large-scale voluntary transfers. [102063]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: None. Although a ballot is not a statutory requirement, the best way of assessing the level of tenant support for a proposed transfer is a properly conducted formal ballot of all secure and introductory tenants who will be affected.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have spent on external consultants and advisers since May 1997. [102071]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Estimated expenditure on external consultants and advisers by the Agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions since May 1997 to 30 November 1999 is as follows.
  72W

  £ million

  Year

  Agencies1

  NDPB's

  1997–98

  8.1

  21.2

  1998–99

  14.3

  23.1

  1999–2000 (to date)

  10.8

  22.5

  1 Figures for Agencies excludes the Highways Agency programme consultancy expenditure related to work on the road network.

  London Underground
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much has been spent to date on(a) legal, (b) financial and (c) other consultancy costs for the London Underground public-private partnership for each of the three proposed infrastructure companies. [102247]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on 6 December 1999,Official Report, columns 430–31W.

  Housing
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the Government intend to deal with future housing allocations in local authority areas which have no brownfield sites left. [102217]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The amounts of previously developed land will differ between local authority areas but all authorities will be expected to contribute as far as possible to achievement of regional and the national 60 per cent. target for recycling land and buildings, and to set their own targets accordingly.

  Hedges
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to change the planning regulations on permitted development rights relating to the inserting of windows into existing walls of properties, in connection with the plans to control the height of hedges and other such trees; and if he will make a statement; [102211]

  (2) what plans he has to bring the height of hedges and similar trees under planning law; and if he will make a statement. [102212]

  Mr. Mullin
  Last month my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment launched a consultation paper asking people for their views on possible solutions to the problems caused by high hedges. The consultation paper includes the report of a study, carried out by officials, which looked at the scale and nature of the problems and the effectiveness of a range of options for dealing with them. The study suggested that bringing the height of hedges under planning law might be disproportionate because it would not be targeted on hedges which were causing problems. It would also have other practical difficulties.
  73W
  The study did not consider changing planning regulations on permitted development rights relating to the inserting of windows into existing walls of properties.

  We hope as many people as possible will respond to the consultation to help us decide whether more should be done to relieve this source of long-running and distressing neighbourhood disputes.

  Planning
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change planning law to enable a third party to appeal to the Secretary of State against a planning decision made by the local authority; and if he will make a statement. [102207]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government have no current plans to introduce a right of appeal for third parties.

  It is the responsibility of local planning authorities to act in the general public interest when determining planning applications. Local authorities must determine applications in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Such considerations can include views expressed by local residents and other third parties.

  The scope for third parties to participate fully in the development control process has been increased in recent years, through the statutory requirements to consult on the preparation of the development plan and to publicise all planning applications.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the amount of the business rate carried forward from the 1999–2000 to the 2000–01 local government settlement. [102518]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The basis for the calculation of the distributable amount of non-domestic rates for 2000–01 is set out in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) on 9 December 1999,Official Report, column 604W. In arriving at the distributable amount we have estimated that there will be a cumulative surplus of £1,058 million from the pooling of non-domestic rates and redistribution to Local Authorities in England.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much was collected in business rates from businesses in(a) Gloucestershire, (b) Tewkesbury and (c) Cheltenham in the last three years for which figures are available; and how much he expects will be collected in 1999–2000 and 2000–01.[102208]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The amount of business rates collected by each shire district in Gloucestershire for the last three years is shown in the table, together with the estimated net yield for 1999–2000. Information for 2000–01 is not yet available.
  74W

  £000

  Business rate receipts1 for 1996–97

  Business rate receipts for 1997–98

  Business rate receipts for 1998–99

  Net yield for 1999–20002

  Cheltenham

  27,196

  27,123

  28,686

  27,776

  Cotswold

  11,189

  12,132

  12,947

  12,657

  Forest of Dean

  7,330

  7,403

  7,730

  7,723

  Gloucester

  26,621

  28,772

  30,061

  28,861

  Stroud

  12,848

  13,373

  14,683

  14,631

  Tewkesbury

  11,147

  11,876

  12,462

  12,229

  1 All business rate receipts are in respect of the year shown.

  2 The figure represents the gross yield reduced for mandatory relief, discretionary relief and transitional relief, but does not take into account any allowances for losses in collection and cost of collection. It was estimated just prior to the start of the financial year forming the provisional contribution made by the authorities to the business pool rate.

TREASURY

  Employment
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households which had no one in employment on 1 May 1997 now have a member of the family in paid employment. [101308]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Jim Murphy, dated 13 December 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking how many formerly workless households now have at least one person in employment.
  The ONS collects information about workless households via the Labour Force Survey. ONS analyses are based on working age workless households, which are defined as households where there is at least one person of working age and no household members are employed. Although estimates of the total numbers of such households are available on a half-yearly basis the ONS cannot accurately identify how many households have changed status from workless to working or vice versa; only the net change is available.
  The ONS estimates that between spring (March to May) 1997 and spring 1999 there was a net fall of 106,000 in the number of workless working age households (from 3,281,000 to 3,175,000).

  Income Tax
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the case of a single person starting work on 1 January earning(a) (i) 50 per cent. and (ii) 75 per cent. of average earnings, (b) average earnings, (c) 150 per cent., (d) 200 per cent., (e) 300 per cent. and (f) 400 per cent. of average earnings, how much income tax that person would pay over a working lifetime of 40 years based on current rates of income tax and assuming an annual increase in average earnings of 2 per cent. per annum.[101949]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A reliable estimate could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mortgages
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many domestic mortgages, underwritten
  75W
  with endowment policies, matured with a shortfall in the sum insured in (a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997, and (d) 1998. [102153]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information could be obtained only from the endowment providers. To collect such information would entail disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the Financial Services Authority will regulate buy-to-let mortgages; [102509]

  (2) what is his timetable for announcing the outcome of his consultation on the regulation of mortgages. [102508]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Following consultation, the Treasury is in the process of reaching a decision on whether statutory regulation would best protect the interests of consumers and the Treasury will make an announcement in due course.

  Euro
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how much the United Kingdom would have lost through the decline in the value of the euro if it had joined economic and monetary union on 1 January, taking into account the obligation of member states to contribute(a) to the establishment of the initial share capital of the European Central Bank and (b) to the exchange reserves of the ECB; and if he will set out the assumptions made in calculating the answer. [102603]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The United Kingdom did not join the single currency on 1 January 1999 so therefore the circumstances did not arise.

  Gold Reserves
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the sales of gold reserves by the Bank of England are intended as a contribution towards the stability of bullion banks. [102148]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The gold sales are part of a technical restructuring of the UK's foreign currency and gold reserves to achieve a better balance in the portfolio by diversifying more widely and not being over exposed to one asset.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for how many central banks the Bank of England acts as a depository for the leasing of their gold reserves. [102150]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Details of any arrangements the Bank of England has with other central banks are commercially confidential.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what criteria the Treasury will judge the success or failure of its policy to sell 415 tonnes of the gold reserves. [102151]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  By achieving a better balance in the portfolio these sales will enable the Treasury to meet one of its performance targets of"minimising the cost of holding the Government's foreign currency reserves, while reducing risk".
  76W
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much gold has been sold by the Bank of England since he instructed the Bank to undertake such sales; and what was the average price per ounce received from each such sale. [102069]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The results of the gold auctions held on 7 July 1999, 21 September 1999 and 29 November 1999 are published in Bank of England Press Notices issued on those days. Copies of the Press Notices are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if 40 per cent. of the proceeds from the gold sales by the Bank of England have been put into the Euro; and at what prices. [102149]

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of euro-based currencies acquired by the Bank of England since the initiation of gold sales; and what was the average price per euro in each such purchase. [102070]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The proceeds from sales of gold have been invested in interest bearing foreign currency assets in broadly the same proportion as currently held in the net foreign currency reserves (40 per cent. dollars; 40 per cent. euro; and 20 per cent. yen). Table 2 of the Quarterly Report on UK Official Holdings of Foreign Currency and Gold for the period July to September 1999, published on 2 December provides a breakdown of the size and composition of the United Kingdom's reserve holdings.

  Departmental Employees (Disabled People)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total workforce in his Department is registered as disabled; and what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people in his Department. [102051]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The old system of registration of disabled people ended when the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 came into force on 2 December 1996. People who were registered as disabled on that date were given protection under the Act for a further three years, and into the future if they continued to meet the definition of disability contained in the Act. So employers, including the Chancellor's Departments now need to identify staff who might be covered by the employment provisions of the Act, rather than whether or not they were formerly registered as disabled. Current records show that about 4 per cent. of staff in the Treasury and Customs and 3.9 per cent. of staff in Inland Revenue have a disability as defined in the Act.

  Each Department has a variety of measures in place to ensure equal treatment for disabled people, and to ensure that they meet their legal obligations to protect disabled people from discrimination in the field of employment.

  EU Accounts
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy in relation to the European Court of Auditors' rejection of the European Union's accounts for 1997. [102179]
  77W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In its Annual Report, the European Court of Auditors declined to give a positive statement of assurance on the EU accounts for 1997, and again on the accounts for 1998, because of the level of errors detected in payment transactions. This is clearly unacceptable and the Government will press the Commission and other Member States to take action. The Government strongly encourages and supports measures to reduce financial mismanagement and fraud against the EU budget. The Government has strongly backed Commission reform and expects the new Commission under Romano Prodi's presidency to act decisively.

  Early Retirement (Stress)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to reduce the number of workers in the public sector taking early retirement on the ground of stress; and if he will make a statement. [102399]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In August this year my predecessor announced that he had set up a wide ranging review into the level of ill health retirement in the public sector. The terms of reference for the review are:"To review the factors leading to ill health retirement, including why its incidence is much higher in some parts of the public sector and in some employing authorities than others;
  To identify best practice both in the management of pension scheme provisions and the operation of relevant human resource policies; and
  To make recommendations to Ministers on the implementation of measures to spread best practice and to ensure the appropriate use of ill health retirement benefits."

  The contribution which stress related illness makes to the level of ill health retirement, and the measures which might be taken to reduce its incidence, is being considered in the review.

  The review is due to report early in 2000.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on(a) the net and gross contribution figures to the EU Budget listed in Table 3 of HM Treasury White Paper, European Community Finances (Cm 4382) and (b) the ONS UK Balance of Payments 1999 edition, Table 9.2 and Table 9.7. [102350]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Table 3 of the annual White Paper European Community Finances provides details, by calendar year, of UK contributions to, and public sector receipts from, the EU Budget broken down by the various elements. In particular, Cm 4382 contains outturn information in respect of years 1996 to 1998 and an estimate for 1999.

  Section 9 of the ONS Pink Book presents a geographical breakdown of the current account of the balance of payments. Table 9.2 includes total UK current account credits and debits with EU Institutions, including trade in service receipts and balance of payments income transactions as well as official transfers to, and from, EU Institutions. Table 9.7 includes the total current account transfers to, and from, EU Institutions.
  78W
  Thus the coverage of Table 3 of the White Paper and Section 9 of the Pink Book are different. The White Paper covers all public sector payments to, and receipts from, the EU while the Pink Book also includes balance of payments transactions between EU Institutions and UK companies. However, Tables 3.11, 5.1 and 6.1 of the Pink Book record receipts from, and payments to, EU Institutions and are comparable in coverage to the White Paper net contribution figures.

  Fuel Prices
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual increase in VAT income generated by each 1p increase in the pump price of fuel following an increase in crude oil prices; and what total increase he estimates will arise from such price increases in the current financial year. [102170]

  Mr. Timms
  The estimated increase in VAT revenues from road fuels resulting from a 1p per litre increase in pump prices is around £50 million. However the net effect on total VAT revenues of recent increases in pump prices is likely to be small as the additional expenditure on road fuels will have been offset by reduced expenditure on other VATable products.

  Amusement Machines
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the licence duty for amusement machines. [102181]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government keep duty rates under constant review.

  Revenue Estimates
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis he has(a) reduced his second year revenue estimate from £375 million to £300 million and (b) maintained the first year revenue estimate at £475 million. [101816]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There has been no such reduction. The £300 million the right hon. Gentleman refers to is a full year cost for what will eventually be raised each year from this measure. It is not comparable to the first year cost shown in the 1999 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  National Changeover Plan
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost of the Government's National Changeover plan to date. [101820]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his statement to the House on 23 February 1999,Official Report, columns 179–96, and repeated on 8 December 1999, Official Report, columns 824–26, we may spend some tens of millions of pounds. Any such expenditure would be required mainly in the DSS, Inland Revenue and Customs where the scale and complexity of their computer systems makes advance preparations critical so that we can maintain the flexibility for Britain to make any changeover as cost-effectively as possible.

  Land Settlement Tenants
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will meet the Chairman of the Inland Revenue and hon. Members representing former land settlement tenants to seek to establish a resolution to the tax issues relating to their compensation agreed with the Ministry of Agriculture in 1991. [102569]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A meeting would not be appropriate.

  Representations have been made querying the raising of tax charges by the Inland Revenue in respect of out of court compensation paid by MAFF to a number of former tenants of the Land Settlement Association, but it has been made clear that Ministers do not intervene in individual cases. The Inland Revenue's independence from Treasury Ministers in the handling of individuals' affairs must be scrupulously observed. Where disputes continue between taxpayers and the Revenue it is for the Appeal Commissioners and the courts to determine how the law is to be applied.

  Tax Rates
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have benefited from the 10p tax rate in each constituency. [102596]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Almost all of the individual income taxpayers in each constituency are benefiting from the 10p tax rate.

  Statistics Commission
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what terms of reference will be given to the proposed Statistics Commission; to which Minister it will report; and if he will make a statement. [102237]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The White Paper "Building Trust in Statistics", published in October (Cm 4412), outlined the role that the proposed Statistics Commission will play in advising on the scope, quality and priority-setting for National Statistics.

  More detail on the roles and responsibilities of all the key players in National Statistics, including the Statistics Commission, will be set out in a Framework for National Statistics, which the Government intend to publish as soon as possible.

  Income Drawdown
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to redefine the income limits for an individual to take income drawdown from a personal pension fund. [102187]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 29 November 1999,Official Report, column 78W.

  Limb Deficiency
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his Department's classification is for recording children born with limb deficiency. [102317]
  80W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger, on behalf Dr. Holt, to Mr. Andrew George, dated 9 December 1999:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the classification of limb deficiency. I am replying in Dr. Holt's absence.
  The National Congenital Anomaly System, based at the ONS, codes all anomalies using the International Classification of Diseases (LCD). The version currently being used is the 10th revision. The codes that cover limb reduction defects are:
  Q71 Reduction defects of upper limb
  Q72 Reduction defects of lower limb
  Q73 Reduction defects of unspecified limb
  The ONS also provides data on selected congenital anomalies to the International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Monitoring Systems. For limb reduction defects, the classification used is based on the text description provided to the National Congenital Anomaly System. Each defect is manually classified as upper, lower or both (upper and lower) and as:

  a. transverse: absence of limbs and digits (excluding thumb and little finger)

  b. preaxial: absence or partial absence of thumb/radius/tibia

  c. postaxial: absence or partial absence of little finger/ulna/fibula

  d. intercalary: absence of the limbs with hand or foot intact

  e. mixed: presence of more than one type of limb defect.

  CO2 Reduction Targets
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study Her Majesty's Treasury has made of the reductions in carbon dioxide emissions already achieved by firms which will be affected by the climate change levy; and if those firms with significant recent reductions will be granted lower reduction targets. [101828]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  Extensive analyses of energy use and carbon dioxide emissions within industry have been carried out on behalf of the Government by the Energy Technology Support Unit (ETSU). These studies estimate the potential for future energy efficiency improvements by industry sectors. The Building Research Establishment has undertaken similar research for building sectors.

  Targets for energy intensive firms which wish to enter into agreements with the Government are being negotiated on the basis of the potential for further cost-effective energy efficiency improvements. Those firms which are already relatively efficient will be expected to make fewer energy savings than those firms which still have substantial scope for further energy efficiency improvements.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Pre-school Learning
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out in respect of each education authority area the percentage of three-year-olds whose pre-school learning is being funded by his Department in the current financial year under the scheme announced in December 1998. [98589]
  81W
  Ms Hodge
  The Government are making available £390 million over three years to increase the number of free, good quality, early education places for three-year-olds. 190,000 new free places will be made available, which will mean 66 per cent. of three-year-olds will be able to access a free place by March 2002. In 1999–2000, around £40 million of this additional funding will be allocated to 57 Local Education Authorities with the highest levels of social need. The following table

  The 57 local education authorities receiving nursery education grant for 3-year-olds in 1999–2000

  Percentage

  Percentage of children receiving nursery education grant

  Current percentage of children receiving free early education (via Standard Spending Assessment)

  Total participation of three-year-olds in free early education in 1999–2000

  Barking and Dagenham

  12.9

  69.1

  81.9

  Barnsley

  30.8

  48.5

  79.3

  Birmingham

  39.4

  49.0

  88.5

  Blackburn with Darwen

  26.7

  41.3

  67.9

  Blackpool

  60.6

  17.3

  77.9

  Bolton

  20.4

  59.3

  79.7

  Bradford

  16.9

  66.4

  83.3

  Brent

  30.5

  51.2

  81.7

  Camden

  39.0

  41.7

  80.7

  County Durham

  5.5

  71.4

  76.9

  Coventry

  31.9

  49.4

  81.3

  Doncaster

  16.6

  64.1

  80.7

  Ealing

  10.5

  69.2

  79.7

  Gateshead

  25.7

  55.1

  80.7

  Greenwich

  26.0

  58.3

  84.2

  Hackney

  41.8

  44.6

  86.4

  Halton

  36.8

  43.3

  80.2

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  29.0

  51.5

  80.5

  Haringey

  22.2

  61.3

  83.5

  Hartlepool

  3.0

  97.0

  100.0

  Hounslow

  8.7

  55.8

  64.5

  Islington

  37.6

  45.3

  82.9

  Kingston upon Hull

  13.9

  69.0

  82.9

  Knowsley

  3.0

  94.3

  97.4

  Lambeth

  39.9

  45.0

  84.9

  Leeds

  13.5

  65.7

  79.2

  Leicester

  31.1

  52.0

  83.1

  Lewisham

  42.7

  40.2

  82.9

  Liverpool

  20.2

  69.8

  90.0

  Manchester

  10.2

  79.7

  89.9

  Middlesbrough

  3.0

  97.0

  100.0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  25.4

  58.5

  83.9

  Newham

  38.3

  49.8

  88.1

  North East Lincolnshire

  30.0

  46.6

  76.5

  North Tyneside

  3.0

  78.8

  81.8

  Nottingham

  24.5

  60.0

  84.6

  Oldham

  34.0

  48.5

  82.5

  Redcar and Cleveland

  3.0

  97.0

  100.0

  Rochdale

  31.2

  51.2

  82.4

  Rotherham

  37.1

  40.9

  78.0

  Salford

  5.5

  77.2

  82.7

  Sandwell

  11.5

  76.5

  88.0

  Sheffield

  39.9

  42.1

  82.0

  South Tyneside

  3.8

  76.7

  80.5

  Southwark

  25.2

  60.2

  85.4

  St. Helens

  12.5

  46.4

  58.9

  Stockton-on-Tees

  3.0

  97.0

  100.0

  Stoke-on-Trent

  14.1

  64.9

  79.0

  Sunderland

  14.0

  69.2

  83.2

  Tameside

  20.7

  57.0

  77.7

  Tower Hamlets

  9.3

  76.6

  85.9

  Wakefield

  14.1

  62.3

  76.4

  Walsall

  3.0

  88.1

  91.1

  Waltham Forest

  45.5

  35.2

  80.7

  Wandsworth

  39.5

  39.3

  78.8

  Wirral

  35.5

  42.2

  77.7

  Wolverhampton

  3.0

  80.9

  83.9

  82W
  shows, by Local Education Authority, the percentage of three-year-olds that are expected to be funded through nursery education grant in this financial year. In addition, Local Education Authorities are also funding a proportion of three-year-olds via their Standard Spending Assessment allocations. This percentage is also shown. From April 2000, funding for additional new free places will be distributed across all Local Education Authorities.

  Pupil Expulsions (Easington)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils have been excluded and expelled and from which schools in the Easington district council area year-by-year since 1995 for drug related offences. [101428]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on exclusions from individual schools as a result of drugs related offences has not been held centrally.

  However, for the first time, the Department has recently been surveying local education authorities about the levels of drug related permanent and fixed period exclusions which arose in their schools during the academic year 1998–99. The data are being collected at local education authority area level so information on individual schools or district councils will not be available.

  Cromwell School, Tameside
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress he is making with Tameside MBC in discussions on re-locating Cromwell School. [101447]

  Jacqui Smith
  Tameside local education authority has served a statutory notice, under section 339 of the Education Act 1996, to make prescribed alterations to Cromwell School, Thornley Lane South, Denton. Cromwell is a mixed day school for pupils with severe learning difficulties which is currently approved for 60 pupils aged 12–19.

  Tameside proposes to:
  re-locate the school onto a new site adjacent to Dukinfield Astley High School;
  increase the school's size to make provision for 70 pupils;
  reduce the school's age range to 11–16—students between 16 and 19 would attend Tameside College.

  If approved, the proposals would affect post-16 students from September 2000, pupils between 11 and 16 from September 2001.

  Officials from the Department will be meeting those from Tameside this week to discuss the proposals.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements he has made for ensuring that trainee teachers have the necessary competence to identify pupils with specific learning difficulties. [101468]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]: The National Standards for Qualified Teacher Status reflect the Secretary of State's requirement for Qualified Teacher Status as set out in the DfEE Circular 4/98. The standards apply to all trainees seeking Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) and should be met by those to be assessed for QTS from May 1998. Successful completion of a course or programme of initial teacher training (ITT), including employment based provision, must require the trainee to achieve all these standards. All courses must involve the assessment of all trainees against all the standards specified. Qualified Teacher Status is a requirement for all those who teach in a maintained school.
  84W
  The National Standards require all newly qualified teachers to demonstrate that they can identify pupils who have special educational needs, including specific learning difficulties; know where to get help in order to give positive and targeted support; and are familiar with the Code of Practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs and, as part of their responsibilities under the Code, implement and keep records on individual education plans (IEPs) with pupils at stage 2 of the Code and above.

  Children's Education
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he is undertaking to encourage links between schools, communities and families in educating children; and if he will make a statement. [101086]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]: We recognise the vital role parents and the wider community can play in supporting children's learning. We have already introduced home-school agreements as one way of fostering a positive, forward-looking partnership between parents and teachers and recently launched a new website for parents. We also announced a "Parents Guide to the National Curriculum" to help them understand what their children are learning and how they can help. In addition, we are piloting National Curriculum topic leaflets for parents and a magazine containing practical tips and information. We also know that the family literacy and numeracy programmes we fund through local authorities can be effective in drawing into learning adults with low basic skills. This is particularly the case for parents who missed out at school, but whose concern for their children can renew interest in their own learning. This will be supported this year by £6 million from the Standards Fund, increasing to £7 million next year, to reach 20,000 parents and their children.

  We are also working with others to increase parental involvement. For example, we have been working with the Community Education Development Centre (CEDC) to develop the SHARE project which supports parents in helping their children at home with reading; Parentline Plus have been looking at the feasibility of a new service for parents to help with their children's homework; and we have asked the Institute for Public Policy Research to explore further ways of developing family involvement in children's education and look more widely at extending family involvement in enrichment activities. We are working with Age Concern to extend their Trans-Age grandparent mentoring scheme to secondary schools; and the National Mentoring Network to engage older people with young people in school through mentoring and literacy programmes.

  In the new year, the CEDC, partly funded by the DfEE, will publish practical advice to schools on how to develop as a community resource. We are also considering the recommendations in the report of the Schools Plus Policy Action Team on how activities such as study support, involving parents in their children's education, and engagement of the wider community can help reduce failure in the most disadvantaged areas.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment further to his answer of 23 November 1999,Official Report, columns 79–80W, on higher education funding, whether the higher education funding bodies for the United Kingdom apply the same degrees of selectivity in funding based on their common research assessment. [101706]

  A comparison of HEFCE, SHEFC and HEFCW research selectivity, 1999–2000 Research Allocations

  Rating transformations

  HEFCE/DENI

  SHEFC

  HEFCW

  3b-1

  3b-1

  3b-1

  Quality driven component (principal funding and QR funding)

  3a-1.5

  3a-1.55

  3a-1.4

  4–2.25

  4–2.4

  4–1.96

  5–3.375

  5/5⋆-3.72

  5–2.744

  5⋆-4.05

  —

  5⋆-3.293

  (50% increase for each point from 3b to 5, and 20% premium for 5⋆)

  (55% increase for each point from 3b to 5,5⋆ level with 5)

  (40% increase for each point from h3b to 5, and 20% premium for 5⋆)

  Note:

  Table prepared by HEFCE Analytical Services Group—RAE ratings are from 5⋆ down to 1, with 5⋆ being the highest, 1 the lowest. Ratings 1 and 2 receive no funding.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the(a) responsibilities of and (b) operational relationships between regional development agencies and (i) the Learning and Skills Council and (ii) local learning and skills councils. [101654]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 8 December 1999]: The White Paper "Learning to Succeed" set out the proposed functions of the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and its relationship with Regional Development Agencies (RDAs).

  RDAs will be represented on both the national LSC and local Councils. At both national and local level the LSC and RDAs will share information to ensure that the national skills agenda and local LSC plans are developed with reference to regional priorities and skills strategies. RDAs will also be invited to comment on local LSC plans, and the extent to which they reflect regional learning and skill needs. RDAs and the LSC will also work together to develop skills packages for regional inward investment programmes.

  We will shortly publish a document setting out the Government's plans for implementing the proposals in the White Paper. The document will outline how the new arrangements will work and set out the next steps for implementation.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of additionality in each of the New Deal schemes. [102106]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: New Deal is a long-term programme, still in its early days. Consequently, most evaluation is still in progress and is yet to report. Employment Service Research report ESR13, published in March 1999 and available in the
  86W
  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 8 December 1999]: While the funding councils all use the research assessment exercise output to fund research selectively, they differ slightly in the degree of selectivity they apply because each of the funding bodies uses a slightly different funding model (except DENI institutions are funded via the HEFCE model).

  Library, gives an initial summary of progress on the New Deal for young unemployed, produced by the Institute for Employment Studies. It reports evidence of a positive effect on outflows of young people from unemployment into jobs as a result of the New Deal. Further quantitative evaluation on the impact of New Deal for young unemployed is likely to be published shortly and will also be placed in the Library.

  There is a comprehensive evaluation programme in place for all elements of New Deal. The article "New Deal for the young unemployed: monitoring and evaluation", published in Labour Market Trends in November 1998, sets out a strategy which is broadly common across New Deal.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the impact on the unemployment count of those people who were claiming Jobseeker's Allowance prior to participating on the New Deal for 18–24 year-olds and the New Deal for people aged 25-plus, and who have since ceased their claim as a result of leaving the gateway of the respective scheme for(a) an option and (b) claiming a benefit other than Jobseeker's Allowance. [102114]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: There is a comprehensive evaluation programme in place for the New Deal for young unemployed and New Deal for long term unemployed adults. It will be addressing issues such as this but, since New Deal itself is still in its very early stages, much evaluation is in progress and is yet to report. Early quantitative evaluation on the impact of New Deal for young unemployed is likely to be published shortly and will be placed in the Library.

  Skills Improvement
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to help businesses ensure that employees have the skills required to exploit modern communications and electronics. [100555]
  87W
  Mr. Wicks:
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: This Department funds a number of initiatives to help individuals and businesses acquire the skills needed to exploit information and communications technologies (ICT). The University for Industry (WI) will offer new learning opportunities to individuals and businesses when it is launched in Autumn 2000—one of its priorities is ICT for the workplace. My Department is putting in place a network of up to 700 ICT Learning Centres to enable adults in the most disadvantaged areas to have access to ICT-based learning. There are a number of relevant employer-led National Training Organisations supported by my Department which offer help to employers. The IT, Communications and Electronics Skills Strategy Group, chaired by Alan Stevens, has produced a report containing options for further action in this area. We shall respond to it shortly. In addition, the Department of Trade and Industry provides support through the Information Society Initiative which aims to raise awareness, and use, of IT and related technologies amongst businesses.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have had an application for an individual learning account refused; and for what reasons. [102314]

  Mr. Wicks
  This year TECs/CCTEs in England have been operating local arrangements to provide individual learning accounts in advance of the national framework which will come in next year. Information is not held centrally on the number of applications refused or the reasons for the refusal. In advance of the national framework TECs/CCTEs have only been asked to provide limited numbers of accounts in 1999–2000.

  External Assessors
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to which unit of his Department the external assessors employed as part of the proposed threshold arrangements for teachers will be allocated; what their management structure will be; and how many will be employed on(a) permanent and (b) fixed-term contracts. [102615]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  External assessors will be employed by the organisation to which DfEE awards the contract for their recruitment, deployment and quality assurance. Management structure and contractual arrangements will depend upon the award of this contract. When let, the contract will be managed by DfEE's Teachers' Pay and Policy Division.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many external assessors will be employed under the proposed threshold arrangements for teachers; and what the budget is for these staff. [102614]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The deployment and remuneration of external assessors will be a matter for the organisation to which DfEE awards the contract for their management. This contract has not yet been awarded and so information on numbers and costs is not yet available.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Remains (Fuel)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which EU member states animal remains are used as a fuel in cement kilns; and if he will make a statement. [100576]

  Ms Quin
  This Department does not hold information on this issue.

  Incineration Plants
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to approve further loans from the Intervention Board to companies for the purpose of converting existing incineration plants to take (a) meat and bone meal and (b) cattle carcases; [100828]

  (2) what the total value was of the loan made by the Intervention Board to Fibrogen Ltd. to fund the conversion of an existing incineration plant to take meat and bone meal. [100832]

  Ms Quin
  The Intervention Board's contract with Fibrogen is to incinerate 255,000 tonnes of meat and bone meal (MBM) from the Over-Thirty-Month-Scheme over a three year period at a total cost of some £16 million. Under the terms of the contract, the Government have agreed to advance part of the gate fee payable for the incineration service. The amount involved is £5.7 million, with a contingency of a further £0.5 million, to meet the cost of converting the power station and to meet the Environment Agency's requirement. The cost to the taxpayer of the advance, estimated to be £4 a tonne over the contract quantity of MBM, was fully considered in awarding the contract to Fibrogen. Even taking into account the cost of the advance, Fibrogen's gate fee to burn MBM is significantly below that negotiated with other incineration companies.

  The Intervention Board has now contracted, or there is available commercially, sufficient capacity to meet its future incineration requirements, and it is unlikely that there will be a need for other contracts with advance funding.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve the clarity and accuracy of country-of-origin labelling of food products in supermarkets. [100794]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]: We are consulting all interested parties on guidance aimed at ensuring that country of origin markings on food labels do not mislead consumers about the true origin of the ingredients that have been used. We also intend to promote changes to European and international rules and advice to ensure that consumers are given accurate information about the true origin of the foods they are buying.

  Meat Industry
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the report of the Meat Industry Red Tape Working Group. [102771]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I have just received the report of the Meat Industry Red Tape Working Group and I am immediately placing copies in the Libraries of the House.

  I am very grateful to the Working Group for their hard work in completing their report so quickly. I asked them to think radically and to suggest ways of doing things better. I note that a key recommendation is to modernise the approach to safeguarding meat hygiene to match the advances in food hygiene science. This supports the contention we have held for some time that the system, much of which is the subject of EU legislation, needs revision to ensure that it is effective and streamlined but at the same time provides the fullest safeguards for consumers. The Report makes a considerable number of other recommendations for both short and long term action. I shall therefore be considering the report very carefully with my colleagues. We will give our considered response in the New Year.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  External Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how much his Department spent on external consultants and advisers since May 1997 funded from (i) his Department's programme provision and (ii) the Lord Chancellor's Department's running costs. [99487]

  Mr. Lock
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 November 1999, c.147W]: I regret to inform the hon. Member that the answer given was inaccurate. This was due to a misinterpretation of the figures collated to answer the question.

  The correct figures are as follows:
  Expenditure for the Department from April 1997 to end of October 1999 is £9,082,480.
  £129,974 of this has been spent from programmed provision and the remainder from running costs.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have spent on external consultants and advisers since May 1997. [102072]

  Mr. Lock
  The total expenditure on external consultants by the Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies from April 1997 to end of October 1999 is £7,540,453.

  Judiciary (Training)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what training is being given to the judiciary on the implications for their work of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law. [102067]

  Jane Kennedy
  Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) which is an independent non-departmental public body and is chaired by Lord Justice Waller.

  Between January and July 2000 the JSB will be holding a series of 58 one-day seminars on the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights for all judges (including those who sit part-time) from District Judge level to the Court of Appeal.

  In addition the JSB is holding a series of after-court seminars at the Royal Courts of Justice for the senior judiciary. The first of these seminars was held in May 1999 and the series will continue during 2000.

CABINET OFFICE

  IT Initiatives
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to extend the initiatives based on the use of IT to improve public services set up by her Department to other parts of the country. [101915]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government are committed to ensuring that the benefits of new technology are shared by the many not just the few. As a result we are working to extend our vision of Information Age Government, as set out in the "Modernising Government" White Paper, in close co-operation with the Devolved Administrations as well as local government.

  Earlier this year we invited the Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Central IT Unit and the Local Government Association to nominate representatives to act as their Information Age Government Champions (IAGC). This is the Group charged with driving forward our Information Age Government agenda across the public sector.

  We have also established a new body, the Central Local Information Age Forum, which includes representatives from central and local government from across the whole of the United Kingdom. The Forum, which met for the first time in November, will encourage innovation and co-operation between central and local service providers and help to drive up technology standards.

SCOTLAND

  External Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have spent on external consultants and advisers since May 1997. [102098]
  91W
  Dr. Reid
  Expenditure by Executive Agencies of the Scottish Office since May 1997 is estimated as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98

  0.7

  1998–99

  0.7

  1999–2000

  0.4

  92W
  These figures were included in the estimated total for the Scottish Office given in my answer of 10 November 1999, Official Report, column 626W. Figures for the current financial year do not include spending since 1 July onwards, as this is now a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Information on NDPBs of the Scottish Office is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to attend a meeting of the Cabinet on Thursday, 16th December, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Food Safety Standards and Devolution
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the reply by the Baroness Hayman on 21st October that "Because of issues of food safety and food standards, the decision has been taken that it is sensible not to have different regimes in different countries and for us to act in a concerted, United Kingdom fashion" (Official Report, col. 1292), why they granted powers to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to have different regimes concerning food safety and food standards in Scotland and Wales from those in England.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, when it passed the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act in 1998, Parliament decided that responsibility for food safety and standards should be devolved to Scotland and Wales. That means that Scotland and Wales have the competence to make different legislation on those matters if they wish.
2
Equally, they may decide that it is sensible to proceed on a consistent basis, as in the setting up of the Food Standards Agency where it was decided to have one body for England, Scotland and Wales.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that was not the case? What happened was that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly took a decision contrary to that of this Parliament and of Her Majesty's Government. The Government then ran along behind saying that it would be unreasonable to have a different regime in the different parts of the United Kingdom. Why give the powers unless it was intended that they should be used to implement different regimes in different parts of the kingdom?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord refers to the beef on the bone ban. I have examined the slightly inelegant syntax I used in answering the question to which he has drawn attention. I was drawing the analogy with the Food Standards Agency. However, I believe that the noble Lord's basic point is one in which he assumes a difference arising from devolution. In fact, that difference does not exist. It was always the responsibility of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales to take policy decisions in the area of food safety. It was possible to have different legislative regimes before devolution. The noble Lord laughs, but that is true and on occasion it happened. Just because the powers are there does not mean that it will be sensible in every circumstance to exercise them.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who is normally extremely reasonable and rational, on this occasion is being unreasonable and irrational? It is perfectly possible for the Parliament of Westminster, the Parliament of Scotland and the Assembly of Wales

3
on some occasions to agree to have the same policy but on other occasions to agree to differ, in which case one says simply, "Vive la différence"?
Baroness Hayman: My. Lords, I agree with at least one half of my noble friend's intervention. I certainly accept that it is possible to have the legislative ability to take a different view on matters and it may be absolutely right for a devolved administration to have that ability. Equally, it may be in the interests of consumers and, indeed, producers, as I believe it was in the case of the beef on the bone ban, to take a consistent policy across the United Kingdom.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, will the noble Baroness clarify the statement in her initial reply that certain powers were devolved if the devolved institutions wanted to use them? Surely, once devolution takes place, there is a clear cut-off of Westminster's power to legislate or to make decisions. The power is either devolved or it is not.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, indeed, the power is either devolved or it is not. The decision whether, for instance, to be part of a food standards agency is within the competence of the devolved authority. I understand that the Northern Ireland Executive has not considered food safety since devolution on 2nd December but that it will do so soon with regard to its own policy on the Food Standards Agency.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does the noble Baroness mean by that that someone who is acting perfectly legally on this side of the Border can, on crossing the Border, find that the devolved power has made them an illegal person or institution?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it depends on whether or not the noble Lord is referring to powers devolved since devolution. I draw the analogy which is perhaps most helpful to the House. There is a different regime regarding unpasteurised milk north and south of the Scottish Border. As the Secretary of State for Scotland decided, before devolution it was possible to take a different view about the retail sale of unpasteurised milk north and south of the Border. Indeed, an activity which under certain circumstances is legal in terms of food safety south of the Border is not legal north of the Border. Equally, if the devolved authorities chose to have different legislation on food safety, it would, indeed, be possible for something to be legal in one part of the United Kingdom and not legal in another. It was exactly because of the difficulties that that would impose, I suggest, on the beef industry and for consumers that we took time to see whether we could come to a United Kingdom view on beef on the bone, which I am glad to say we were able to do.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Her Majesty's Government say that issues of food safety and food standards are based on sound scientific advice? If that is so, can she explain what
4
other factors—including political factors—affect different decisions made in different parts of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, with respect to the noble Countess, it is not for me to explain the political thinking that may take place in a devolved authority that decides to take a different view on an issue of food safety. As we all know, scientists are not always unanimous in their advice. Policy makers not only have a responsibility to make their decisions based on scientific advice; they must also have regard to the risks and the risks that it is right for consumers to take when making an informed choice.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as England and Scotland have always had separate laws, the situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman—a matter made illegal on one side of the Border and not on the other—has been true ever since the union of the crowns in 1603 without causing much trouble?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I leave such historical judgments to the noble Earl. He is absolutely right. I was using a specific example on food safety to illustrate that post devolution there has not been some enormous constitutional innovation. Of course, the point covers a much broader spectrum of legislation.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is it not absolutely clear from the trouble with the beef on the bone ban that where all three—now all four—governments have a common problem to which there is a common solution, they should adopt that solution?
Baroness Hayman: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the Minister state what possible harm could have come from—
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we are into the ninth minute on this Question.

The Prime Minister's Office: Accommodation
2.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovilasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to provide adequate accommodation for the Prime Minister's official staff.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the current accommodation arrangements for the Prime Minister's Office.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. I can

5
think of no one more skilled or better suited to present it. Is it true that the rather bigger staff that the Prime Minister is said to require today is bursting out of No. 10 and looking for better, bigger and newer accommodation? If that is true, why is so much money being spent on what I may call "old No. 10"? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, with candour, can tell the House whether that pressure is due to the need to accommodate a large image making staff, which is the busiest and most successful department in the Government?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Prime Minister's staff are not bursting out of No. 10. There are no plans to move the staff or to increase the size of the accommodation. On the expenditure referred to, first, the state rooms have been improved for the first time in 10 years, and, secondly, the top floor of No. 10 Downing Street has been brought back into commission as offices following a terrorist attack that occurred some years previously. The number of staff has been increased, as the Labour Party made it clear before coming into office that it would have a strong centre, which it has.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that it is amazing, given the range of responsibilities of a modern Prime Minister, not that the number of staff at No. 10 is so big, but that it is so small?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with much of what my noble friend says. The size of the staff is appropriate to the responsibilities.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, will not the Prime Minister's staff require more accommodatior in order to employ more people to look after the Scottish Executive, which last week managed to get itself into a total shambles resulting in Mr Donald Dewar sacking his chief adviser, despite the desires of Downing Street to keep him? If more staff are needed, can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that the Secretary of State for Scotland will not be evicted and that Dover House will not be taken over by the Prime Minister?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, first, it is absolutely clear that the Prime Minister will stay in No. 10 Downing Street. Secondly, I note the noble Lord's reference to "shambles". I wonder how the Conservative Party feels at the moment about their choice for London mayor. As I understand the position, the No. 1 candidate dropped out and No. 2 has been barred despite the fact that he was allowed in the race the first time round. But perhaps that is straying too far from the Question.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, obviously there is a misunderstanding in relation to that. Thirdly, I do not believe that the Question has anything to do with Scotland.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the cost of the Prime Minister's official staff?
6
How does that cost compare with the cost for the last year of John Major's prime ministership and how are those costs divided between public funds, party funds and the Prime Minister's private funds?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot give the House the precise costs. The difference in terms of the number of staff is that as at 1st April 1997, the number of staff in No. 10 was 130. The current figure is 199. However, I shall write to the noble Earl about the costs.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether a nanny would be classified as part of the Prime Minister's official staff? If so, will extra accommodation be required for him or her?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I should have thought that the question about a nanny would be entirely a matter for the Prime Minister's private arrangements.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the number of people in the Prime Minister's staff increases by 50 per cent, can the Minister explain how they are not over-crowded? Indeed, were they all floating around like ducks in a bath beforehand?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I should have thought that the description of the previous government's staff at No. 10 as "floating … ducks in a bath" might be an appropriate portrayal of what was going on before. However, I cannot tell. The noble Earl is better placed than I to judge that. As far as concerns the present position, the top floor has been brought into commission as offices. Modern methods of space planning are used and there is no difficulty.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, given the Prime Minister's overall responsibility for the Civil Service, would the Minister like to congratulate the Civil Service College on its part in securing the contract to train civil servants of the European Union? Given the size of that task, does the Minister agree that No. 10 Downing Street is likely to be denuded of civil servants for some time to come?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, my Lords. I should like to join the noble Baroness in congratulating the Civil Service College on its training generally and on securing the contract to which she referred.

Phthalate Plasticisers
2.50 p.m.
Lord Taverneasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to revoke the European Commission's ban on phthalate plasticisers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, at a meeting on 1st December of the Emergencies Committee,

7
established under the General Product Safety Directive, the committee unanimously adopted the Commission's proposal to introduce an emergency ban on phthalates in toys intended to be mouthed by children under three years of age. The Department of Trade and Industry will be implementing the measure through administrative measures, which monitor the voluntary undertakings given by United Kingdom industry that products covered by the measure have been removed from the UK market.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, do the Government accept that there is no scientific basis for this ban and that, if the conclusions drawn from tests of chemicals in this case were to be more widely applied, we would have to ban orange juice, marmalade, broccoli and a host of other foodstuffs? Will the Government resist an extension of the ban to medical products, like gloves, syringes and tubing, which would have significant health effects? Finally, does not the imposition of this ban show the need to counter the enormous influence of pressure groups like Greenpeace, which are no respecters of scientific evidence and are more concerned with scare headlines to increase their membership than they are with the protection of health or the environment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two kinds of phthalate plasticisers which could be used in the toy industry. One is DEHP, which has not been used in Britain for 10 years. It is certainly true that that could be dangerous if mouthed and, to that extent, the noble Lord is not correct in his scientific analysis. The second is DINP, which would be dangerous only if it were chewed for a very long time; for example, as a child's dummy. However, no phthalates are used in the production of dummies, teethers or teething rings. Therefore, for the sake of peace and quiet, we decided that it was better to go along with the Union, although the directive does not affect our industry.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House the treaty base under which this absurd piece of nonsense is being taken? Can he also say whether the United Kingdom has the ability to stop it? Alternatively, are we, as usual, outvoted by our good partners in Europe?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, the basis for this ban is the General Product Safety Directive. We did not seek to stop it; we agreed with the ban and allowed it to go forward.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the United Kingdom. However, bearing in mind the exchanges which took place during the previous Question today, one wonders whether Scotland, for example, has the authority to decide not to adopt this particular regulation. Indeed, could Scotland take a completely different attitude towards the ban?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not have an answer to that question, which would not have
8
occurred if the previous Question had not arisen. My immediate judgment is to say that matters of implementation of European Commission directives would be reserved matters, even though food safety is a devolved matter. Most food law is determined at European Union level. Devolved authorities have to work within the harmonised framework. UK policy will have to reflect a consistent line.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is not the case that some phthalates have the potential of being oestrogen mimics? In view of the fact that fish have been found to be of both sexes, or to be changing their sexes, is it not important for us to protect our children? Surely we must always bear this in mind.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. I entirely agree with the noble Countess that it is important for us to protect our children. Indeed, the toy industry in this country also agrees. That is why there have been no DINP phthalates—in fact, no phthalates—used in the production of dummies, teethers and teething rings for a very long time.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to tell us what we are talking about?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, a widely used plastic material is PVC—polyvinyl chloride—of which I am sure the noble Earl will have heard. When it is desirable for it to be softened so that it can be used for toys or, as I said, for dummies, then a plasticiser is used; namely, a phthalate. That is what the Question addresses.
Perhaps I may at this point give the noble Countess, Lady Mar, a further answer to her question. I am advised that DINP has no oestrogenic effect.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I must refer back to the Minister's earlier reply to me because he did not answer my question. Is this piece of legislation taken under qualified majority voting or under unanimity in Brussels; in other words, if we wanted to resist it, could we do so or would we be outvoted?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a hypothetical question in this case. However, I will write to the noble Lord on the subject.

Bahrain: Human Rights and Democracy
2.56 p.m.
Lord Aveburyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they raised human rights and democracy with the Amir of Bahrain during his visit to Britain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary raised human rights in accordance

9
with our ongoing policy of constructive engagement on such issues. He welcomed the positive steps that the Amir has taken towards national unity and to improve Bahrain's human rights situation since his accession, and offered our assistance and advice on human rights sues.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but she did not mention "democracy" which was the other part of my Question. Is not one of the most fundamental rights of every adult to participate in the control of public affairs? Therefore, will the Government encourage the Amir to enter into a dialogue with the leaders of the Committee for Popular Partition about the restoration of the 1973 constitution and parliament? Further, even if they are not prepared to introduce democracy immediately, will the Minister advise the Government of Bahrain that the expression of a willingness to do so in principle and to have a dialogue with that committee on the modalities and the time-scale would do an enormous amount to decrease tension in the island?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have spoken with the Amir. We found that cur policy of constructive engagement on sensitive issues, such as human rights, was more successful than any approach taken hitherto. Of course, this is an opportunity for us to engage, and engage well, will the Amir to forward the general democratisation process. We are very hopeful that that government will be sensitive to the matters raised by us.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the Minister be unnerved to discover that I agree with her? Further, in order to strengthen her case, will she take into account that if Her Majesty's Government were to lecture the Government of Bahrain on these matters, they might be expected to lecture the Government of China, of Russia and of a good many other countries on exactly the same matter? I do not think that that would be conducive to good international relations.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am very relieved to know that there is a matter on which the noble Lord and I can perhaps concur. I doubt that it will be a rare occurrence, but I am happy to grasp it as it arises.
We have engaged in a very constructive way with the Bahrainis on matters of mutual interest, including human rights. We have also discussed their concerns. Since his accession in March, the Amir has taken positive steps towards reconciliation with the Shi'a population of Bahrain and the opposition, which we have welcomed. Thus the process appears to be in good order.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, are not women and youth the most effective catalyst throughout the Middle East for the embracement of human rights
10
and democratic principles? Can the Minister say whether there are any projects encompassing women and youth which are available for the Government to support?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have no specific answer to the noble Viscount's question but of course I endorse what he says. It is important that young people and women of all countries have such opportunities so that we can enhance human rights to ensure that our future is a little better than our past.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I spent a few days' holiday in Bahrain some years ago, and I found the people there happy and prosperous. Will the noble Baroness say how an extension of democracy and human rights would make them any happier?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is not for me to comment on whether they would or would not be happier. Certainly, your Lordships will be familiar with the Government's position in relation to these matters. Of course, we seek to have harmonious international relations with all countries. We are happy that we are well on the way to confirming and consolidating those steps in relation to Bahrain.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, from the Minister's reply to my supplementary question I was not quite clear whether the matter of democracy was raised. Without seeking to lecture—we get enough of those from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, when he is present—I ask her once again whether the Amir was specifically asked whether he would enter into discussions with the leaders of the de facto opposition; that is, the Committee for Popular Partition, on the restoration of the 1973 constitution and the 1974 parliament. That is a simple question.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not have a specific answer to the noble Lord's question. I know that issues of sensitivity were raised. For the purposes of the Question, I have assumed that they were, but I certainly undertake to write to the noble Lord with a specific answer.

Business
3.1 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the European Council in Helsinki. The Statement is likely to be taken after the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the Care Standards Bill.

Healthcare Services Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to regulate the provision of certain healthcare services outside the National Health Service. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Select Committees of the House
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Craig of Radley be appointed a member of the Committee of Selection, the House of Lords' Offices Committee, the Liaison Committee, the Committee for Privileges and the Procedure of the House Committee in the place of the Lord Weatherill.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Care Standards Bill [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill has at its heart two key aims—first, to protect vulnerable people from abuse and neglect, and, secondly, to promote the highest standards of quality in the care that people receive, whoever is providing it.
I am glad that so many noble Lords with experience and expertise in this area will speak during our Second Reading debate. I extend a particular welcome to my noble friend Lord Mackenzie of Culkein who will make his maiden speech. He was an excellent general secretary of COHSE and founder of my union, UNISON. He will bring many insights to your Lordships' House, particularly in this area.
The coverage of the Bill is broad. It deals with private and voluntary healthcare, including the most acute and high-tech services provided in that sector. It deals with long-term nursing and social care for older people and disabled people and it deals with a wide range of services for children from residential care through to childminding and day care. In every one of those vitally important services people have a right to expect protection from harm and a right to expect that the care they receive will be of a decent standard.
In many cases that is what they get. However, as noble Lords know only too well, too often that is not the case. A great number of inquiries and reports have highlighted the failings of the current systems for safeguarding people's welfare. The Care Standards Bill provides for radical and far-reaching improvements to the arrangements for ensuring
12
quality and protection in these services. First of all, the Bill provides for the establishment of the national care standards commission. The commission will be responsible for the regulation of private and voluntary hospitals and clinics, of care homes for elderly or disabled people, of agencies providing care to people at home, and of children's homes, residential family centres, fostering agencies and adoption agencies. It will also carry out welfare inspections of boarding schools and colleges which accommodate children.
The Registered Homes Act of 1984 has for many years been considered ineffective and inappropriate in the way it deals with private healthcare services. This Bill will for the first time set out a clear and separate category of independent hospital, with specific regulations made to set out the detailed requirements and standards that every such hospital must meet. In recognition of the importance and distinctive needs of healthcare there will also be a separate division within the national care standards commission which will concentrate on this area.
One of the problems of the current system is that with 100 health authorities in England and another five in Wales the average health authority inspection unit simply does not have the expertise necessary to regulate the acute healthcare services. With the concentration of expertise that comes from a single national body, that will no longer be the case. For the first time we shall have proper, strong standards for private and voluntary healthcare services, with inspection and, where necessary, enforcement action carried out by expert inspectors dedicated to that field. People who use private healthcare can be assured that private hospitals will be required to work to proper modern standards of healthcare with adequate numbers of appropriately qualified staff, equipment and facilities that are up to standard and thorough arrangements for back-up should an emergency arise.
I shall cover briefly the range of services that the national care standards commission will also be responsible for regulating. The commission will regulate the 30,000 care homes in this country accommodating nearly half a million people, including for the first time care homes run by local authorities which until now have been exempt. In providing for a national, independent regulation system, as promised in our election manifesto, we shall remove the inconsistency and inefficiencies of the current regime. The split between local authorities which regulate residential homes, and health authorities which regulate nursing homes, will be replaced by a single and flexible system that will allow care homes to provide a mix of personal care and nursing care appropriate to the needs of those receiving the care. The commission will still require that where nursing care is provided there are appropriate qualified nursing staff to deliver that care. But the regulation system will be geared to people's individual needs and not to artificial boundaries.
For the first time care provided to people in their own homes will be subject to statutory regulation. As your Lordships will be aware, care in people's own homes is increasingly provided where in the past

13
admission to residential care would have been necessary. We welcome that trend. The introduction of regulation in this sector will be a huge step forward in improving quality and safety for people who rely on such services.
The importance of protecting vulnerable children is deeply felt throughout this House. The national care standards; commission will have significant responsibilities for safeguarding children. All types of children's homes will be regulated and subjected to rigorous inspections. This, again, will include local authority homes that are currently exempt and small private children's homes for fewer than four children.
The Bill will also introduce for the first time regulatory regimes for fostering agencies and for residential family centres. The national care standards commission will also regulate the crucial and specialised work of voluntary adoption agencies in a way similar to the current system operated by the Social Services Inspectorate. In recognition of its role in safeguarding children, the national care standards commission will appoint a children's rights director whose job it will be to ensure that children's rights and welfare are at the heart of all its responsibilities for regulating children's services.
The regulation of children's services must not be swamped by the much larger volume of adult services that the commission will deal with. The children's rights director will also provide a crucial function in being the person who will always he there for anyone to turn to when they have concerns or suspicions about what might be happening in a children's home or in other services. Too often, when scandals of abuse have been uncovered, children or staff members say that they knew something was not right but they were uncertain who to go to when they had concerns. I hope that we will not in future hear that people did not know who they could turn to.
The provisions in Part IV of the Bill establish a general social care council. Many people, including a number of your Lordships, have been calling for such a council for many years. We made it clear soon after coming to office that we would deliver on our long-standing commitment to establish the council, and this Bill keeps that promise. We have made it very clear, though, that the council will not be a body solely concerned with professionally qualified social workers. That would indeed be a missed opportunity. When the social care work-force numbers 1 million, 80 per cent of whom have currently no recognised qualification, we would be failing in our duties unless we set up a body whose concern went wider than the 50,000 most qualified members of that 1 million-strong workforce.
Professional social work and the system that underpins it will certainly be a crucial concern of the council, but it will oversee standards and training throughout the whole of the sector. Indeed, one of its first tasks will be to draw up codes of practice and conduct for social care workers and social care employers. These codes, the first of their kind in this
14
sector, will set out enforceable standards of conduct and practice expected of all those working in social care.
The general social care council will also register individual staff working on an incremental basis. With such low levels of qualifications, it will clearly take some time for the training in the sector to reach the levels where the majority of the workforce could be registered. For that reason the Bill also provides a mechanism to ensure that a social worker who has harmed someone in his or her care will not find his or her way back into the workforce.
Following the Protection of Children Act passed earlier this year, there is already a central list of people judged unsuitable to work with children. Part VI of the Bill introduces an equivalent measure for dealing with people who are unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults. I recall the concern expressed by many of your Lordships in debate that adults can be vulnerable as well as children. We have listened to those concerns and we agree with them. Nor is this measure confined to adults with a learning disability, which was the subject of our debate at that time. Any adult receiving care can be vulnerable, and the definition in the Bill is drawn accordingly.
I turn now to the Government's proposals for the regulation of child care, dealt with in Part V of the Bill. During our first two years in office we created as many child care places as the previous administration managed to create in 18 years. We will now build on those achievements. We recognise that for young people in particular the line between care and education is becoming increasingly blurred. Given this, reform of the regulatory regime for day care and childminding is important. The Bill will transfer responsibility for regulation from individual local authorities to a national body. We have decided that this will be a new, distinct arm of Ofsted.
Bringing together the regulatory systems for child care and nursery education will not only help create greater coherence and integration but will also lead to improvements in the quality of early years service. Establishing national standards for Ofsted to operate will ensure that child safety will no longer be a matter of geography but one of consistency across all of the country. The present system has become, in effect, one of localised regulation. This has led to widely varying interpretations in different parts of the country. A national framework will help to ensure a level playing field for all providers and will deliver clarity for both the regulated and the regulator.
We are also using this opportunity to make other improvements. Importantly, for the first time the Bill allows for new duties to be placed on those involved in looking after children aged between eight and 14, or 16 in the case of disabled children. These providers will be required to demonstrate that they and their employees are suitable people to look after children.
Taken in total, these measures will radically reform the regulation of child care. This is a crucial step towards creating a level playing field for public, private and voluntary sector providers. More

15
importantly, they will give parents greater peace of mind knowing that their children are being properly cared for, and our children will benefit for many years to come.
Before I conclude, I should like to say a few words about the arrangements in Wales. All of the provisions in the Bill apply to Wales as well as to England. In keeping with the devolution settlement, the National Assembly for Wales will be responsible for the functions that are conferred in respect of Wales. In Wales, the responsibilities of the national care standards commission will be carried out by the Assembly itself. The Bill establishes a care council for Wales which will match the general social care council in England. For the regulation of early years provision, there will be a formal partnership arrangement between the National Assembly, which will regulate the child care services, and Estyn, the Welsh equivalent of Ofsted.
These arrangements, which follow separate consultation exercises carried out by the Welsh Assembly, will mean that the same objectives and principles will be met in Wales in a way that suits the needs and circumstances of Wales. That, of course, is the purpose of the devolution settlement. I believe that the Care Standards Bill is an example of that settlement working in practice.
The Bill will provide modern, reliable arrangements for protecting the welfare of vulnerable people. It will put in place rigorous and coherent regulatory arrangements. As well as safeguarding people against abuse, it will promote high quality standards. It will revitalise the social care workforce and provide it with the recognition that it deserves. It will benefit staff; it will benefit those who run care services; and, most of all, it will benefit those who depend on those services. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
3.17 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the House has reason to be grateful to the Minister, for the second time in less than a week, for a lucid and balanced explanation of an important Bill. This Bill, though, unlike the one that we debated last Tuesday, scans a particularly wide horizon. It concerns itself not with a restricted range of public services provided to a small though deserving minority, but rather with the entire scope of activity embraced by the term "social services" and with a whole lot more besides, including acute and long-term healthcare. In so doing, it speaks directly to the users of such services, and potentially, therefore, to every single one of us.
On this side of the House we recognise the concerns that have led the Government to bring forward such a far-reaching measure. They are concerns that we share. Children and vulnerable adults in all too many reported cases have suffered from abuse and neglect. No one has a clear idea of what standards of care should be aspired to or treated as the norm in
16
residential homes, nursing homes, children's homes or boarding schools. The regulation of these various kinds of establishment is governed by a veritable patchwork of arrangements that nevertheless fail to be all-embracing. Standards vary according to where you happen to be, as do the costs of providing very similar services in similar parts of the country. Some 80 per cent of the entire social care workforce have no recognised qualifications or training. In the independent acute sector the arrangements for inspecting and enforcing standards in hospitals and clinics are woefully out of date and, in some cases, non-existent.
It is quite plain that if these concerns are to be tackled effectively, it will be necessary to underpin any new arrangements by means of regulation. The independent acute sector has indeed been pressing for such regulation for years. The Bill that we are now considering embodies that aim. But if we decide to regulate, there are several points that we need to remember. The first is that any regulation carries with it a burden of cost. Therefore, regulation must not only have a beneficial purpose; it must also be framed and implemented in a way that is cost-effective and not overly burdensome to those directly affected by it.
The second point that we need to bear in mind is that a piece of regulation that sets standards of good practice must focus on the standards that really matter and make sure that all those within its natural purview are treated in a consistent and uniform way. In the present case one of the things that we are trying to avoid is the "unlevel" playing field—and a playing field where half the time the referee is off the pitch. When we have finished regulating we do not want to find a pitch which is still obviously unlevel and a game that cannot proceed because the referee spends all his time blowing the whistle.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that we on these Benches are able to issue a cautious welcome to a fair proportion of this Bill. But we have to recognise that the Bill is in large measure an empty box. It establishes a legislative framework with little indication of its content. That of itself may not be a cause for complaint—indeed, it may be unavoidable—but it leads to the unfortunate consequence that we can only debate headlines and not detail. The devil will lie in that detail and we shall not be made aware of it until such time as the succession of statutory instruments is laid regrettably, I have to say, under the negative procedure.
One important set of such important regulations will be those that emerge from the consultation exercise that is currently in train under the title "Fit for the Future?" on the national standards for residential and nursing homes for the elderly. I have little doubt that we can devise a way of debating some of these detailed proposals in Committee should we wish to do so.
However, the debate is bound to be inconclusive because until the consultation period has ended there is nothing that the Minster can say by way or reassurance to us beyond the broadest of

17
undertakings. That is why I have to sound a note of deep unhappiness over this Bill, not in the first instance over its content. but over the timing of its introduction. We really ought to have the draft regulations in front of us as we debate it so we can see what it will mean in practice. I shall say more about where that leads us in a few moments.
What then of the content? I fear that there are a fair few criticisms that I wish straightway to lay at the Government's door. The first is that in one or two important respects they have retreated from the positions that they adopted, in largely reassuring terms, in their White Paper of November 1998, called Modernising Social Services. That document recognised a critical fact about social services: that they are a local service that varies from one part of the country to another in response to differing local needs and circumstances.
In recognition of that it was originally proposed that in England there should be eight regional commissions for care standards based on the boundaries of the NHS and social care regions. That proposal has been abandoned in the Bill in favour of one national care standards commission covering the whole of England. I question the wisdom of that change. The big advantage of autonomous local boards would have been their understanding of the particular needs and circumstances of their own areas—for example, in the context of health improvement programmes— and the ability to draw their board members from representatives of users and providers in the locality.
As it is, I confess to a feeling of inner dread at the creation of a single national body issued with a truly gigantic remit, which will find it all too easy to issue edicts from a position of lofty eminence and which will all too readily come to be regarded as being remote from reality.
The White Paper also spoke about achieving greater consistency of standards across the board, with users and providers knowing exactly where they stand. I have every sympathy with that aspiration. But what are we to make of it when we find that apparently in the acute sector NHS pay beds are to be excluded from regulation? What are we to make of it when we see that day care services for adults are also omitted? Exclusions such as these make a nonsense of the so-called level playing field when a person lying in one bed or sitting in a particular chair is covered by regulatory standards and by a regime of inspection and enforcement, but a person lying in a similar room nearby or sitting in the next chair, is not. I worry about the fact that the regulation of acute hospitals has been lumped in with nursing and care homes. It is almost unbelievable that acute surgical activity should be overseen by the same body as regulates residential and nursing homes.
But I am sorry to say that I believe I know the reason. The lively debates that we had in this House during the passage of the health Bill revealed a concern shared by many of your Lordships that the Government have a duty to establish a regulatory regime to protect all patients, whether they choose to
18
use the NHS or the independent sector. Both the NHS and private hospitals should be subject to the same duty of quality and to equivalent standards of clinical governance. Yet, as I read the explanatory notes, the care standards commission appears to have but a single focus; namely, care standards. It seems that clinical standards are outwith its remit. I am disappointed and depressed that the Government have not seized this golden opportunity to make the clinical quality agenda a reality for all patients.
As we debate this Bill, it is the patient, the service user, the elderly resident in a home and the child in care whom we need to keep at the front of our minds at all times. Everything that appears in this Bill or arises directly out of it, must be for the benefit of those people. That may sound like a statement of the blindingly obvious, but it is a message that, if the Government are not careful, they may lose sight of. My heart sank as I read the first set of detailed draft standards relating to residential and nursing homes for the elderly. These are some of the suggested standards: single rooms in current use must have at least 10 square metres of usable floor space or 12 square metres for wheelchair users. New single rooms must have at least 12 square metres of usable floor space. Each room must have overhead and local lighting; two chairs, at least one of which is an armchair. There must be enclosed space for hanging clothes, a TV aerial point, at least three accessible double electric sockets, and so on.
As regards nursing requirements, it is proposed that in the morning there should be ratios of five residents for each member of staff; seven to one in the afternoon and 10 to one at night, with additional staff on duty at peak times of activity.
What kind of brave new world are we in? It is prescriptiveness gone mad. It is an approach which reveals that the plot has been totally and utterly lost as regards what "care" actually means. Worse still, it is likely to prove devastating to the viability of many hundreds of nursing and residential homes throughout the country.
Perhaps I may quote some of the comments about this. The first is from the nursing director of the Registered Homes Association. He says,
"It is not about how many nurses you have got, it is the skills of those nurses that are important. Standards must be meaningful and concentrate on quality, not merely on physical standards".
The next quotation is from a residential home proprietor in the south west. He says,
"I have difficulty comprehending how an increase in bedroom size can have that great an effect on the care and well being of our residents. The vast majority spend no waking time in them whatsoever. These standards would bankrupt us. Eighteen residents would be homeless. Twenty four staff, many of them breadwinners, would be unemployed".
Yet another pointed out that the only way he would be able to increase the usable floor space in bedrooms would be to rip out en suite toilets which he has just put in at considerable expense. Work like that is as absurd as it is unaffordable. Indeed, in a survey carried out by the magazine Caring Times, in which 400 care homes of all sizes took part, it was shown that no fewer than

19
54 per cent of all beds and 49 per cent of jobs would be lost immediately if the standards in Fit for the Future? were introduced. More than 50 per cent of respondents said that they would be forced to close due to bankruptcy. The Department of Health has estimated that if the draft standards were to be applied now, without any transitional period, 20 to 23 per cent of independent sector residential homes would not meet the space and amenity standards; 12 per cent of nursing homes and 55 per cent of local authority residential homes would not do so. Furthermore, 53 to 56 per cent of nursing homes would not meet the staffing standards. Noble Lords should note that the public sector as well as the independent sector would be affected.
The real world is out there. Those who live in it feel that the regulations about to descend on them have been invented by inspectors for inspectors, without any heed to the meagre income levels of many residential homes which are barely enough to pay staff, let alone to service capital. I should add in passing that these income levels are a direct result of totally inadequate revenue support grant settlements that in turn directly affect fee rates.
To return to my comments of a moment ago, all regulation brings with it a burden of cost. From where is the money to come to upgrade all these homes, if that is what the Government are determined to insist upon? Unless a little sense is knocked into the process by Ministers—and there is still time to do that—the consequences in human terms and for social services will be dire. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the pall of uncertainty that has been cast over the industry as a consequence of these proposals. Owners of nursing or residential homes cannot take out a mortgage unless they are either extremely lucky or they sell their properties. One correspondent recently described the situation as a blight.
The key indicators in assessing standards of care may not be those that are easy to measure, but they are the ones that matter; namely, the quality of the overall care experience. Somehow the Government must get closer to those indicators. In doing so, they must remember that the needs and preferences of service users are diverse. It is salutary to remind ourselves of one of the critical paragraphs in the White Paper, paragraph 4.48, which I shall quote in part:
"too much national prescription can lead to bad regulation. The key objective must be to develop a limited range of standards to apply at national level, with a certain degree of flexibility allowed more locally. These standards will focus on the key areas that most affect the quality of life experienced by service users … [and] will need to have regard to costs and effectiveness when they are being developed".
Those are the principles that underpin the national service frameworks and, by sticking to them, Ministers can keep this show on the road.
The Committee stage of the Bill will lead us to examine a great deal of detail that is as yet unclear, including the commission, its composition, powers and duties, its cost and procedures. We shall have many questions to ask on the general social care
20
council, the implications of the blacklist procedures, the repeal of the Nurses Agencies Act and much more. However, for now I shall conclude by expressing my hope that, as so often in the past, your Lordships' House will perform its role as a scrutinising Chamber to good effect. On these Benches we look forward to playing our part in that process and ensuring that we make this important Bill a better one.

European Council, Helsinki, 10th–11th December
3.33 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"Accompanied by my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I attended a meeting of the European Council in Helsinki on 10th and 11th December.
"The key decisions of the Helsinki Summit were far-reaching. It increased to 12 the number of countries involved in accession negotiations with the EU and gave candidate status to Turkey for the first time. That presages a hugely enlarged EU and, over time, with the membership of Turkey now formally on the agenda, an EU with its borders stretching as far as the Middle East. In addition, it has significantly pushed forward European defence co-operation, allowing the EU for the first time to build the capability of acting where NATO is not engaged. These are truly historic decisions for the EU.
"Before the start of the summit, we learned of the decision of the French Government to refuse to abide by the decision of the EU and lift the ban on British beef. As I said in this House on 10th November, it was always preferable to settle this through discussion and clarification; but failing that we would have to go to law. We worked hard to reach an understanding with France. In the end, the Commission tabled a summary of our response to French questions which we and the Commission believed should have satisfied reasonable concerns. Unfortunately, the French Government were unable to agree them. The Commission is now taking France to court, and it will issue its formal legal opinion tomorrow.
"There were some who said that we should have tabled this issue at the Helsinki Summit. I can think of nothing more counter-productive or misjudged. At present, British beef can be sold in 13 out of the 15 EU countries. The Commission is completely on side with us. The beef ban is in law lifted. To have reopened the entire issue—and given all 15 countries an obligation to debate an issue the vast majority regard as closed—would have been tactical ineptitude on a grand scale. Neither do I think it is sensible to threaten a trade war with France. We

21
have trade with France worth billions of pounds. To break the law ourselves, while seeking to have it upheld against France, would be folly. We will not do it.
"To return to the summit, the main issue was the enlargement of the European Union, which this Government strongly support. Democracy and the market economy are now firmly established in the majority of central and eastern European countries, and they are increasingly ready to join the European Union. We al so owe an obligation to those countries who stood by us in the Kosovo conflict earlier this year.
"Six countries—Poland; Hungary; the Czech Republic; Estonia; Slovenia and Cyprus—began negotiations last year. The European Council decided to open negotiations early next year with six more: Latvia; Lithuania; Slovakia; Malta; Bulgaria and Romania. The process is lengthy and detailed, but it is now firmly under way.
"On Cyprus, the European Council welcomed the negotiations under way in New York between the Cypriot leaders. Successful conclusion of these talks would r of only bring a welcome end to a long-running dispute, but also facilitate Cyprus's accession to the EU, and we urge all those involved to make every effort to reach agreement. But at Helsinki, Heads of Government endorsed our view that Cyprus's accession was a matter for decision by the member states of the European Union and that there should be no pre-conditions.
"The European Council also opened a new and much more positive chapter in its relations with Turkey. This has long been a preoccupation for Britain; Turkey is of great strategic importance, and an ally in NATO. A more constructive relationship between Turkey and the EU is overdue. But we have now secured that. Turkey is now a candidate country, destined to join the European Union on the same basis as the other candidates. It will enjoy all the benefits of other candidates, including financial assistance, even though accession negotiations are unlikely to begin for some time. It is an excellent outcome.
"The intergovernmental conference next year is aimed at preparing the Union for the impending enlargement. The Helsinki Council confirmed that the conference should focus on the size and composition of the European Commission, the weighting of votes in the Council and the possible extension of qualified majority voting, in certain limited areas. The conference will begin in February and complete its work by the end of next year.
"On security and defence, the European Council endorsed our view that the top priority is for European nations to strengthen their military capabilities. At Helsinki, we agreed that member states should, by 2003, be able to deploy and sustain for at least one year military forces of up to 50,000 or 60,000 troops, capable of a range of tasks essentially defined as humanitarian and rescue missions, peacekeeping or peace enforcement.
22
"There have been suggestions that this agreement to increase the options open to us in future crises has adverse implications for NATO, or that the European Union is creating a European army. This is the opposite of the case. The European Council made clear that the EU will launch and conduct military operations only where NATO as a whole is not engaged. The process will involve full consultation and transparency with NATO. The six non-EU allies will be involved and consulted before decisions are taken, and will be able to take a full part in resulting operations. The EU will avoid unnecessary duplication with NATO.
"Final decisions on whether to involve troops will remain firmly with national governments. These arrangements do not imply a European army, as the Helsinki Council made explicitly clear.
"But it would be a tragic mistake, repeating mistakes of British European policy over the past few decades, if Britain opted out of the debate on European defence and left the field to others. This is a debate we must shape and influence from the start, because our vital strategic interests are affected by it. As a result of our participation, it is moving in a clear direction reinforcing NATO, not in opposition to it. I completely reject the view of those who would have us opt out of this issue.
"The conflict in Chechnya was much on our minds at Helsinki. Our relationship with Russia is a vital one, above all for the security and stability of our continent. We want Russia to continue on the path of democracy, market economy and the rule of law and will continue to support the transition process. But business as usual is not possible while human rights are being comprehensively abused in a corner of the Russian Federation. The EU called for a political solution to this issue and adopted a series of actions designed to back up the words of strong condemnation.
"On the withholding tax, the Council agreed a sensible way forward. We will continue to work for a solution to the issue of tax evasion that rightly concerns some of our EU partners, Germany in particular. But this cannot be done at the expense of a major European financial market based here in London. I have made it clear that we will not permit that. We also have genuine concern about the efficacy of the measures proposed. So we have also insisted that, in debating the way forward, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal for an exchange of information on a basis that involves more than just EU countries should be examined. There is increasing recognition that it is no good adopting measures in the EU if the only impact is that the market in savings moves outside the EU. The rest of the tax package we can support, although of course other countries have difficulties with parts of it.
"The Helsinki Summit dealt with pressing issues of the day, but also had a vision for the future. We made the historic decision that the Europe of the future would be one that embraced countries in

23
eastern Europe that 10 short years ago were only just emerging from totalitarian communist rule. This enlarged Europe is one that would have been unimaginable until the very recent past and it is one that we should embrace. We also made the decision that our continent of Europe, which twice this century has lost millions of its citizens in the two most bloody wars in human history, should now co-operate in defence where the object is to help to keep the peace. A bigger European Union, a union committed to embracing countries committed to democracy, a Europe of nations determined to use their collective strength to advance our values—that is our vision and I commend it to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset how grateful I am to the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement. But will she agree with me that it was strong on generalisation but weak on any details?
On a more helpful note, I concur with her on the gravity of the situation in Chechnya. Is she aware that we support the measures agreed at Helsinki, including the diversion of TACIS funding, but that we also need to ensure that we do not undermine democratic forces in Russia? Is she concerned that, strongly as we condemn the unacceptable and brutal Russian action, the bombing of Belgrade and other cities by NATO may have provided a pretext—but certainly no excuse—for the Russian action? Does she agree that we need to think very carefully about the application of the Blair doctrine on armed military interventions in other countries' internal affairs?
I turn to the substance of the summit. Is the noble Baroness aware that we on this side strongly support the expansion of the European Union to the states to the east? In particular, does she recall that we have on repeated occasions deplored the offensive attitude taken by some EU members towards Turkey? Will she accept our support for inclusion of Turkey in the process of enlargement? But is she aware that we do not believe that admission to the Union must invariably be on the basis of the acquis communautaire? Is it not important to campaign for greater flexibility within the Union? Was it not regrettable that at the recent WTO conference the EU was adopting protectionist positions, when it is clear that free trade has been the greatest creator of prosperity in the world in the past two centuries? Do the Government remain unequivocally committed to the principles of free trade? Did the Prime Minister urge that position on our EU partners? In particular, did he oppose any requirement on aspirant members of the EU that they should regulate their labour markets and industries in order to qualify for EU admission? Would it not be bizarre for states like Estonia, which have just escaped central regulation and freed their economies, to have to re-regulate to join the EU? I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to assure the House that that will not be the case.
24
This brings me to the reality of the Helsinki conference. Do the Government regret that after their unilateral abandonment of the previous government's hard-won positions on the Social and Employment Chapters they have received precisely nothing? Are the Government ashamed that up and down this country as we speak there are millions of businesses—some of them small traders—wrestling with form after form, and regulation after regulation, that have been imposed on British business under the Social Chapter and various employment directives? Are they not concerned that our competitiveness is being sapped and the enthusiasm of entrepreneurs destroyed by such regulation? What was it all for? What has the Prime Minister achieved for small businesses in Britain?
In 1997 the Prime Minister preened himself, cycling around Amsterdam as a great European. No more bicycles now, my Lords. Instead, he has found himself being railroaded towards imposing a disastrous tax on the City of London. He was greeted with contempt and ridicule when he tried, far too belatedly, to speak up for our farmers. Does not this summit represent the complete failure of the Prime Minister's strategy on Europe? Will the Leader of the House tell us one thing that he has achieved by his willingness to sign away the interests of British business in Amsterdam? Has not his whole policy on Europe been exposed as utterly naive? We were told by the Prime Minister on 14th July that,
"the decision to lift the beef ban has come about because the government have a constructive attitude to Europe. That is why we got the beef ban lifted and it is another example of new Labour working".
Was that not utterly naive? Should not the Prime Minister, and in his absence the noble Baroness, apologise to our beef farmers who were misled in this way? Will she tell us precisely when Germany will lift the ban on our beef and when she expects the law case against France to be concluded? Does she regret not pressing on her colleagues the need to respond earlier to the unequivocal call from this House to end the beef on the bone ban? Was the vote on that not an example of this House working—and of New Labour failing to listen? Would the position of Ministers arguing for our beef abroad have been much stronger had they spoken up for it at home? Is it therefore not an insult to our farmers to be told that the Prime Minister did not raise this issue at the summit and that—I quote from the briefing—he,
"was so angry he didn't even mention the crisis when he met with Lionel Jospin last night"?
Why did he not mention it? Was he just weak? Was he temporarily embarrassed? Had he forgotten his French? My French is not on a par with the much-vaunted French of the Prime Minister, but is not the phrase he was looking for, "C'est inacceptable"?
Is not the handling of the withholding tax another example of the foolishness of the Prime Minister? Time and again at the Dispatch Box the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, no less, has been asked by the House to make clear to our partners that this country would veto a withholding tax. Would it not have been better if the Government had taken the advice of this House and made that clear from the

25
outset? Will the Leader of the House make it clear that the Government will veto any withholding tax and that if any effort is made to impose it on Britain under any legal basis from without, we will not pass it into law? Will she declare unequivocally that a vital national interest is involved here and that the Luxembourg compromise will be invoked? Will she make it clear that Britain will reject the view, implicit in the Helsinki communiqué, that all savings in the EU should be taxed? When the Prime Minister says that he can,
"accept the rest of the tax package",
does that mean that he accepts the principle of tax harmonisation in Europe?
Turning to some other issues, was there any discussion at Helsinki of the proposed new takeover directive? If so, did the Prime Minister make it clear that we would r of accept any dilution of the freedom and flexibility of the Takeover Panel rules?
On the question of a European army, what will be the common language of such an army? Will commands be given in English? Does the Minister agree with the warning of the US Deputy Secretary of State that,
"America would not want to see an ESDI that comes into being first within NATO and finally grows away from NATO"?
Is it the view of the UK Government that our prime strategic interest remains first, last and always the preservation of the NATO alliance? When the Prime Minister says that he will avoid unnecessary duplication with NATO, should he not mean "no duplication" with NATO?
Was there any discussion of transport matters at the Helsinki Summit? If so, did the Prime Minister inform his colleagues of the new division of responsibilities within the DETR? Will the Minister join these Benches in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, on his promotion? Can she confirm that in all future EU Councils on transport it will be the noble Lord who will speak up for Britain?
In conclusion, is it not clear that, far from moulding a new Europe, the Prime Minister has limped along behind an old integrationist agenda? Is that not why he agreed at Helsinki to open-ended discussion on abolishing our veto, to taxing savings and to the creation of a new Euro-army? Has he not carried off an unbelievable double—to sign up to the Euro—federalist agenda while simultaneously being isolated in Europe?
Does the Minister recall that, when my noble friend Lady Thatcher was isolated, she won the British rebate; and that when my right honourable friend Mr Major was isolated, he won the UK opt-outs from the Social Chapter and the single currency? Is it not the truth that the Prime Minister is the first to return from a European summit both isolated arid empty-handed? Over the past two and a half years he has given away vital British national interests and achieved precisely nothing. That is a humiliation for the Prime Minister, but it is also a tragedy for Europe and a tragedy for Britain.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, want to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on the Statement that she has repeated. First, with regard to the French attempt to ban British beef, will she confirm that under the European Union there is a clear resort to legal action? Will also she confirm that in the case of other countries, such as the United States which has maintained a ban on British beef for many years, there is no such resort and no way in which that country can be legally obliged to take British beef, whereas that is not the case with France?
Secondly, will the Minister confirm that, in rejecting a proposal for a withholding tax, the United Kingdom agrees that there are serious problems of evasion and money-laundering which must be dealt with and proposes to set up a working party under the European Union to investigate the problem and see how it might best be met?
Thirdly, will the Minister confirm that in discussions with the United States on the issue of the European strategic and defence initiative, it was made clear by Mr Strobe Talbott and others that the United States welcomed such a development providing that there was proper consultation with the American administration; and that, in addition, the United States has made it plain that in some cases it would be willing to support, logistically and with intelligence information, those particular foreign policy initiatives that it supports but was never selfish enough to be directly engaged in? Given that, is it not the case that, at the summit, Europe has taken another step forward to a genuine and balanced partnership between the western nations?
Does the noble Baroness agree that the ambitious and historic programme for a major enlargement, now to include a further six countries and Turkey, places heavy responsibilities on the existing member states to achieve a reasonable timetable? Is it the view of the noble Baroness and her right honourable friend the Prime Minister that we can be sure that the IGC will take place, and that it will deal with the major outstanding institutional issues, including a simplification of a European Union constitution?
We commend the Prime Minister and the Government on their wider vision of where Europe should be and the efforts that they are making towards that. Does the Minister appreciate that there is an unbelievable double in respect of the Opposition, with half the party wanting to get out of Europe and half the party wanting to stand on the fence—an uncomfortable and physically impossible position to sustain?
3.56 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, particularly for the vivid metaphor at the end of her remarks.
On the general points raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about enlargement of the European Union and the terms of

27
the acquis, I am sure that the noble Lord had read the extremely well-informed and authoritative debate that took place in this House last week, to which my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal replied, and the Private Notice Question relating to Chechnya, to which she also responded at the end of last week. I can add nothing helpful to what was said on that occasion, particularly as regards the flexibility that the UK Government seek to adopt on the acquis and the transition measures being taken with the other candidate states. However, we shall want to return to those points. The same applies in relation to Chechnya. I have taken advice as to whether anything further can be added regarding the preservation of the safe corridor that we all hope will be achieved to maintain the flow of refugees. The situation remains similar to that reported to the House by my noble friend at the end of last week.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised questions relating to the European defence situation and whether it might lead inevitably to Europe being in conflict with NATO and in particular with our American allies. The noble Baroness rightly quoted one American expert in this area. Perhaps I may quote the US Defense Secretary. At the NATO ministerial meeting on the 2nd and 3rd of December, he said that for many years the United States Congress had been asking the Europeans to assume a greater burden. To précis his remarks, he said that the United States welcomed the arrangements that would be discussed at Helsinki and understood that it would be done in the context of having a European capability that would strengthen NATO. He added that there was no ground for speculation that somehow it would lead to a division between Europe and the United States. Noble Lords who have had a chance to examine the conclusions of the Helsinki Summit will have seen that at paragraph 27 there is an explicit undertaking spelling out clearly that this is in no way leading to the formation of a European army. Therefore, the noble Lord's question as to the language in which commands would be given is, frankly, irrelevant.
In passing, perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that the IGC is scheduled to take place, and will end, by this time next year. Its primary concerns will, we hope, be focused on the reform of the structures that we have discussed several times in this House, particularly with a view to the arrangements that will be necessary when we come to examine the wider application of the candidate state.
On the question of beef, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness. There is little more to be said given that the Prime Minister did not speak to the French Prime Minister on the subject. The noble Lord's understanding of the Prime Minister's private conversations with the French Prime Minister is slightly better informed than is mine, but I know that this subject was not included on the formal agenda—for the simple reason that, as was said in the colloquial language of last week's press statements, the time for diplomacy has ended and the only thing left now is to see the French in court. That is certainly the intention.
28
There is no question but that the Government have been anything but precise in their decisions all along the line on making the best possible progress. As to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the effectiveness of the situation in Europe, rather than dealing with the United States or British Commonwealth, the latter are in exactly the same position in refusing British beef imports, but there would be no legal redress because there would be no legal framework within which to work.
I relate this anecdote in contrast with the assumptions of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that nothing changes in Europe and everything is the worst of all possible worlds. I speak rarely in this House about my role as Minister for Women but it is appropriate to recall something that entirely demonstrates the step change in the relationship between this country and our European partners since the present Government came to power.
During exactly the same period as the Helsinki conference was in progress under the full spotlight of the international media, I was chairing in this country a meeting of European Union Ministers on women's and equality issues, at which there was practical discussion of arrangements between our different countries on some of the issues that most affect the everyday lives of our population. Although those discussions did not lead to any concrete or universal decisions, they produced a useful and important exchange of views, which can be taken forward. I shall take them forward tomorrow at a meeting with my right honourable friend David Blunkett and his counterpart the Portuguese Minister for Employment on issues relating to women's employment in this country and the wider European Union.
Such practical exchanges and detailed discussions by Ministers at a policy level contribute to the thickening and organisation of European issues. They are not in the glare of the media spotlight during a ministerial summit, but illustrate precisely what we are achieving in terms of our different relationships with Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was determined to display the Prime Minister as being isolated in a way that led to this country being undermined and mocked. A columnist writing in the Daily Telegraph this morning stated that,
"flying solo on certain questions at any given time being inherent in the process of continual negotiation that is the hallmark of intergovernmentalism".
I accept that, and I agree with the noble Baroness's concluding remark that this is about a different vision of Europe and a practical working arrangement, which I hope that I have illustrated with the anecdote about my own responsibilities.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I ask for clarification on the presidential conclusions. The noble Baroness spoke about the intergovernmental conference's rather focused agenda. Two phrases seem to open the

29
floodgates of possible extra activity that might not be in the interest of concluding matters by December next year. The conclusions refer to,
"other necessary amendments to the Treaty arising as regards the European institutions in connection with the above issues…The incoming presidency will report to the European Council and may propose additional issues to be taken on the agenda of the conference".
Does that not suggest that the floodgates could easily be opened by the new presidency, in putting on the agenda all sorts of exciting and interesting but delaying matters?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, it was made quite clear that the basic agenda items would be those originally agreed at Cologne. I am sure that I do not need to remind the noble Lord of the size and composition of the Commission, the weighting of the votes in the Council and the possible extension of qualified majority voting.
As I understand it, the noble Lord refers to the fact that a few additional items may be added later. They would be in the context of enlargement and reform, not extending the scope of the IGC. It is clear that the new conference is not a big policy opening. It will be about practical matters: to make more effective and efficient the institutions that were thought this time last year to be rather less than accountable.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that the main reason for member states requiring the withholding tax is their failure to collect taxation from their own members? If they would remove the secrecy imposed on banking accounts, their problem would be made much easier. Does the noble Baroness accept that the Government's practice of suggesting compromises and further conferences on that question merely delays the day when they will be forced to make some concession? Would it not be more sensible to say to those pressing for some withholding tax to be imposed, "Get lost. Put your own house in order; do not leave us to be your tax collector"?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is probably exactly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in diplomatic language, at the ECOFIN discussions at the end of last week. The group will look at the whole package of tax arrangements proposed and discussed at Helsinki. The UK Government have made it absolutely clear that there is no question of any change that would prevent use of the City eurobond market, which we are determined to protect.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are many more important issues in relation to the European standing force than whether or not English will be the working language? Annexe 4 announces that there will be a new standing political and military committee of the European Council that could or would act as the command authority for the standing force. How will that new body be accountable to heads of government and national parliaments?
30
What would constitute a European army? The communiqué says that the new force will not constitute a European army. We need further explanation. Also, my noble friend referred to a union of nations. Is she aware that many of our continental partners take the view that the nation state is an anachronism and is just about dead? Can she say how the Government will make it absolutely clear to other countries and leaders that Britain continues to believe in the nation state and will progress that belief within the European Union?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I cannot authoritatively explain the position because I have not asked the specific question that my noble friend asked of me. I imagine that the new political and security standing committee would report through precisely the same mechanism as previous committees with that status. If I am mistaken, I will write to my noble friend.
The idea behind the common defence arrangements is to provide a more flexible rapid response force in certain situations, particularly where there are humanitarian crises or difficulties of the type that Kosovo might produce—although in that example, NATO was involved. As I told the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, it is explicit in the conclusions of the summit that it cannot in any language or understanding be remotely regarded as an army.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart invites me to into an area that is almost one of political philosophy. I am sure that the Government will at every opportunity make perfectly clear that the concept of the nation state is one that we in this country completely understand, will continue completely to support, and wish to see embraced within the context of the wider European Union.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, perhaps I may reinforce as best I can the points made by my noble friend Lord Boardman concerning the withholding tax. Does not the whole protracted debate on it and its complexity underline the value of the veto as part of the negotiating process? In that context, what does the noble Baroness believe to be the prospects at Helsinki of an enlarged European Union of 28 nation states comprising 540 million people? In that situation is there not a danger of our legislative identity being swamped, and what proposals do the Government have to deal with it?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as to progress on discussions relating to the withholding tax, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, I did not make explicit that the conclusion of the ECOFIN Council in December 1997 was that the discussions should not apply to eurobonds and similar instruments. In a sense, although this debate may have been going on for two years, we have always made clear our bottom-line position which we are determined to protect.
As to the wider point raised by the noble Lord., Lord Biffen, about whether these issues will become more complex with the increase in the number of member states, some of which perhaps have an understanding

31
of government arrangements and democratic institutions which is different from that in western Europe, without repeating what my noble friend Lady Scotland said in the debate last week, that is why it is important to have a flexible transition period. That is also why, as I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, these issues are absolutely crucial to the arrangements which are built up during progress of the IGC.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the fact that some little time will elapse before the next intergovernmental conference, will my noble friend ensure that the public generally are made aware of the precise attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the findings and recommendations of the so-called "three wise men"? Will she ensure that the substance of those proposals, which are likely to have an enormous effect on Europe's institutions, is thoroughly debated? Will my noble friend also ensure that steps are taken to acquaint the public and Parliament with any independent proposals of the Government before the IGC, bearing in mind that there should be a constructive contribution originating with ourselves?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as to my noble friend's final point, the Government will publish a White Paper early next year on their approach to the principle of the IGC and the issues that it raises, which may well cover some of the points raised this afternoon. I am not in a position to give my noble friend precise information on whether that will also embrace the specific response to the committee of three wise men. If I become aware of it, I shall let him know. From previous experience, I am aware that my noble friend probably has better and more exact channels of information on these matters than I do. As to broader public debate on the issues, it was made explicit in the conclusions at Helsinki that this matter should be more widely discussed. I am aware that my noble friend is always assiduous in pursuing these matters in your Lordships' House, and I doubt that we shall be in ignorance for long.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what does the definition of Turkey as a candidate for membership of the European Union add to what was said at the Luxembourg Summit? Are not the conditions then laid down—that Turkey should align herself with human rights and the treatment of minorities that are common in the rest of Europe—to be upheld, plus the condition relating to Cyprus which, as far as I know, does not affect any other candidate? Does the role of Turkey as a candidate member make any difference to the conditions that that country must fulfil?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, it probably makes the noble Lord's concerns more precise; that is, the criteria against which Turkey's performance with regard to human rights and democracy are to be judged are easier to benchmark (if I may use that expression) than without formal candidate status. I am sure that the noble Lord welcomes, as I do, the
32
extremely important lever which the European Union has on what happens in Turkey in a wider context. Clearly, Turkey does not yet meet the criteria on human rights, on the political status of minorities or on the general development of some of the democratic institutions. As to the relationship with Cyprus, although the membership criteria are the same for Turkey as for every other candidate, Greek and Turkish relations in this context are clearly of specific interest. Those will be covered in the political dialogue with Turkey about the procedures that are to be undertaken. If there were a settlement within Cyprus, that would facilitate its accession and might ease the whole situation.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I notice that the noble Baroness did not answer the question put by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde about the takeover directive. I wonder whether she can do so. The noble Baroness will be aware that this directive subjects the speedy findings of the Takeover Panel to the interminable delays of the Luxembourg Court and thus completely destroys hostile take-overs in the British economy. While she is at it, will the noble Baroness be so good as to say whether we are able to save the art market upon which we have also been outvoted on the question of droit de suite? Finally, I do not believe that she noticed the vitally important matter of corpus juris in the context of the European legal system which your Lordships debated on 25th November at which time the Government were unable to assure me that we had a veto. They merely said that we would have to pass primary legislation. Therefore, was any progress made at Helsinki on the takeover directive, the art market and the legal system?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for not dealing with the takeover situation. To be absolutely honest, I had forgotten that the noble Lord had mentioned it. Now I look at my notes, I see that I have no detailed briefing on it. I shall write to both noble Lords who have raised the matter. I can only apologise.
As to the question of droit de suite, the proposal was put to the Internal Market Council, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, on 7th December. Our position remains that we can accept only proposals which adequately protect the London art market. It was not placed on the formal agenda at Helsinki, but I believe that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had what are described as discussions in the margins and was not discouraged by the responses of his counterparts with whom he discussed the matter. I also understand that the Minister of State, Mrs Liddell, will have further contacts on this question on the basis of those exchanges.
As far as concerns corpus juris, I am unable to take the matter any further than the report to the House following discussion on that particular subject at

33
Tampere. If anyone within the Foreign Office or Home Office has had discussions on this matter in the autumn post-Tampere, I hall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question on the withholding tax. I ask my noble friend to ignore the customary xenophobic stance of those whose reaction would be the same whatever was said about the European Union, including my noble friend. Does my noble friend agree that, whether or not the present proposal is accepted, we all want tax evasion to be stopped and that it is better to do it through international co-operation? Very often we ourselves would be unable to achieve it if we just told the EU to get lost. Will my noble friend assure me and the House that we shall enter the suggested discussions in a better frame of mind than some of the opposition we have heard today?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his trenchant summary of some of the questions and comments which have been made. Of course he is right and I believe that he will know that the UK has been at the forefront of international discussions on fighting tax abuse and evasion, whether they have been in the OECD or elsewhere. The Government believe that the single most effective way of tackling those issues is through exchange of information on as wide an international basis as possible. In that respect it is not helpful that some countries, including some in the European Union, still maintain an outdated attachment to the kind of banking secrecy to which my noble friend referred. I am sure that we agree that that is where the real problem lies. The Government will certainly take the issue forward in the new round of discussions.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the Minister agree that it was a piece of great good fortune that the disorders and fighting in Yugoslavia did not spill down through Macedonia and into Greece, as a member state of the Community? Does she further agree that the further the boundaries of the Community are expanded towards the Balkans and the East, the more at risk we become from such disorders? Will she say whether there are any legal barriers, or whether any legal barriers are proposed, to the use of the European defence force internally within the EU in support of the civil power?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, at the time of the Kosovo crisis, we spoke on several occasions in your Lordships' House about the potential threat described by the noble Lord. I remember discussions being labelled along the lines of the so-called "domino theory"—an expression much used when the same sort of potentially difficult situation existed in South-East Asia 20 to 25 years ago. The noble Lord should perhaps be reassured by the fact that the stability pact is now taking root in the western Balkans and that organisations of that kind will, I hope, reduce the potential for conflagration, which he identified as a
34
possibility as the boundaries of Europe spread, although I do not believe that that would necessarily create such a situation.
I turn now to the question of the European rapid reaction force. I hope that we may call it by that name because I am trying to avoid any suggestion that it is a European army, as several noble Lords have tried to suggest. As I have made clear before, that idea is explicitly refuted in the conclusions of the summit. The noble Lord is not right to raise the spectre of that being a possible way of dealing with the situation. As I said when replying to an earlier question from a noble Lord, the situation is such that if, for example, there was a humanitarian crisis and NATO was not fully engaged, there might be a possibility of that happening. However, as the noble Lord will know, the organisation of, and the mandate for, that kind of force is in its early days. Although it is theoretically possible that some type of internal humanitarian crisis might prompt that kind of action, it is difficult to respond to a hypothetical situation.

Care Standards Bill
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this is a large Bill of some 98 clauses which introduces long-needed reforms in a number of vital areas. I join the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in thanking the Minister for his extremely crisp summary of its provisions. We all come to the debate today with a particular individual perspective. Although I could go through the Bill delivering a set of ticks and crosses against the various clauses, from these Benches I want to concentrate on a number of key items of principle which arise under the Bill. Like the Minister, I look forward to the speeches that will follow.
First, there is the question of the regulation of independent acute healthcare. Concerns about the quality of healthcare in non-NHS hospitals are widely shared, not least by the more reputable and competent operators themselves, particularly in areas where there is a need for intensive care and areas such as cosmetic surgery. My noble friend Lady Nicholson can, sadly, bear personal testimony to that fact. I know that she will be making an important contribution to the debate today.
Increasingly complex matters are now dealt with by private medicine. Half the abortions in this country are carried out by the private sector. Thirty per cent of psychiatric care is carried out in the private sector. After a period of stagnation between 1991 and 1997, private health insurance is growing again, no doubt prompted by the Government's lack of progress on waiting lists and waiting times in the NHS. Some 11 per cent of the population, or 3.5 million people, are now covered by private health insurance.
It is clear that many private establishments dealing with elective surgery and acute medicine have particular problems. Most are smaller than any NHS

35
hospital and have fewer than 100 beds. There is less medical supervision, fewer qualified nurses and, until recent proposals, less connection with clinical governance for their consultants who work within the NHS than there should be. Above all, there are concerns about the quality of intensive care in the independent sector, with patients often being shunted back to the NHS when there are complications. On these Benches we welcome the late conversion of the Department of Health to its responsibilities to ensure that standards in the private sector are adequate. It took the combined efforts of this House and the Health Select Committee to do so and, indeed, the efforts of my noble friend Lady Nicholson, "Panorama" and other media coverage to persuade the Government to bring the Bill forward.
In evidence to the Select Committee, the former Secretary of State gave the view that quality in the sector was secured essentially by patients and management. There is now at least some recognition that the continuation of the purchaser/provider split inevitably means a mixed economy in healthcare, exactly as has been recognised in social care for some considerable period of time. One ideological blockage to proper regulation of standards in the private sector has therefore been overcome. Sadly, a further ideological blockage to which the Government have succumbed has yet to be overcome: the question of which body regulates the private sector.
As a result of the Bill, through the powers given to the Secretary of State under Clause 21, there will be the anomalous situation where patients in NHS-pay beds and patients being treated at NHS expense in private beds may be subject to wholly different regulations and standards from those paying directly or through private health insurance for private treatment. There is absolutely no logic in having such separate standards. It means that the many NHS consultants who work in the private sector will potentially be subject to a wholly different set of standards depending on whether they work within the NHS, on NHS private beds, or in independent hospitals. The activities of doctors should be subject to the same standards wherever they work.
The current proposals to include the regulation of independent acute hospitals within the national care standards commission is in many ways worse than the proposals the Government themselves put forward in June this year. At least then a separate regulator was envisaged. In their consultation document, Regulating Private and Voluntary Healthcare, they said:
"There would be a single 'custom built' independent body charged with ensuring a common national approach to regulating private and voluntary healthcare. The new body and its inspection teams would have a clear focus on healthcare and the Commissions for Care Standards would be able to focus on their prime responsibility without the risk of being distracted by responsibility for acute healthcare. A dedicated national regulatory body would be better placed to develop the particular skills and expertise necessary for the regulation of private and voluntary healthcare. Ministers believe therefore that establishing a new regulatory body for private and voluntary healthcare is the right way forward".
36
We have gone backwards since June. We do not believe that it is appropriate to regulate independent hospitals, including psychiatric hospitals, alongside care homes. Some 20,000 nursing and residential care homes will require to be regulated under the Bill. By contrast, the provision of healthcare is on a different scale: 230 independent acute hospitals and 64 independent psychiatric hospitals. It has been and still is our consistent view that the Commission for Health Improvement set up by the Health Act 1999 is the appropriate body to regulate the independent acute health care sector, on the basis of its fees in so doing being met by the independent sector. Of course it should. As my honourable friend Peter Brand proposed to the Health Select Committee, all patients in whatever establishment they are treated should at least have access to the Health Service Ombudsman.
I turn to the national commission for care standards. Unlike the noble Earl, Lord Howe, we on these Benches greatly welcome the Government's decision to set up a single regulator in the form of the new commission in England for the provision of care, whether this is for the elderly, the adult vulnerable or with disabilities or children; or whether the homes are NHS run, private, voluntary sector or run by local authorities. This implements the Government's commitments made in their White Paper in November last year, but in a more coherent way with one national commission rather than several regional ones.
We also welcome the proposal to make an adequate complaints system a pre-condition of registration. I believe that it is the most significant reform in social care for a generation and will affect hundreds of thousands of lives, not least 500,000 older people in care homes and 55,000 to 80,000 children in care at any time. We welcome the fact that its responsibilities will include monitoring standards, representing consumers and ensuring that care homes are measured against national benchmarks.
However, we have a number of issues to raise in this connection. What philosophy informs the Government's regulation of care? Do they accept that where possible, domiciliary care is normally preferable to institutional care and that every effort should be made to allow people to remain independent within their own homes? Indeed, I welcome the Minister's indication of that in earlier comments.
Why are establishments providing day care for the elderly not covered by the Bill's provisions other than in respect of their staff? Why have the draft regulations on standards for care homes been so slow in coming? The original report by the Centre for Policy on Ageing was produced in January this year. Why did it take the department nine months to issue a consultation paper? We are not waiting for the results of the consultation which will lead to regulations, but in the meantime the Government are trying to rush through the primary legislation.
Above all, the Bill brings residential homes and nursing homes together in a common definition for the purposes of regulation. Pending the Government's long delayed decision on long-term care, do they

37
expect as a result to means-test those within nursing homes as well as those within residential homes? When will they finally respond to the Royal Commission's report? Is it not high time that older people and their families had the security of knowing that they can afford residential care?
As regards children, there is provision for the appointment of a children's rights director. Is that intended to be a step towards giving all children in care the right to advocacy? Many voluntary organisations are dedicated to achieving that and we on these Benches fully support their campaign.
Furthermore, inspection can be a costly business. The report of the Social Services Inspectorate in 1992, Almost Half, pointed out that half the inspection units which it inspected failed to meet the statutory targets for frequency of inspections. At the end of the day, will there be adequate resources for new standards to be set and enforced? Currently, widely differing rates are set by local authorities up and down the country. Major disparities in rates will make it very difficult to achieve national standards.
Thirdly, we welcome the setting up of the social care council and the follow-up to last year's White Paper in terms of improving standards in the workforce and giving it a wide range of registration, standards setting and education and training responsibilities, and also the proposal to protect the title of social worker.
However, again, there are some issues to be addressed. How will the council be funded? Is it expected to break even purely through registration fees? How will that tie in with existing and proposed improved structures for self-regulation by healthcare professionals such as nurses, midwives, health visitors and healthcare assistants?
The registration of social care workers is expected to come into effect in April 2002, while the new body for nursing, midwifery and health visiting—which is assumed also to include the regulation of healthcare assistants—is expected to come into effect in September 2001. How will those two lock together?
Fourthly, we welcome the proposals relating to child-minders and children's day care and the transfer of regulatory responsibility to Ofsted. What additional resources will be required to carry out this work and when is it envisaged that the transfer will take place?
Fifthly and finally, we welcome the proposal to set up a register of those considered unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults. But, again, how will this tie in with existing and proposed structures for self regulation by healthcare professionals? What will referable cases be? Will they lead to striking off from professional registers as well? Most importantly, what safeguards will there be for those referred? My honourable and noble friends raised concerns about that issue in relation to the child protection Bill, a similar piece of legislation, and I know that my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury intends to speak on it in the gap.
38
Except for its treatment of independent acute healthcare, there is much in the Bill to commend. But as is so often the case with government Bills under this Government in particular, so much of its framework needs filling out before it can be judged properly. I have no doubt that we shall have an interesting and challenging Committee stage on our return in the new year, when I hope that the Minister will have more detail than is currently available.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his helpful introduction to this important Bill. I say "important" not particularly because of the new regulatory framework, which in general I welcome, or because of such matters as safeguarding the title of social worker, but because its measures are intended both to protect and to improve the quality of care of the most vulnerable people in our society. The services covered by the Bill range from those for very young children right through to the personal care of house-bound and perhaps even bed-bound elderly people. Each of those people will have special needs and, in their different ways, without the protection of the law they could be open to abuse, neglect or exploitation.
It is right that as a society we should be judged by the effectiveness of the way in which we protect and care for people who have little ability to defend themselves. In an age of the geographical mobility of the workforce, resulting in fewer people living their lives in the place of their birth surrounded by a network of family and friends, it is even more important that all of us, but particularly relatives, can be assured that there is in place a robust range of safeguards of this kind.
The Bill builds on the Protection of Children Act 1999 which your Lordships considered thoroughly in the last Session—sometimes too thoroughly for my own comfort! So the measures are long awaited and much the more welcome.
It is particularly pleasing that in future all social care provision, irrespective of whether the provider is a public service, a voluntary body or a private agency, will be registered and inspected by the same criteria. For too long, independent organisations have understandably resented the fact that they have had to comply with standards enforced by local authorities, but not necessarily applied by local authorities to the services they provide.
Furthermore, the Bill reinforces the need for the health services—not only hospitals—to work together in partnership with social care agencies. Yet I hope that in the understandable desire to get people out of hospital as soon as possible, there will remain a strong commitment to recuperation and rehabilitation so that unnecessary and inappropriate placements are not made. Undue haste at this critical stage can result in irreversible decisions which are not in the long-term interest of the patient. Without a proper needs assessment against an effective eligibility criteria, there will be no certainty of appropriate care.

39
The Minister has set out the scope of the Bill, so I shall confine my comments to seeking further clarification on some of the points he raised. First, can he say why the local regulatory framework will not now be operated through eight regional organisations? The eight organisations were set out in the White Paper, but the framework will not be operated by the national care standards commission. I am not necessarily opposed to the proposal, but I and others have yet to understand the reason for the change.
Secondly, I note that the national care standards commission will have a responsibility to promote good practice. That is all well and good, but can the Minister explain how it will relate to the work of the SSI, which has played such a large part in promoting good practice?
Thirdly, the Secretary of State announced recently the creation of a social care institute of excellence. Can the Minister say how these different bodies will now work together?
Fourthly, can the Minister say why the regulation of childminding is to be transferred to Ofsted? Many of the children in childminding facilities have special needs. How will good practice in childcare be maintained under these new arrangements?
Fifthly, will the Minister note how much I and others welcome the amendment of the Children Act in order to bring small private homes into the regulatory framework?
Sixthly, does the Minister agree, as has already been indicated, that Clause 2 relating to independent healthcare sits very uneasily with the rest of this Bill?
The noble Lord the Minister explained in his introductory remarks why this Bill has been included, but can he say something about the range of staff and the special skills which will be needed in order to meet the requirements of such a wide-ranging clause which would cover such very differing facilities? Can the Minister say how this clause would not raise some of the other inconsistencies that have already been referred to?
Seventhly, will the Minister confirm that whereas domiciliary care agencies need not register, nevertheless local authorities and the NHS can make arrangements only with those agencies which are registered?
Finally, I warmly welcome the development of the general social care council and the sensible way in which registration will take place in an incremental manner. Is the Minister willing to pay a tribute to the work of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work and its director, Jennifer Bernard? I believe that in recent years the council has done an excellent job of work and has responded effectively to changes in social care services and in bringing training up to date.
Overall, I hope that this Bill will attract the support of your Lordships' House and I look forward greatly to the contribution that will be made today by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Culkein.
4.41 p.m.
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I rise to make this speech, given the very few days that have passed since my introduction to your Lordships' House. However, the subject matter of this Bill—care standards—is something about which I care very much indeed. I hope that your Lordships will give me a few moments to say something about my background. Listening to debates over the last two weeks, it has been clear to me that there is a wealth of expertise in this House. Many professions and occupations appear to be well represented. However, I am told that I may be the first former serving lighthouse keeper to become a Member. What experience and expertise that will bring we shall see. I was brought up in the Scottish Lighthouse Service, where my father was a principal lighthouse keeper. In that service the standard was that only the best was good enough. Lives depended on that discipline and that ethos, and it was good conditioning for later life.
However, apart from the three-year break when I served as a lighthouse keeper myself, I have been involved with nursing and the health service in one way or another from 1958 to 1993, both as a practising nurse and later working for the health service union COHSE. As a nurse, I am pleased to follow three distinguished nurses into your Lordships' House: they are the noble Baronesses, Lady Cox, Lady Emerton and Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, who I see is in her place this afternoon.
In nursing, my speciality was in operating theatres and in trauma intensive care, where again nothing but the highest standards of care were acceptable. It is from that background that I have approached the debate today. I very much welcome the Care Standards Bill and I congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. It is long overdue.
There are one or two areas on which I would wish to comment. First, I welcome the intention to establish a national care standards commission. The independent care sector, which includes voluntary agencies, private care homes, nursing homes and hospitals, as well as the "not for profit" organisations, has grown out of all recognition in the past 20 or so years. With that growth has come great change. No longer can voluntary organisations simply be described as "society's conscience", which was the term used by Lord Beveridge in 1942. Legislation in the past decade has seen a huge shift from local authority social services being providers of care to being instead purchasers of care.
Independent sector organisations, as a consequence, have very often developed a contract culture, which does not always sit easily with a caring culture, particularly in the absence of national standards. In this mixed economy of welfare and personal care provision the independent sector has a much higher profile. There is a mixture of providers and there are different cultures, different organisational structures with a different legal status and different management and financial arrangements. But despite that, I

41
suspect, rather than because of it, the standard of care in many establishments is good. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. It is right therefore that there is to be a national body responsible for the effective regulation of the full range of these services.
I regard it as important that emphasis should be laid on national standards. Even a national service like the National Health Service sometimes struggles to achieve national standards: for example, we hear too much about "postcode care", the notion of which offends everything that I have ever been taught. But unless it is clear from the start that minimum standards are to be nationally determined, there will be an uphill struggle and the main thrust of this Bill may be lost.
The independent sector does not deal just with social and personal care. Private hospitals, clinics and nursing homes come within the purview of this Bill. The National Health Service sends many patients to this sector. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister can tell the House whether there will be any consequential link or interface between the national care standards commission and, say, the health advisory service or the commission for health improvement. It is important that healthcare standards and clinical governance issues are covered, where relevant, as well as those relating to personal and social care.
I would, secondly, want to turn to Part IV of the Bill, which deals with care councils in England, to be known as the general social care council: a measure which I unreservedly welcome. My former union, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, had a minority membership among social workers and social care staff. Some 13 years ago we developed a policy which called for the setting up of what we called a general social work council and we also called for legal protection for the title of "social worker".
These policy initiatives did not find favour at the time. They were regarded as the idea of a bunch of nurses trying to teach social workers what to do. But these policies were developed by our social work membership. They were right then, and I welcome the Damascene conversions now.
I am delighted to hear the Minister confirm that the GSCC will embrace the different levels of qualification to be held by staff working in social services and social care. I am glad that a mistake which was made in nursing will not be repeated here. I want to dwell on that, if I may, for a moment or two. The minimum entry requirements for nursing have inexorably increased over the past 40 years. Indeed, a substantial number of nurses, including many highly regarded senior nurses, presently in practice would not be allowed into the profession today. Nurse education is now firmly rooted in further and higher education, with appropriate entry gates. I have always supported the idea that there should be a level of nursing education in that sector.
However, the downside of having one level of qualification is flat it has led to a failure to address what I thought was a foreseeable restriction in the supply of practitioners. The result is a critical shortage
42
of nurses in the National Health Service. I hope it is not too controversial to say that I believe the power struggle which caused these developments let the public down. The changes in nursing led to a conspicuous failure, in that unqualified staff are now undertaking what most of us know is the work of a registered nurse, without proper training and without any statutory mechanism for protecting the public from unsafe or incompetent practitioners. These grades of staff should have been kept within the aegis and purview of nursing.
COHSE always believed in the objective of a wholly qualified nursing service, albeit with nurses trained to different levels of competence in the delivery of care. Crucially, we said that all such staff should be registered within the United Kingdom Central Council for Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors. Nurse leaders and politicians of the day thought otherwise, with the inevitable outcomes which are only now beginning to be addressed. Indeed, had that policy been taken on board it would not have been possible, for example, for nurses struck off the register for misconduct to reappear in another job as care assistants of one kind or another, usually in the private health sector. That does not protect the public and I hope that the social care council will resist any temptation to fall into the same trap of what might be described as "elitism", which can be a weakness rather than a strength.
Thirdly, it appears from paragraph 137 of the Explanatory Notes that registration in the new GSCC will be incremental, with professional social workers being the first group to register. Can the Minister say whether I have understood correctly that once the majority in other groups in this diverse workforce is appropriately qualified, it will be brought into the register as a group rather than as individuals applying to register as soon as they qualify? If it is the group method of registration, I can understand the rationale, but perhaps only from a cost perspective. It does not appear to make sense from a public protection standpoint. If I have understood correctly, I hope that that matter can be revisited in Committee. I look forward to the Committee stage and to the legislation reaching the statute book. The measures set out will go a long way towards protecting the setting of standards and protecting some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Before I sit down, I say a heartfelt thanks to officers and staff of this House and to the many Members for the kindnesses and help given to me in the past couple of weeks.
4.50 p.m.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, it is a great pleasure and, indeed, an honour to follow such a distinguished speaker, who has put forward in his maiden speech to the House this afternoon such an extraordinary portfolio of expertise and knowledge about this subject. It is a great pleasure to be able to welcome him as a maiden speaker, but it is an even greater pleasure to know that we can look forward to a long period in which he will deploy his skill and

43
wisdom in your Lordships' House on a wide variety of topics associated not only with healthcare but, I am quite sure, other subjects also.
Of course, I am bound to feel that the noble Lord was well educated when I see that he attended the Nicholson Institute in Stornaway. It just has to be right. None the less, as a half-Scot—and, unfortunately, I cannot claim any more than that—I have to recognise that for many generations education in Scotland has been somewhat better than that in England. I do not know about Wales. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Culkein, demonstrates that level of expertise and education from the very start of his life. When one looks at his career path, one sees that he has worked his way up the ladder, which means that he truly knows what he is talking about. That is what came through so very powerfully in his remarks this afternoon.
I begin to feel sorry for the Front Bench because the noble Lord identified so clearly so many of the issues that the Care Standards Bill presents with regard to private healthcare regulation. He has felt from the beginning of his life that only the best is good enough. He quite rightly ended his remarks by implying that only the best was good enough for the most vulnerable people in our society, whom this whole Bill addresses. I thank him most warmly for his words. I support his views on the right to have a national body for regulation and on the interface between public and private healthcare because of the modern mixture which he has identified so clearly.
I want to start my own remarks by referring to the staff of the private health sector which, of course, is a matter on which the noble Lord has already touched and an issue which is so well known to him. Because it is the easiest thing to do, I quote from a nurse who wrote to me, stating:
"My experience with Intensive care in the private sector led me to resign my post within 3 months as I felt sure that one day I would inherit a disaster that was not of my making and there would be no support available. My role in this private hospital … was that of a bank nurse"—
that means someone who is hired, an agency nurse
"but the permanent staff working in the 2 bedded HDU [high dependency unit] were virtually all untrained and had little concept of the implications of accepting responsibility for their sick patients".
She goes on to highlight the point that,
"the consultants using the facilities of … private hospitals have NHS commitments and it is to the ICU [intensive care unit] in those hospitals that they bring their patients when they run into trouble".
Another nurse wrote to me following the "Panorama" programme to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred. She wrote:
"Lately I have been doing agency work and have been hired out to private units … despite the National Association of Theatre Nurses' efforts to raise awareness of patient care and employee vulnerability".
She said that she found that worrying circumstances still existed after she retired from an earlier post at a
44
private facility. With regard to staff vulnerability, she wrote:
"The situation I refer to is that of surgeons who arrive to carry out major surgery and rely upon the theatre staff to act as their assistants. Major surgery such as hip replacements, spinal operations, major abdominal surgery … all carried out virtually single-handed. In the NHS the consultant would expect to have at least one if not two or even three assistants for such operations. And they need them. Good assistance is crucial to the speedy and efficient execution of such surgery. Making do with nurses—albeit informed and obliging—is just not the same".
A doctor wrote to me:
"In my experience many of these private hospitals are badly run and … some of the consultants working in them are not at all mindful of their post-operative responsibilities. In many of these private hospitals the nursing care lacks continuity and is haphazard, the management relying upon temporary, agency and stand-by nursing staff. There is often a complete lack of communication between the different shifts and between the nurses and the consultants. I have seen auxiliary nurses doing the work of staff nurses and sisters".
The critical part of this Bill comes before the House as only secondary legislation. Of course, the primary legislation which it offers is weaker than the legislation it seeks to replace. The current Act provides for inspection twice yearly, even though private hospitals are registered only as nursing homes; none the less, they have to be inspected twice yearly and one visit has to be unannounced. This Bill offers only one visit, presumably pre-arranged.
Today the Minister has declared that, although it is not on the face of the Bill, there is to be a separation of regulatory authority; that there will be expert investigators; that there will be proper staffing, and so on. However, I ask him whether these key promises will be on the face of the Bill or whether they will be decided behind closed doors. Decisions taken behind closed doors will not help those staff to whom I have just referred; and, of course, they will not help the patients either.
The evidence of need is very clear. We are talking about situations where there are unqualified or under-qualified staff who take on medical responsibilities for which they do not have the training. It is unfair to place those responsibilities on them. There is no complaints procedure in the private hospital provisions; or, at the very least, there is a complaints provision, but it is one that cannot be triggered by the patient, the patient's family or, I presume, the staff. Then, as has already been mentioned, some staff work in the private sector when they are forbidden to work in the National Health Service. There are misleading advertisements; for example, hospitals advertise that they employ trained and retrained staff, yet that is not always so. When it is not so, to whom does the public complain? The Advertising Standards Authority is not a statutory body. Some of the worst abuses of patient trust come from the highest earning parts of the private sector.
I have already referred to the lack of staff in the operating theatres. Many of the intensive care units should not be called "intensive care units" in that they do not have the necessary resident anaesthetist or

45
highly qualified staff. The risks to patients in many of those private hospitals rise so inexorably that patients lose their lives unnecessarily or unnecessarily early.
I have received many letters and messages, and many examples of tragic cases have come across my desk in recent weeks. Those letters, messages and calls have mirrored the horrors described in July this year to the Select Committee on Health in another place. As a result, last week the Government published a Green Paper which made many recommendations. Having inherited the National Health Service, which is so hard-working, tattered at the edges and under-funded, the Government have responded to the need to drive up standards by establishing the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), which we all welcome.
But, to put it bluntly, why are the Government so ready to establish NICE for the public sector and put in place nothing like it for the private sector? I remind the Government that nearly 1 million people have operations in the private sector every year. Of course, it is not as such a business sector at all, but 230 individual hospitals. It does not provide healthcare for love or as a public service; these hospitals and medical staff provide healthcare for money. Therefore, these private hospitals are exceptionally competitive. To drive down their costs, they have hired staff who are inadequately trained, under-provisioned, under-funded and not supported sufficiently for the tasks that they are asked to undertake.
Can the Minister say why he has made no commitment to clinical excellence in the private sector? I go further and ask him why it has deliberately been excluded from the Bill. Noble Lords may not have read as clearly as I have Clause 7, which sets out the general duties of the NCSC as monitoring the availability and quality of services, supporting consumers and encouraging the development of better services. What could be more welcome than that? However, subsection (7) of Clause 7 states:
"In this section, 'Part II services' means services of the kind provided by persons registered under Part II other than the provision of …
(b) listed services (as defined in section 2)".
That means that the Government have declared that the commission shall have the general duty of encouraging improvement and the quality of Part II services provided in England, except for private hospitals and private healthcare. Why? I do not understand. Something must be wrong. After all, only in June 1998, the Government declared that national benchmarks would be set for each hospital treatment and would form the basis of targets for every hospital. That is why in my Private Member's Bill I have proposed that an independent regulatory authority shall regulate the provision of private health services by institutions in England and Wales so that such services shall be equivalent to those provided in the National Health Service.
I am not suggesting that they should be higher. I accept that the Government have so much on their hands with managing the NHS. None the less it is difficult to understand why the establishment of
46
clinical excellence is not something that the Government wish to achieve for those patients who accept treatment for which they pay on the spot as opposed to paying through the tax system. After all, this year the Government, in their statement on the establishment of NICE, declared,
"The Government believes high quality health services should be available for all. At present there are unacceptable variations in the quality of care available to different patients in different parts of the country. The Government is determined that this shall change".
However, the Government are determined that that shall not change for those who choose to receive healthcare outside the National Health Service. I do not understand that.
The Bill does not provide for clinical audits and says that there has to be a report each year on every hospital, but it does not say on what facets of the hospital's work. Yet with regard to NICE and clinical audits, the Government state:
"Health professionals need to be able to assess the care they give against established clinical standards. This can be done through clinical audit, which allows them to look at what they are doing against agreed standards and, where necessary, make changes to practice".
What could be fairer than that, unless you have the misfortune to go to, or to be sent to, a private hospital? Let us remember that hundreds of thousands of National Health Service patients have operations in private hospitals at the request or the behest of the National Health Service, which simply cannot cope with all the demands due to what modern health provision can offer and which consumers therefore demand.
The public would be appalled if they knew that the Government cared only for public health when that health provision is given in a public ward. I believe that the Department of Health is responsible for the health of the nation, and not just for a part of the nation's health. The public have the right to expect that private hospitals should come under the same umbrella. There cannot be two standards. There should not be two standards, yet that is what this Bill offers.
Of course, the public mistakenly believe that if they "go private" the standards will be higher. We know that to be wrong. My argument is that it is unfair, unethical and unacceptable that there should deliberately be two standards of care in the United Kingdom. I call on the Government to accept a basic upward drive for consumer standards, irrespective of the mechanism of payment. I look forward to this Bill and I look forward to private health provision being placed, where it belongs, within the remit of the Health Standards Commissioner as he has requested.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I hope that my voice stands the course. I believe that this is a landmark Bill to drive up standards in social services and to offer new safeguards to service users. Children and adults with learning disabilities are typically

47
frequent and intensive users of social services. They have been at the sharp end of the kinds of failures that the Bill seeks to address.
It is easy to talk in the abstract about problems with quality, failure to meet standards, training deficits and inspection loopholes, but it is important to remember the effects of such problems on people's lives. I make no apology for referring to some of the unpalatable inquiry findings which provide the background to this legislation. Before party politics really get underway, I believe it is important to spell out to the House just how crucial is legislation of this kind.
A most recent and most graphic depiction of failure in the care of adults with learning disabilities was in the BBC television series "Macintyre Undercover", in which an investigative journalist worked in a residential care home and witnessed a catalogue of abuse and neglect. Footage included a resident being pulled from her chair by her hair to be forcibly restrained by several staff. Another is seen being restrained by having his head pushed to the floor by a carer using her foot. Carers were also shown hitting and punching residents.
As we approach the next century we should be duty-bound to promote values of dignity and respect. Treating people with learning disabilities as lesser human beings is quite intolerable.
While inspections of the home in question had taken place, it was all too easy for staff to pull the wool over the inspector's eyes. That is borne out by recent social services indicators which demonstrated that local authority inspections have been poorly timetabled, and in some cases neglected altogether, and have often been more concerned by the size of rooms and the number of fire extinguishers than by the welfare of the residents.
The BBC film was also revealing in its depiction of the struggle that relatives and carers face when trying to get hold of information to influence their choice of home. While posing as a family member looking for a place for a relative in residential care, the reporter approached social services to ask for information. He was told that any allegations which may exist against the home would be "confidential" and could not be disclosed.
Clause 6 of the Bill proposes to establish a national care standards commission, which will be responsible for the proper registration and thorough inspection of residential care homes and other establishments. The commission will have a general duty of encouraging improvement in the quality of the services it oversees, and will have a duty to make information about services available to the public. This is truly good news. But let us not wait for the Care Standards Bill to be fully implemented before action is taken: the work needs to begin immediately. Indeed, I believe that a moral question has been raised by the BBC holding back the Macintyre report so that the programme would have the necessary effect when it was transmitted and his other investigations would not be revealed. There is a moral issue there which, possibly, needs addressing.
48
I would be delighted to see these duties enshrined in law. Bringing registration and inspection under the jurisdiction of a single body independent of all providers should help to bring consistency, efficiency and transparency to the process. I look forward to the work of a commission with a policy of consulting widely. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the appointment of a director for disabled people, as well as a director for children's rights, to champion improvements in the care of individuals with disabilities.
The scope of the commission is broad. It will cover some of the substantial gaps which have hitherto existed in various registration and inspection regimes. Home care will now be registered, which is something I warmly welcome, and I would encourage a limited inspection role to be developed subject to the service users' approval. The status of adult placements will also be formalised in the new legislation. This should help to confine to history cases such as the one last year in North Devon where an establishment with fewer than four residents fell between two stools of classification, allowing horrific abuse to go unchecked.
Other care settings, such as children's respite care centres run by health authorities, will now come under the law. In the past, this kind of provision has not been subject to regulation and instances of abuse and neglect have emerged. Only last week a highly critical report was released regarding a Nottinghamshire care centre for disabled children. Fortunately, this centre is one of the more positive stories, having now undergone a transformation with a new management structure and new staff appointed at the respite unit for children with severe learning and physical disabilities.
For the first time, child minders and pre-school provision will come under a framework of inspection; as will independent schools and colleges. I would expect monitoring in these settings to look at the support for children with special educational needs and, in the context of pre-school establishments, procedures for the early identification of special educational needs.
But despite a radical overhaul of the system, there are still, as we have already heard, a substantial number of care settings that are not covered—most notably, day services for adults with learning disabilities, such as day centre attendance. While we are slowly seeing some success in getting people with learning disabilities into work, there is still a substantial number of people for whom day centre attendance is the norm every week. Those who attend may require quite intensive care from staff over a substantial period.
Physical and emotional abuse is not confined to residential settings. Vulnerable people who are unable to speak up for themselves can be just as isolated at a day centre, as in a residential home. A case in point is the Woodfold day centre in Sheffield—now fortunately closed—where people who attended were abused and neglected over a 14-year period. Abuse should be stamped out regardless of the setting in which it occurs.

49
Another gap is in the protection of disabled young people between the ages of eight and 17. The legislation recognises that staff working in care settings with disabled young people up to the age of 17 should be properly vetted, but there is no provision for the registration and inspection of day services for children over the age of eight. I urge the Government to rectify this matter—not for the sake of consistency of legislation, but for the sake of young disabled people, who may still be exposed to settings in which those purported to care for them are not bound by legislation governing their conduct.
One final gap in registration is in relation to hospices. Some of our most sick and vulnerable young and elderly people reside in hospices, which are establishments designed to maintain patients' dignity through the latter stages of terminal illness. Measures should be in place to ensure that the care ethos of the hospice movement is a reality in every single case.
In terms of inspection procedures, I would expect inspection teams to be well trained in seeking the views of people with learning disabilities-—allowing for full support in the interview situation, where necessary. In some cases, it may be beneficial to consult with parents and carers, too. They may be in a position to speak out about physical abuse or best recognise signs of emotional distress. It is fundamentally important that medical examinations can be made and medical records consulted in all cases where abuse is suspected, unless the individual registers discontent.
We need a working policy of zero tolerance of physical and sexual abuse. That is why I welcome the new provisions in Clause 18 for the urgent revocation of registration where it appears there is a serious risk to a person's life, health or well-being.
The decision to devise national minimum standards applicable to care establishments is, I think, a good one, although care will need to be taken to ensure that they are not general to the point of being ineffectual. I would advocate learning disability national minimum standards, alongside standards for older people, mental health service users and other groups. I would particularly urge the Government to look at minimum standards for restraint, whether in children's services, residential schools or in adult homes.
The restraint procedures demonstrated in the BBC's recent film and documented in countless abuse inquiries are not only painful, distressing and demeaning to residents; they are also life threatening. Mencap is aware of fatalities arising from improper restraint, which have been recorded as "accidental death". Death by asphyxiation is no accident. A clear legal and policy framework is urgently required on the management of physical intervention. We would also expect people with learning disabilities who have experience of using these services to be directly consulted in drawing up any standards that will affect their lives.
Proper registration and inspection procedures will go a long way in driving up standards in care, but it is also crucially important to have an effective structure
50
for monitoring and approving staff who work in care settings. Sadly, too many care workers are inadequately trained for the job that they have to do, and there is little concentration on the quality and value of care provided. This demonstrates the importance of the proposed general social care council, which should, in time, ensure that all staff have relevant qualifications and training.
During the last Session, I extended my support, along with other noble Lords, to a Private Member's Bill introduced in the other place by Debra Shipley MP, which has now become the Protection of Children Act. This Act received support from Members on all sides of both Houses who were keen to strengthen recruitment procedures for people appointed to work with children. I am delighted that the Care Standards Bill is building upon the foundation of that Act, and is looking to strengthen procedures for the recruitment of staff working with adults who are judged to he vulnerable on account of their care requirements. This is an important step, and one which is long overdue.
Eighteen months ago the Department of Health concluded an inquiry into Longcare homes, two privately run residential homes for people with learning disabilities in Buckinghamshire. More than 50 people suffered physical and sexual assaults at the hands of the owner, Gordon Rowe, and his staff. Rowe registered the home in 1983, when he was already under investigation for abuse allegations in a different local authority. This information did reach Buckinghamshire local authority, but it failed to act upon it. This case stresses the importance of ensuring that staff are properly vetted to prevent perpetrators from moving from one part of the country to another to seek employment, or from one care setting to another thus avoiding detection.
Lessons learnt need to be translated into action. Sadly there have been all too many inquiries of this kind up and down the country. Now is the time to protect for the future. I welcome the Department of Health's commitment to taking a strong national lead in response to national problems, and I look forward to a future for people with learning disabilities which looks very different from the past. Proportionately, the same number of adults with a severe learning disability are living with parents in 1999 as were living with parents 30 years ago in 1969. There simply have to be better guarantees that those who leave the family home to live elsewhere will find support and opportunity and, above all, complete safety.
5.21 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, like many of your Lordships I feel that I have been waiting a long time for this Bill. In some senses, I feel that I have been waiting more than 30 years, since I started my professional life as a very green, very naïve and very unregulated social worker in Manchester's Moss Side. Your Lordships will appreciate that working in such surroundings I did not remain naive for long.
Life in social care has changed a great deal since then. For a start, we use the words "social care". Then, we might have referred to "social work" as our

51
profession, but social services departments were not yet even a gleam in anyone's eye and "social care", although it was going on all around us, was not yet a recognised term. More shockingly—I am ashamed still to admit it—many of the problems which face social services departments now were simply not on the agenda. Principal among those was the issue which now forms such a significant part of all social care; namely, the protection of children from abuse in all its forms. My blood still runs cold when I remember all those children who were undoubtedly suffering but whose plight was ignored by me and by those authorities that were charged with protecting them.
I am thankful indeed that much has changed and want to pay tribute to all those who have devoted so much of their lives to providing good social care, often in the face of criticism, and frequently pilloried by the press.
The Bill itself is wide ranging and we shall have the opportunity to debate many important aspects of social care provision and its regulation during its passage. It is, I think, particularly appropriate that it begins its passage in the House of Lords as so many of your Lordships have an abiding interest in these matters, as has been evidenced by the speeches today. Today, however, I want to concentrate on one aspect only and in doing so to declare a specific interest.
Part IV of the Bill concerns the functions and provisions of the general social care council (GSCC) and the care council for Wales. I am privileged to chair the advisory group which has been established to advise the Secretary of State and to conduct projects of work to help with the early development of the key functions of the GSCC when it is established. The membership of the group is drawn from a wide cross-section of those who are concerned with these developments. I want to record my most grateful thanks to all members of this group for their commitment to so much hard work in order to prepare for the establishment of a body which is so long awaited. I add my thanks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for the work done by the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.
The group I chair is undertaking initial work on drafting codes of conduct for social care staff and employers and a framework by which codes of practice for staff can be developed. We shall also examine the registration functions of the GSCC, its regulation of professional social work education and training, and the establishment of the body in shadow form during the course of the next year, depending on the progress of this legislation.
Like many other people who have worked in this field, I have awaited the formation of such a council for a long time. I first heard it discussed as long as 20 years ago. We greeted each report which recommended its establishment with eagerness and support, but each time we were disappointed.
Over 1 million people are employed in personal social services in the United Kingdom, providing social work and social care services for large numbers
52
of children and adults, including many elderly people. They work often on their own initiative, in people's own homes, and away from direct supervision. They provide support and care for children and adults who may be physically or intellectually dependent, and who often suffer disadvantage, stigma and social exclusion. Many service users rely on social workers and social care staff to provide their day-to-day personal care, look after their interests, protect them from harm, or prevent them becoming a danger to themselves or to others. The circumstances which bring them into contact with social care services may also make them particularly vulnerable to misconduct, bad practice or abuse on the part of staff in those services.
It therefore seems incredible that up to now no government have been willing to set up such a body as exists in most other professional and caring fields with the task of protecting the public by regulating standards of conduct and practice for those working in the field. There has, of course, been growing public concern in recent years about examples of gross misconduct, bad practice and abuse by a minority—I stress that it is a minority—of social care workers. Naturally, support has grown for a concerted initiative to raise standards, and to tackle abuse and bad practice.
The primary function of the councils—I refer also to the council for Wales—will be to protect the public and set standards for the professional and occupational groups working in the social services field, whether in local authorities, voluntary organisations or the private sector. The councils will have the heavy task of winning the confidence of service users, their carers and families by the way they set the standards and the way in which those standards are enforced. Therefore, the councils must secure the commitment of all those who work in social care to high standards of conduct and practice. They must also gain the co-operation of employers in providing support for good practice, tackling misconduct and abuse, and excluding from the workforce those in serious breach of the standards.
The councils must also work with education and training bodies to raise standards and increase levels of training. Of course, they must also take steps to improve public understanding of the nature of social work and social care, and to build public confidence in social services and the occupational groups working within them. These are not easy tasks but there is a will to tackle them if the advisory group which I chair is anything to go by.
I should like to draw particular attention to one part of the councils' work which I believe is of the greatest importance; namely, the empowerment of service users. Although many social services departments and agencies have made serious attempts to address the issue of user participation, most users would say that there is still a long way to go. This partly reflects the inherent difficulty for all organisations of giving up power and reducing control, even when their philosophies and values embrace the principle of being responsive to users. However, we must never forget that it is also a particular feature of social care that

53
many of the groups which use its services comprise those who are disadvantaged and disempowered as a result of what took them into the social care field in the first place; namely, as a result of youth or old age; learning or communication disabilities; and, of course, racial, religious or cultural differences. Such groups have few opportunities to have their say or to influence decisions. All too often, in social care as in the wider society, their views are dismissed or ignored.
The councils therefore will have an important part to play in encouraging a climate of greater responsiveness to users and their families, but they will also have obstacles to overcome to secure real user and carer ownership of their own operations. It will be of the utmost importance that provision is made for users and lay members to be in the majority on the councils. We shall need assurances from the Minister that he is totally committed to ensuring that this works in practice as well as in theory.
One million social care workers will not be registered and regulated instantly, but this long-awaited Bill makes a vital start. There can be no one who is concerned about this important issue who does not welcome that.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will not be surprised that I wish to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Culkein, on his magnificent maiden speech. Rarely have I listened with such pleasure to a maiden speech. I enjoyed the way in which he stated the personal values with which he comes to the work of the House and also his authoritative analysis of the terms of the Bill.
I am gratified to think that nursing is now represented on almost all of the Benches of this House. That is right and proper when one considers the work that nurses undertake in the health service. I was almost tempted to appropriate to myself the words, "Lord, now letteth thou thy servant depart in peace". I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, will represent us with skill and authority in the future.
The Government are to be congratulated on their determination to grasp the nettle of care standards in a wide range of settings. I welcome the intention to establish the national care standards commission to regulate social care and private and voluntary healthcare.
Most of us have a profound sense of shame as we encounter and read of flagrant abuses of the trust of care—we have heard these referred to very graphically by the noble Lord, Lord Rix—but the reported cases may be only the tip of an iceberg. I believe that there is a far greater quantity of substandard and even abusive care which remains hidden and which can lead to days and years of misery and a life lived out with a lack of human dignity or worse.
Some of us have had cause to visit institutions which give us profound unease as we enter them; their ambience depresses us beyond measure. Whereas I appreciate some of the evidence brought forward by
54
the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the dilemma in which nursing and residential home owners find themselves because of some of the standards which are to be brought in, the physical provision for care is extremely important. Even though the inmates of a home may spend only a certain time in bedrooms, there needs to be room for two nurses to operate around a bed and for all the common provisions for caring to be made. I see a need for far more stringent standards in physical provision than we have had before. There is also a need for standards of staffing in homes. These have fallen way below the level at which they should be.
As we cast a critical eye on some of these institutions, I am conscious of how grateful some of us should be for the excellent provision of care in others. I have visited places where the standards of care are exemplary. I am sure that, like me, many of your Lordships will have cause to be personally grateful for the care received by members of our own family circles. My mother lived until she was 108. For the last 10 years of her life she received marvellous care in a home in Leicester which I could not better myself. I should like to pay tribute to the care that is given in so many of these homes.
I am also intensely proud of the care given in the hospice movement and the standards that have been set there. The care given in our hospices could well be a model for the care given in the health and social services generally.
From my background, I want to comment on four aspects of the Bill in general terms. We shall have the opportunity to return to the Bill in detail as we go through the clauses at the Committee stage and beyond as we discuss the Bill. First of all, I should like to comment on the range of the Bill. The Minister said that it was very broad. I was staggered as I read of the range of provisions that it covers: the variety of settings, institutions and domiciliary care; the way in which it covers every age group, from children right through to the elderly; the settings of short-term and long-term care; and the provision for not only physical care but for mental care and terminal care.
I begin to wonder what kind of commission would be competent to encompass this wide range of kinds of care, with the very different standards that will have to be added to different forms of care. Speaking from the point of view of my own profession of nursing, if we are to have the promised concentration of expertise in the commission, how does one get a concentration of expertise that will cover geriatric nursing, mental health nursing, palliative care, mental handicap nursing, children's nursing and so on? These are all specialties in nursing that will come under the purview of the commission. How does one get that concentration of expertise?
My second and major concern is to probe the distinction made in the Bill between social care and healthcare. In the past the distinction has been invidious. My hope would have been that the Government would have given this matter more thought. It is my view that for many nurses the

55
distinction between social care and healthcare is artificial and that the Bill with its definitions could lead to further polarisation between these aspects of care.
It is my experience that persons requiring long-term social care often have a multiplicity of health needs; and those requiring healthcare have social needs. It is invidious to attempt to polarise these kinds of needs for care and to designate people to institutions accordingly.
The definitions of personal care form a fundamental element in what is, by definition, part of basic nursing care. Henderson described it many years ago as,
"to assist the individual, sick or well, in the performance of those activities contributing to health or its recovery (or to a peaceful death) that he would perform unaided had he the necessary strength, will or knowledge, and to do this in such a way as to help him gain independence".
As has been said, much of this is now carried out by care assistants and yet it is a basic nursing task. It needs to come under the purview of experienced nurses who can assess the need for nursing care and monitor it effectively. We have slipped up in the way in which care has been organised in some of these institutions at present. This basic nursing role is a necessary element in what makes a person feel cared for, and it needs to be under the supervision of qualified nurses. If personal care and healthcare are distinguished too finely, the care of the individual is fragmented and becomes task centred rather than person centred—and yet we have had the assurance from the Minister that this is not the objective.
That leads on to the distinction between residential homes and nursing homes. There is an implication in the Bill that long-term care is about social care and that nursing homes are about healthcare. I know that the Royal College of Nursing has long been of the view that the patient's interest would best be served by removing that artificial distinction and moving to a single system of homes. I wonder why the Government have not taken advantage of this opportunity to take that step.
Noble Lords have already referred to the overlap in regulatory functions. As has already been said, I believe that there is an overlap between the function of a commission, between CHIMP and NICE, clinical governance and many other forms of regulating the quality of care. I wonder whether we can have clarification of how these different institutions will relate to one another and to the professional organisations. We have already had reference to how they will relate to the commission in their responsibility for professional practice.
I now turn to a small point. The Bill states that a person's employment in some homes would be prohibited unless he or she is registered with the social work agency. But many nurses will be working in the institution. Does that mean that the Government want them to have dual registration as nurses and with the social work agency? We look forward to the future stages of the Bill and being able to take up these and other points.
5.41 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, this Second Reading debate, with the excellent maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, gives us all the opportunity to put on record our appreciation of the hard work carried out by so many social care staff throughout the country.
In our rightful condemnation of that small minority of people in the social care workforce who truly neglect and abuse those in their charge, it is sometimes left unsaid that many in the care workforce bring relentless dedication and compassion to their work, often on ridiculously low wages. They will welcome the opportunity that this Bill gives to improve further their levels of care and professionalism.
The Care Standards Bill will also be heartily welcomed by the half-million people living in care homes in England and Wales, including elderly people, disabled people and children in children's homes. We are told that there are over 30,000 care homes and over 1,000 children's homes as well as hundreds of smaller children's homes, private and voluntary hospitals, and clinics. The Bill will also cover 3,000 domiciliary care agencies, 70 residential family centres, 80 independent fostering agencies and 44 adoption agencies.
The new national care standards commission will replace a plethora of confusing and differing regulatory regimes and, in some cases, bring regulation where there was none before. This is part of the Bill that is long overdue and one that I hope will be welcomed, at least in its aims, across the House.
It is a disturbing thought that of the 1 million-strong care workforce, only 20 per cent have any recognised training qualification at all. In the context of the Bill, that yawning gap in standards will be filled by the general social care council, which will at last promote the highest training standards across this diverse workforce and not only, as we have heard from noble Lords, among the relatively small number of professionally trained social workers numbering 40,000 in all.
Part VI is an important section of the Bill which imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to maintain a list of individuals who are considered unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults in the care sector. The imposition of this duty to strike off those who would abuse and mistreat our most vulnerable citizens is a reflection of the seriousness with which this Government take the care of the most defenceless among us.
While the Bill covers the entire age range, perhaps I may linger for a moment on our duty as civilised citizens to our elderly people. We know that the care of the elderly must from now on attract only ultra-professionalism. Why? It is because, first of all, people in their 70s, 80s, 90s or 100s, after a lifetime of working and giving, deserve our respect. It is also because the demography of our country and continent is changing. Thankfully, people are living longer with, in many but not all cases, increasing disposable income. They are demanding higher and better standards of care in retirement. They are looking to a varied and fulfilling

57
retirement and. as always, professionalism is ultimately much cheaper and much more cost-effective than incompetence.
Care of the elderly should be the new "rock and roll", attracting the most original thinking and the greatest energy in policy and cultural terms. What could be more exciting, liberating and revolutionary, as we step into the new millennium, than the real prospect of a peaceful and prosperous old age for all. It is a prospect that needs a great deal of work and commitment because a significant proportion of elderly people feel less than confident that such a benign retirement and period in care awaits them.
My own family has taken the all too familiar route which, I am sure, is known to many of us, of traipsing from one residential care home to another looking for a suitable home, in our case, for an elderly widowed aunt who had become very confused. The variation in standards, hygiene, personal space, care and warmth was surprising, if not shocking. Although my aunt is now happily established in an excellent home, the at times harrowing process of finding that home for her was an education we could have all clone without.
While this Bill calls for more detailed content, which will be forthcoming, it will help to restore confidence among our elderly citizens and others in care that their welfare and well-being is uppermost on this Government's agenda.
5.47 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, the theme of this afternoon's debate has been the commission, and concerns that it will not have regional arms. Perhaps I may make a suggestion to the Government that each commissioner should be encouraged to spend one or two hours a week in the field in a psychiatric hospital or a special needs school in order to keep in touch with what is happening on the ground.
My father took immense comfort from spending his last illness at home. I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill's measures to allow the cared for to remain at home rather than being obliged, for the convenience of bureaucracy, to move to an institution.
By far the majority of the workers I have met, while volunteering for work in hostels, are committed to it. However, there are also the few who might never be allowed a position of responsibility elsewhere and enjoy the exercise of power over others. There are also those who take personally the problems with conduct that cared-for young homeless people sometimes have and who respond inappropriately and unkindly.
That is very distressing for the colleagues of such people and, most importantly, it leaves the cared for feeling badly about themselves. Therefore, I also welcome the encouragement given to training and registration which the general councils covering social and care workers provided in this Bill will introduce. I hope that this legislation will cause the most obviously flawed candidates for care work to be rejected outright or at least prevent them from rising to a position of responsibility. After all, some of the homeless are 16 and 17 year-olds; they are still children, and 40 per cent
58
of those children have spent time in care. They are vulnerable, and there are Napoleons among hostel staff just as there are in other social care work situations. Proper inspection and registration of hostels, registration of the staff as "social care workers", an expectation that they should be "fit persons" and at least trained to NVQ level 3 will increase the standard of care and staff morale.
I fear that I have missed a page of my notes. Those remarks were to suggest to the Minister that homeless hostels should also be included in the new arrangements set out in the Bill, at least for young people up to the age of 21. Their carers and staff in the hostels should have to have at least the same level of skills as those demanded in other residential settings for vulnerable people.
Children's homes are failing their children. Perhaps the most disturbing figures reflecting this are that one-quarter of young women are leaving care with babies, and one-half are mothers within two years, as compared to the one in 25 women normal to that. age. Research by Centrepoint and the Peabody Trust, Safe in the City, shows that the most important predictor for youth homelessness in deprived areas is to be the child of a mother whose firstborn was produced before she was 25 years old. The prospects for many of the children of recent care leavers must be bleak, both for their children and their children's children.
Those with experience and expertise in the care of looked-after children say that the most important goal is a good quality of relationship between staff and children. It is essential to retain staff over several years, to resist children being removed from one home to another, and to foster trusting, significant relationships. Children need to feel connected to adults who really do care about them.
What aids children to connect? Two things do this: the continuity of contact with staff; and its significance. Children who have never felt secure with their parents or guardians need to know that staff will stick with them for years; that at least one staff member will allow intimacy; and that they can communicate their feelings and sometimes dreadful past experiences without threatening that special relationship. How can a child ask for help if there is no one he can trust or feel standing close to him? However, the problem is that children who have been poorly treated are likely to treat others poorly, especially their new carers.
In a crisis, when one is faced with an impulse, one is of course tempted to act upon it. If it is a destructive impulse, one has to pause, think for a moment, and recognise the damaging consequences of gratifying that impulse. When caring for troubled children, one must resist responding to insults with insults, kicks with kicks, and seduction with seduction. The capacity to stand back and think is essential. By insisting that the managers of children's homes are properly trained and by moving towards the training of all staff working in children's homes, the Bill is encouraging a considered approach among staff. However, because of the exceptional needs of these particular children, it

59
needs to go further still. There remains the danger that workers will lose their self-possession. The saddest example of this is when a young homeless person with conduct problems is expelled from a hostel because workers are unable to plot the most constructive way around him.
I have been very impressed with the results of supporting hostel staff by providing weekly meetings with a psychotherapist. Fewer young people are expelled and there is a greater enthusiasm among staff for their work. The meetings stimulate the care staff to think about their practice, to question their behaviour and to better understand the young people they care for—their wards. The service allows some staff to see that there is an infinite amount to learn from their work. Virtually unqualified staff have gone on to write masters' theses on the relationships between staff and residents. The residents are very grateful to have found a place in which they feel accepted and understood. Young people who can recite a litany of previous hostels come, at last, to rest.
In Committee, I intend to move an amendment to ensure the following provision: that the staff body of a children's home should have a right to a weekly visit from a psychotherapist registered with one of the three recognised United Kingdom bodies for psychotherapy, or from a mental health worker with three years' relevant experience and one who is himself undergoing psychotherapy with a practitioner registered as above.
The trade-off of a dynamic, risk-taking economy such as ours is greater social exclusion. Compared with Europe, our rate of unemployment is lower and our economy is performing better, but we also have the highest rates of divorce and teenage pregnancy, and, after Portugal, the second highest imprisonment rate in the European Union. However, Britain's incidence of social exclusion is far less than that of the United States, the world's most successful free market economy. Perhaps a recognition of this trade-off is implied by the Government's twin goals of enterprise and fairness. Our choice of economy over the past two decades has increased the number of children in care. I suggest that we have a duty to target some of that prosperity on to the most vulnerable. As the family has fared worst, children in care deserve a disproportionate share of our new wealth.
Furthermore, investment in good social care saves money. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, pointed out during the Second Reading debate of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, reducing by 10 per cent the number of care leavers graduating into young offender institutions would save £7 million per annum.
I hope that the Government will consider making further provision fully to resource the service that I propose, should that be necessary. At the same time, I acknowledge that the Government are already increasing spending in this area by 3 per cent per annum for the next three years. The innovation I have described would be a bold, imaginative and effective step in bringing order to the chaos in many children's
60
homes. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out, this piece of legislation is a box in which no obvious and tangible elements are immediately obvious. Most of the improvements set out in the Bill will take years to bite. However, this simple proposal would bring improvements in months. Children in care have already been waiting for far too long.
Over the coming months, I shall be working with others to establish a pilot service in children's homes. I should certainly appreciate advice from the Government and noble Lords on pursuing this project.
Finally, I should like to pay tribute to all those who care for children not their own, to those who adopt children, to foster parents and to the staff of children's homes. Who could ever claim to match the nobility of their endeavour to give hope and love to an unsupported child?
5.58 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, reflects what has been a theme of today's debate; namely, that speakers have been talking on subjects they really know about. Furthermore, that applies too to the wonderful maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Mackenzie of Culkein.
There is only one part of the Bill of which I have particular knowledge, and that concerns the care of the elderly, so I shall confine my remarks to that subject. The reason I know a little of the subject is that I was a member of the Royal Commission on the Long-term Care of the Elderly. That commission spent an exciting 13 months discussing and investigating this subject. Some noble Lords will know that, sadly, the commission was not unanimous in its conclusions. I was one of two commissioners who signed a substantial note of dissent. However, we did agree on a good many matters, and the need for a national care commission was one of them. I very much welcome the fact that that commission will come into being as a result of this Bill.
I believe that to be right for two principal reasons. First, when one goes round the country looking at care homes, one is struck by the huge variety in the quality of provision. There are wonderful homes with wonderful people doing wonderful work. But as I stand before the House, my stomach still turns at the recollection of the description of one home in the south east of England written by a member of the commission staff who went in and saw old people being treated, it is hardly an exaggeration to say, like animals. That variety of provision is what the Bill is intended to deal with.
Incidentally, it is not a matter of money. According to the Audit Commission, there is practically no correlation between standards in homes and the amount of money each place costs. Some of the worst homes are the most expensive and some of the best homes are relatively cheap. It is a matter of having uniform standards, and therefore a national commission is required. If it were left to local authorities, the variety would be greater. A national

61
commission will not mean instant equal standards. But as we have too much variety rather than too little, a national commission is the right way forward. I am glad that the Government have moved away from their earlier idea of having eight separate regional commissions.
I have a second reason for favouring a Bill in this field. Under it, for the first time, local authority-run homes will be subject to external inspection. There is an interesting piece of social history as to why local authority-run homes have not been subject to external inspection. It is to do with a time in our national life when it was felt that if something was run by the state it must be all right and the standards must be good. But we have moved away from that idea. Indeed, the only area where local authority homes on the whole excel is expense. The average public sector residential home costs £366 per week compared with £238 in the average private home. That is a 54 per cent difference. Some small part of that may be attributable to the fact that a more needy kind of person tends to live in a local authority home, but the most likely explanation for much of the discrepancy is sheer inefficiency.
The extra money does not bring higher standards. Perhaps I may give one example. Whereas only a minority of independent sector residential homes—a little over 20 per cent—would fail to meet the new space and amenity standards to be introduced by the Government, in the public sector, I am ashamed to say, 55 per cent of homes would fail that test.
I do not like to be dogmatic but in the long run I have no doubt that local authorities will have no business running care homes. The right model is for local authorities to commission from private providers the care that they need. According to the calculations of the minority report, if all local authority homes were closed tomorrow and were replaced by equivalent private sector homes, there would be a useful saving to the public purse of £1500 million a year. In fact, it would not be right to close them all tomorrow because it would be awful for all those people who were hoping to see out their days in the home they are in and who would have to be forcibly moved elsewhere. For better or worse, the homes exist; and they will continue to exist for a period, though the numbers are, I am pleased to say, diminishing. But it follows from the fact that they will continue to exist that they must be brought within the system of regulation. I also dare to hope that regulation in itself will bring home to authorities, which have let these problems go on in some cases for years and years, that they are providing a not very good service at an unnecessarily high cost and persuade them to run down these homes as swiftly as is practicable and humane.
We are to have more consistent regulation as a result of the Bill. That is excellent. Under the proposals in the Government's June consultation paper, Fit for the Future, we are also to have much higher standards for care homes. That, too, is excellent. But it bears with it the vital concomitant—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to this point earlier—that we need a flourishing private sector able profitably to provide places of the standard required. It is strange that when
62
we come around to the need for a flourishing private sector, more noble Lords on these Benches seem to support it than on the Benches opposite. Perhaps that shows the changes that are occurring with time. We need a profitable private sector.
However, we have a difficulty. There is a growing mismatch between the fees which local authorities are prepared to pay for residential care and the costs which homes incur in providing that care. Indeed, if I were not disinclined, by reason of my former profession of journalism, to any exaggeration, I would say that we have a crisis on our hands. I shall spare the House the full weight of the facts that lead me to that conclusion but I shall give just a few. Fees paid from the public purse account for around two-thirds of the income of care homes. According to the latest authoritative Laing and Buisson survey of the field, the fees paid by local authorities last year rose by 1.6 per cent for nursing homes and 2.2 per cent for residential homes. However, the wages of women working in those homes—that is the key cost factor in most homes—rose by 4.4 per cent. It is not easy to continue to increase productivity in this field. How do care home workers increase their through-put of feeding people meals or chatting to them when that is what they need? One cannot just do that.
The result is not very surprising. It is that returns on capital are deplorable and the share price of the big care firms languishes. In October we learnt that Advantage Care, with more than 3,000 beds, had gone into administrative receivership. That followed the collapse of Grampian Care in June this year. Tamaris plc, one of the four remaining quoted long-term care companies, has been experiencing severe financial difficulties.
Higher standards, as I have said, are excellent. But higher standards inevitably cost money. For example, the Government's own estimate of loss of revenue to homes as a result of the space standards set out in Fit for the Future is of between £80 million and £300 million a year. That will not all be incurred at once but the danger is of a greater squeeze on profit margins, more closures and, even in defiance of the Government's regulatory efforts, more corner-cutting and worse care.
Some noble Lords may say that we do not want so many homes for the elderly, that surely we want people to be cared for in their own homes, and that therefore it would be a good thing if care homes were to go out of business. Alas, that is not so, for the population is continuing to age. Even on the most optimistic assumptions as to the proportion of older people who can live at home, our need for care homes will rise. On the best estimates put to the Royal Commission, it will double between now and the year 2050. Twice as many people will need care homes. The required investment will be at least £15 billion. If we close homes now in order to shave costs for local authorities and then later on we have to reopen them, the cost will be many times what is required to keep them going now. Having been a student of the Treasury for many years, I know how

63
reluctant it is to accept arguments of spending now to save later. I hope that this argument might have some resonance.
From all this one inexorable conclusion follows. It is that fees must go up; and as fees are paid by public authorities—local authorities and the Department of Health—that means that there will have to be more public expenditure. When the Government embark on the Comprehensive Spending Review, I hope they will give due weight to that need.
I referred at the beginning of my remarks to the disagreement on the Royal Commission. In closing, I return to it briefly. The majority of the Royal Commission wanted care in all care homes to be free to all and not, as now, subject to a means test. That is a tempting proposition. But it is also a very expensive one, even on the majority's optimistic costing—absurdly optimistic, some of us believe—it would cost £1 billion a year now, rising to £6.4 billion by the year 2050.
The minority, to sound a note of dissent, had a different priority. We wanted extra spending—not quite as much as the majority wanted—but not to make free what is now paid for. Rather, we wanted extra spending to improve the care that is now provided and needs improvement.
What matters most—that better-off people who now pay for their own care should in future be paid for by the state so that they can leave their fortunes in full to their children, or that state resources should be used to improve standards for everyone in care homes, providing their proprietors with the incentive and wherewithal to look after their residents with dignity and love? The question answers itself.
6.11 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, like many other speakers, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Culkein, on an outstanding maiden speech. It was joyful to listen to his wisdom and experience, particularly as his remarks were delivered in that most wonderful of accents which can make a telephone directory sound like poetry. I hope that he addresses the House many times again in the future.
Of the 28 Bills announced in the gracious Speech, the Care Standards Bill has prompted comparatively little comment, and overall the reaction has been largely favourable. That is not surprising, given that all the major principles have been trailed in previous legislation and that the contentious parts of the measure—indeed, there will be some—will be contained in regulations not yet placed before the House.
The establishment of an independent regulatory body for social care and private and voluntary healthcare services is welcome. However, that proposal, together with the production of a national service framework for the care of older people within the NHS, announced by the Secretary of State for Health on 2nd December, will lead to an overall better
64
standard of care, not least because service users will, possibly for the first time, have clear expectations about the quality of service that they can reasonably expect in the NHS and in a variety of social care settings.
The proposal for new, independent councils to register social care workers and regulate the training of social workers in England and Wales will also bring a welcome degree of clarity to what is currently a rather patchy and confused picture across the country.
I want to take some time to consider the possible implications of the implementation of the Bill. In doing so, I shall draw to some extent on my experience of working with voluntary organisations which have been involved in lay assessor schemes. Perhaps the most important aspect of the Bill is the provision for registration and inspection. I want to address in particular the inspection of residential and nursing homes. Although the removal of responsibility for inspection from local authorities in order to achieve national consistency is understandable, there is a strong danger that the process of inspection may become so remote that it could become largely reactive. If inspections are carried out in order to monitor national minimum standards, and such inspection visits are carried out infrequently, it is highly likely that all that such inspections will do is uncover the most blatant of bad practice.
There is a danger that, in order to meet the legal requirements of the Bill, some locally based schemes, such as lay assessor schemes, will be forced to end. There will not be the resources to maintain them. That would be regrettable. Such schemes have been very successful in doing an important job; namely, uncovering poor as opposed to bad practice. Such schemes have demonstrated that, often, only after there has been sufficient time for residents to become familiar with assessors and to trust them are issues raised. That is not surprising. If one of us were to experience a difficult problem in our own home, I doubt that our first response would be to discuss it with a complete stranger. I fear that the same will be true in relation to this provision. We should not forget that a care home is usually the only home that its residents have. However bad it is, the fear of losing it remains a powerful incentive to say nothing. If inspection is to work, it has to be carried out in such a way and with such frequency—I stress frequency rather than regularity—that people genuinely feel able to raise extremely difficult and intimate problems.
Furthermore, such schemes have shown that care home owners, who are initially suspicious of inspection, can in time come to regard it as a helpful and valuable way of addressing problems. They, too, need to establish familiarity with inspectors. When the new inspection system is implemented, will there be sufficient resources to allow frequent visits, and also for the inspection process to be carried out in such a way that it is grounded in local circumstances and is not a remote and oppressive process for everyone involved?

65
That leads me to a related issue on which I feel strongly; namely, the need for advocacy. Most older people in residential care are either physically or mentally frail. Whether old or young, people in residential care are emotionally vulnerable. To make a complaint, even informally, against the main provider of one's care requires a great deal of strength. Many people in residential care require support. I urge the Government, when considering the implementation of the Bill, not to overlook the considerable benefits of making provision for advocacy services.
It has been widely acknowledged, and was eloquently put by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that the Bill's implementation will lead to the closure of residential homes, although there is some degree of argument as to the likely scale of the closure. In the early 1990s, in the wake of the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Act, many residential homes, most in the public sector, closed because they were unable to meet the standards that were set at the time. As a result of many instances in which older people were moved to new care homes and died shortly after, a great deal of research was conducted into the problem. Many valuable lessons were learnt, including the need to involve staff, relatives, residents, GPs and anyone who has anything to do with a home in that process. Above all, it was recommended that advocacy should play an integral part. Moving home is a trauma for anyone. It is well known that if a patient displays signs of stress, the first question a GP will ask is whether someone has died, and when the patient says no, the GP says. "Well, you must be moving". It is the same for those in residential homes. Having an advocate, someone whom they can trust to help them through that process, is extremely important. I should like to see that provision in the Bill.
One criticism that can be made of the Bill is that it places heavier emphasis on the type of establishment in which services are offered than on the nature and standard of the services. It has long been the case in the NHS that services have been judged more on buildings and the state of those buildings than the treatment that individuals receive. I urge the Government—in seeking to bring greater cohesion to the monitoring of services across different sectors—not to fall into the trap of subjecting personal and social care to that same crude measure.
I take issue with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who listed some of the proposed physical standards for residential care in a disparaging tone. Factors such as the physical layout of rooms are extremely important to residents and to the rest of us. One only has to visit Ikea on a Saturday afternoon to see how worked up people can get about plugs and chairs. We have to get away from looking at such establishments as institutions and consider them instead as homes.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I was not suggesting that such factors did not matter but that they should not be the he all and end all of any assessment of how good
66
or bad was the level of care in a particular establishment. Of course I acknowledge the noble Baroness's points.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Earl's clarification and am pleased that we agree.
The Government's aims are complex and if the regulations that follow the Bill are based on the report Fit For the Future, the Government will seek to base standards on principles such as choice, dignity and privacy. Setting such standards is not easy. Setting qualitative standards inevitably introduces subjectivity into monitoring. The Government have taken the right course but will require the support of us all in making such a difficult concept work.
Good standards change over time. What is accepted as best practice will cease to be. That is partly because the needs of older people change. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, mentioned projections about the older population. That population will in future be increasingly diverse. There will be greater numbers of older people from ethnic minority communities, who are lesbian or gay, or who come with a completely different expectation of good care. I urge the Government not only to make care standards explicit but to ensure that they are regularly updated.
The Bill makes clear that standards count for nothing if staff are not trained to understand and implement them. My experience of residential care is that good home owners value competent staff and that service users value highly staff who perform their duties in a caring fashion. In an industry in which the greatest cost is staff and operating margins—as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said—are tight, the training budget is often the first to be cut. Good training costs a lot. If the new standards are to become reality, resources must be made available within the care sector economy to make sure that the Bill is about good care standards for the future, not a wish list for today.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, the Bill covers diverse issues, many of which have been avidly discussed in various forums for a number of years. In my five years in the early 1980s as the chair of a social services committee, many of those issues kept arising and were the subject of considerable debate among those interested in social care.
The Bill will replace the Registered Homes Act 1984 and the provisions of the Children Act 1989 relating to the regulation of children's homes. Those Acts were important in developing a framework to protect standards in such establishments. The framework offered by the new national care standards commission is even more important because it will provide a national framework and national consistency.
There has been much debate in the health service about postcode prescribing and differential levels of service, meaning that the NHS is not always a national

67
service. The same applies in other areas of social care. If different standards are applied by different regimes in different areas, that should concern your Lordships. The arrival of the NCSC will permit a national framework and that will be valuable.
Some people in local government have expressed concern that the work done by registration units will no longer be undertaken by local authorities. That concern is misplaced, in my view. Although extremely valuable and worthwhile work has been done by many registration units, it cannot be right for local authorities to be responsible for the registration of establishments that they manage; nor can it be right for local authorities to make decisions about registration or de-registration when the authorities are aware that they are financially responsible for a significant proportion of the residents—and thus for sorting out the consequences of decisions. I am not suggesting that some local authority registration units have made wrong decisions, but the possibility remains of a perception that the wrong decision has been made or that decisions have been taken due to other factors or interests. That is unhelpful. There should be clarity of the kind that can only be provided by an independent structure.
Concern has been expressed by the independent hospital sector about the way in which independent healthcare will come under the umbrella of the NCSC. In practice, there will be a clear blurring of the edges between hospital and nursing home care. That already exists in the NHS and the public's mind, and I believe it exists in practice. There is, therefore, considerable logic in bringing the independent hospital sector under the wing of the NCSC. We must make sure that the NCSC focuses on the clinical standards provided within the independent hospital service. We should have the same clinical expectations of private healthcare as we do of the National Health Service. We ought to examine the way in which those two areas are brought together.
I was interested in the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Howe—who clarified it in his exchange with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker—about how the NCSC might set standards. Despite the noble Earl's explanation, he was suggesting that there is almost a dichotomy between standards relating to space and those relating to the skills of those providing care. That assertion is not entirely legitimate. It is surely legitimate to want high standards relating to both space and skills. The noble Earl spoke also about standards invented by inspectors for inspectors, which I am sure was intended as a nice sound bite for "Today in Parliament" or the like, if this debate makes it that far. I believe that that was unfortunate. No one is talking about standards that are of interest only to inspectors. We must ensure that the standards are arrived at following considerable debate which involves both the users of the services concerned and those who care for them. I believe that that is a critical element.
68
The noble Earl specifically highlighted the requirement that there should be two chairs in a room, one of which should have arms. It is an entirely reasonable expectation that there should be two chairs in a room that someone must use as his only bit of near-private space, and that one of those chairs should have arms. Those are the legitimate expectations of many of the service users, and perhaps we should not be too cynical about them.
I also welcome the requirement in Clause 20(3)(j) for the establishment of complaints procedures as a condition of registration. However, perhaps my noble friend will clarify when he replies whether it is intended that there should be a common complaints procedure across the independent sector. Is it intended that that complaints procedure should have a second independent review stage analogous to that which exists in the admittedly imperfect NHS complaints procedure? I believe it is important that there should be not only a local opportunity to review matters but an independent element. I should also like to see the remit of the Health Service Commissioner extended to cover the independent sector as recommended by the House of Commons Select Committee on Health, and supported by the ombudsman.
I turn briefly to the general social care council. That matter has been discussed for many years. Initially, I was extremely dubious about this proposition. It seemed to me that yet another group of middle-class professionals sought to wrap around themselves the cloak of professional indemnity. Those of us who have watched that in action in the legal, medical, dental or even nursing professions wonder whether this is in the interests of the users of the services concerned. I am reminded of Bernard Shaw's observation that,
"All professions are conspiracies against the laity".
When one looks at how some professional councils have operated in the past, one realises the need for reform. I have some doubts about the provision. However, a number of elements of the proposal are extremely important and perhaps many of these doubts can be set aside. First, it is not the intention to create an exclusive band of professionals that excludes others who are engaged in the same kind of work, as happens in some of the medical professional councils. It is intended that this should be a social care not a social work council, and that must be right.
The other danger is that the professional organisations will end up protecting their own. It is very difficult for a disciplinary case to be proven. Certainly, it appears to the general public that the particular profession is protecting its own members and that individual professionals are trying their chums. I am well aware that all of the organisations concerned make big efforts not to be seen in those terms. I hope that my noble friend will make it clear—although it is not explicit in the Bill, I am sure that it is the intention of government—that there will be a very significant role for non-professionals in the council. I do not simply mean the involvement of people who are not social care professionals. Although I can see the case for a nursing professional or medical professional being a member of this body, I want it to

69
be made clear that the majority of its members and leadership should be seen as representative in the broadest sense of those who are likely to use the service. I believe that to be an important principle.
Finally, I welcome the provisions which recognise that there should be protection of vulnerable adults as well as children. Abuse can take all forms, and those who perpetrate it need to be prevented from working in other establishments in future. Therefore, the Government's proposals on that are extremely welcome.
The Bill contains a diverse range of issues, and I believe that it takes the debate forward in many areas. For many years these matters have worried those who are concerned about the standards of social care. We have made step-by-step improvements in regulation and the setting of standards. I believe that this Bill takes the process forward, and I welcome it.
6.35 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I apologise for having missed just over an hour of the middle of this debate. In particular, I apologise to my noble friend for missing his maiden speech. I was chairing the All-Party Children Group which listened to children talking about Article 12 of the UN convention. I hope that I shall be excused.
I should like to talk briefly about this very welcome Bill as it relates to children. In 1993 the Gulbenkian Foundation produced a valuable report entitled One Scandal Too Many which argued the case for comprehensive protection for children in all settings. Two years later was a member of the foundation's commission, chaired by Sir William Utting, which produced a major report on children and violence. That contained many of the same recommendations for comprehensive protection. Sir William went on to produce his review of the safeguards for children living away from home entitled People Like Us.
Unfortunately. the scandals have not ceased. The inquiry into child abuse in North Wales comes to mind. We have not yet had the report, although it finished about two years ago. Up and down the country many police forces are engaged in investigations into the physical and sexual abuse of children in all kinds of institutions that purport to care for them. It must stop. We must ensure that this Bill provides an effective framework finally to stop this inexcusable violence against children. In particular, we must ensure that there are no loopholes.
I should like to ask the Minister for clear answers to what I hope are simple questions. First, can he assure us that, following implementation of the Bill, all children living away from home will be protected by consistent regulations from all forms of violence, including physical punishment and humiliating forms of discipline? I hope that the Minister is aware of Children are Unbeatable! which is an alliance of more than 250 organisations and many prominent individuals who campaign to give children the same protection from assault as adults enjoy under the law. It is absurd that children have less protection than us
70
and that at the moment the degree of protection depends on the setting in which the child finds himself. We have sorted out protection in all schools at long last, but we must also get it right in all other child care settings.
Secondly, can the Minister assure us that all children who live away from home will have well publicised and easy access to independent confidential advice, counselling, advocacy and complaints procedures with an independent element? Will the personal adviser proposed in the Children (Leaving Care) Bill fulfil that role? Thirdly, will there be consistent arrangements for regular and, where necessary, surprise inspection of all care settings for children, including an explicit obligation on inspectors to offer children and staff the opportunity to speak to them in confidence about issues of concern? I am particularly concerned that the safeguards in this Bill do not appear to cover the growing number of children who are in private foster care, despite Sir William Utting's clear recommendations.
Further, the exclusions in Clause 1 of the Bill appear to leave some residential establishments for children entirely unregulated. Can the Minister comment on those illogical gaps in protection? For example, holding centres for refugee children and families would be omitted. Refugee children can remain in one of these establishments for a matter of days or even weeks. The centres are not required to have regard to the welfare of the child, do not have a duty to assess their immediate needs and are not covered by the inspection requirements.
I turn to the proposal in Schedule 1 of the Bill that the national care standards commission will appoint a children's rights director. The White Paper referred to eight regional commissions each having a children's rights officer, which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned in his speech. Is that still planned? It is of course good to get the concept of children's rights into the Bill, but I have heard those appointments being promoted by the Secretary of State for Health as an alternative to appointing a statutory children's rights commissioner for England, for which many noble Lords on all sides of the House have been campaigning for a long time. That really is misleading.
Will the Minister make it clear once and for all that the functions of those children's rights directors or officers relate only to the 200,000 or so children in all forms of residential care and not to the other 11½ million children in England who all need an effective independent statutory institution to represent their rights and interests?
As there appears to be no speaker from Wales on the list and as the Bill extends to Wales, I make a single plea. Could the Bill include a permissive clause enabling the Welsh Assembly to develop, through secondary legislation, a proper children's rights commissioner, which I understand it is keen to do? We may have to go on campaigning for a proper English commissioner, but surely we should not frustrate Wales in its desire to have one.

71
There is much to commend in the Bill. The inclusion of adoption agencies is right. But surely it is high time that the Adoption Act 1976 was updated? The situation where the adoptions were mostly of babies and the very young has changed dramatically. There have been great changes in family structures and in parenting patterns. The majority of adoption placements now occur from the care system. We need a modern adoption framework which makes the welfare of the child the paramount consideration and acknowledges the ever increasing importance of good adoption services for adoptive parents, adopted children and the birth family.
I am pleased that Part V of the Bill amends the Children Act 1989 to bring childminding and day care within the scope of the Bill. The early identification of children with special educational needs and early provision to meet their needs is crucial to children's later progress in the education system. Will Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools provide information and advice to the Secretary of State on how childminders and day-care providers are succeeding in meeting objectives in that area? To which Secretary of State will he report—the Secretary of State for Health or for Education?
This is an extremely important and necessary Bill. It brings together the regulation and inspection system for early years child care and education and it signals an end to the confusion and duplication which two separate systems have created. There will be improvements in the quality of child care and early years education by ensuring that there are highly trained staff, and the status of social care workers will be raised. The general social care council will be responsible for the quality of the training all over the country. Child safety will no longer be a matter of geography, but one of consistency across the country.
I have made a few criticisms during my speech, but I end by saying that there is the possibility of a much brighter future for the most disadvantaged in our society and that it is up to all of us to see that that commitment is kept.
6.43 p.m
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I too pay tribute to the maiden speaker. I have only one regret, which is that he has another of those Scottish names that I shall have to look up 53 times in Dod's before I get it right. I congratulate him.
I have four minutes in the gap, during which I want to champion an unpopular cause; that of those accused of misconduct under the terms of the Bill. I pay tribute to the work carried out on the subject by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in the Protection of Children Act, because the provisions in that Bill were precisely the same in terms of keeping and maintaining a list of those unsuitable for working with vulnerable adults.
Although the Bill is wholly admirable in its intent and although I can honestly say that I have had the most intense personal experience of serious child abuse in my own life as well as professionally, because my
72
firm acts for a number of organisations in that area, it is my thesis that unless we get that part of the Bill right, it will undermine it irreparably. Under no circumstances can the anxiety and indeed, the determination of Parliament and the public to do something much more effective about vulnerable old people and children be achieved while damaging simple justice to accused people.
I put it to the House that if we allow a system such as the Bill contains, which does not adequately protect those accused of misconduct, it will have the effect of discouraging good people from going into those areas of care. It may even have the perverse effect of discouraging people from coming forward to complain when they should about those running homes of various types improperly.
The procedure before which a person is found "guilty of misconduct" under Clause 71(7) does not involve a finding of fact by the Secretary of State; a consideration of the merits by the Secretary of State; or a quasi-judicial consideration by the Secretary of State. It involves merely the finding by him on the basis of his opinion. I repeat that that opinion is not at all the result of a rigorous finding of facts. It is not quasi-judicial, nor is it based on a consideration of the merits. It derives solely from the complaining provider of services.
I need hardly tell anyone in this House who knows anything about that world that it is riven with difficulties and with personal relationships that are often tense. It is riven with 1,001 circumstances where one could imagine someone making a complaint under the provisions under the shadow of the legislation, knowing that what then follows may see the person concerned resigning and possibly having their career destroyed.
Someone's career would be smashed by their going on the list. It is no good saying that there is a right of appeal. In what section of our national life are we content to see someone found guilty and convicted—this is a conviction; the phrase is "guilty of misconduct"—on the basis of no hearing, a private procedure, no regard of merits and no rigorous investigation of facts? Nowhere else; and we cannot do it here.
However difficult it is to contend with the need for an open, merits-based, rigorous investigation of facts, we must do it because the price to innocent people put on that list will not be rectified by the right of appeal provided in the Bill.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to touch on one point of fact. In the explanatory notes and in the course of the debate, reference has been made to Royal Charters granted to private healthcare establishments. I speak as Chairman of Council of the King Edward VII Hospital for Officers, often affectionately referred to as "Sister Agnes", after the founder of the hospital in 1899, Miss Agnes Keyser.

73
Sister Agnes has been privileged to have had a Royal Charter for almost 70 years. We greatly value the benefit of that status for our charitable work. We have been able over the years to help literally thousands of entitled individuals with the costs of their time as a patient in the hospital. We continue to this day to help many who would otherwise be unable to gain quick access to and benefit from the finest treatment and nursing care available anywhere. However, we do not see our Royal Charter status as a reason or excuse not to do everything we can to ensure that our standards of treatment and care are beyond reproach. We do not operate for pr AA. Some years ago we sought inspection by the local health authority. When that was judged to be unnecessary in our case, we invited the King's Fund, now entitled the Health Quality Service, to inspect us. This involved every aspect of the hospital's activity, both clinical and administrative. We were formally accredited by the King's Fund following its inspection. In September this year we were reinspected by the Health Quality Service.
We volunteered for that review. After a most rigorous and detailed inspection of every aspect of our work, including our intensive care unit, our accreditation has been continued. The high standard of all aspects of our nursing care was specifically singled out for commendation by the Health Quality Service inspectors.
I believe that in the absence of a regulatory regime it is in the interests of patients and the good name of the hospital which they may use to submit to regular high quality, independent audit. We at Sister Agnes Hospital will continue voluntarily to do so. For those reasons, I welcome the proposals to regulate more closely the independent healthcare sector, but no doubt as the Bill progresses to Royal Assent there will be sensible improvements to its treatment of private hospitals. However, there should be no loss of charitable privilege which a Royal Charter bestows.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have had a high-quality, serious and informed debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, suggested, all noble Lords who have spoken are agreed that overall the legislative package before your Lordships is crucial to raising standards and leading to more consistent regulation throughout the services. There has been some debate about the means by which we should ensure consistent regulation, and I shall deal with that in a moment, but there is no question of its importance. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, graphically described some of the incidents arising out of recent inquiries which have pointed to inadequacies in the current regulatory arrangements. Therefore, there is no doubt that we must improve on what we have. We must have a high-quality regulatory machinery which provides consistency throughout the country.
However, as was said by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Crawley and Lady McFarlane, in our discussion of inadequate standards we must acknowledge that in many of the sectors under discussion there is to be
74
found high-quality care provided by high-quality people. As I respond to the debate, tending to dwell on some of the concerns, I want the House to know that I recognise that in many sectors people are doing good work, sometimes in difficult circumstances.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested that the Bill is a framework Bill with much of the detail to be described in regulations and in the closely related national minimum standards which will inform the regulation and inspection process. I do not apologise for the Bill's dependence on regulations. My experience in this area was as director for the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts when it produced the first guidelines on how health authorities ought to approach their regulatory function. A frustration in producing the guidelines was that the current Act did not keep pace with market changes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, standards change. I believe that through the regulations in the Bill we shall be able to respond to future developments in services and technology. We can ensure that future anomalies or gaps can be tackled immediately.
However, I assure your Lordships that in relation to the regulations which apply in particular to the required standards we shall consult widely with all those who may be affected. Our aim is for that consultation to take place in the summer. The conclusions will be known by April 2001, thus giving a year before the commission comes into operation. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, cautioned us against undue haste. In framing the regulations and the national minimum standards, it is important to take time to consult widely and seek as much input as possible from those likely to be affected.
A number of questions were asked about the change from the original intention of eight regional commissions to one national commission. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his wholehearted support of that change. The fact is that we have changed our minds. I believe that it is right to do so and to own up to it. On reflection, we believe that a single commission will ensure greater consistency across the country. After all, that has been one of the great motivators in making the changes. One commission instead of eight will avoid duplication, minimise the potential for arbitrary and confusing operational differences and provide the Government with one overview of the provision and quality of care services in England.
However, I take the point that whatever the commission does it must be well grounded in practice at local level. We will expect it to have in place arrangements for keeping in touch with what is happening on the ground, and I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that we want members of the commission to make close contact with what is happening at ground level. I accept the stricture of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that we do not want a bureaucratic tick-box approach to regulation and inspection. Her comments about the complaints system, advocacy services and the role of lay assessors was important and we shall consider them when considering more closely how the commission will

75
operate. I want to assure noble Lords that I am certain that the commission, in providing the greater national uniformity and consistency that we wish to see, must know about the impact of its decisions on local services.
I turn to a second aspect of the decision to move from eight regional areas to one national commission. It relates specifically to the regulation of independent healthcare. The original comments about a single custom-built body for the regulation of the independent healthcare sector were made on the basis of the Government's original intention to have eight regional care commissions. We did not believe that regulation of the independent healthcare sector within those eight regional commissions would be sensible. We believed that it would be difficult for those commissions to have the necessary expertise to regulate the healthcare sector. That was our experience when regulation was devolved to health authority level.
However, with the establishment now of one commission for the whole of the country, we think it makes much more sense to ensure that it embraces private healthcare regulation. It will enable a seamless approach to regulation as a whole to be taken and our experience of splitting legislation previously between health and local government shows the problems that can arise in relation to boundaries. That was a point well made by my noble friend Lord Harris. However, I recognise that healthcare regulation needs particular skills and we will ensure that those skills are available within the context of one commission.
Different care regimes will be subjected to specific requirements suited to the specific situation of that regime, such as independent healthcare. Those bodies will be inspected by qualified and experienced inspectors in a particular field. In relation to healthcare, we will also ensure that it has its own division with its own director, with inspections made by appropriate professional staff. It would not be responsible for care homes or domiciliary workers.
Perhaps I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, who has put much thought and care into these issues, that I believe this new regulatory machinery will have teeth in relation to the independent healthcare sector. It is going to be a tough regulatory system. The commission will have high quality inspections. We will want to shift the focus of regulation towards standards of care rather than being mainly concerned with premises. I will touch on the issue of premises in relation to care homes later.
It will have a proper complaints procedure, in answer to my noble friend Lord Harris. One of the conditions of registration will be the provision of a proper complaints procedure, with independent scrutiny. We want those independent hospitals to be accountable to their customers for the services that they provide. Already Clause 20 allows provision to be
76
made for appropriate quality and for the meeting of appropriate standards. Clause 21 refers to the national minimum standards that should be set.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I welcome the positive comments that the Minister has put forward most warmly and most genuinely. He knows that I would prefer to see some of them on the face of the Bill, and perhaps I could leave that thought with him in case he should kindly offer me a further meeting when we could discuss them.
However, in the context of a Second Reading, could I ask him to assure me that the inspectors will look at clinical excellence in some way or another and that the procedure extensively described by the noble Lord, Lord Craig, in which clinical excellence is not looked at although the nuts and bolts of equipment are, will not in fact be what happens. Therefore it will not be just the shell but the actual procedures that are examined. I am grateful to the Minister.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness was quite right to refer to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Craig: I think they were very helpful in demonstrating how an individual hospital can, through its own internal processes, look at quality and ensure that it keeps up standards to the extent that we would require. I want to assure the noble Baroness that this Bill intends to provide for the proper regulation of the independent healthcare sector and that must extend to issues of quality. It is not just about room size or the physical apparatus.
The Secretary of State will have powers to make the kind of the provision in regulations which I hope will reassure the noble Baroness: for instance, provision for ensuring that the professional staff employed are qualified and have the necessary skills and experience. There will be provision for making arrangements for clinical audit and for the keeping of effective clinical records, for equipment and services, and also for identification of management and clinical risk. Regulations will also require arrangements for the on-going training, development and support of staff.
Several noble Lords have raised the issue of CHIMP and NICE, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence. In some ways this is a re-run of our interesting debate during the passage of the health Bill during the last Session. The fact is that CHIMP and NICE are about improving quality in the National Health Service. They are part of a managed system; they are part of a series of measures, including National Service Frameworks, tied into performance management in the National Health Service. I believe that there is an inherent difference between managing public authorities—the National Health Service—which is the role of the Secretary of State, for which he is accountable to Parliament, and regulating the independent healthcare system. That is the reason for our different approach in this area.
I can say that as far as the working together of CHIMP and the proposed commission under this Bill, there is provision for staff to be seconded from one to the other. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to

77
NHS pay beds, and the reason for those beds being treated differently goes back to the original point I made earlier. NHS pay beds are part of the National Health Service management system, for which accountability arrangements are well tried and tested. I believe that we have to draw a distinction between management and regulation in the NHS.
Turning to a number of questions on financial issues, I recognise that there is concern about the financial implications of the new regulatory system. As a general principle, we owe it to the people receiving services to ensure that there is an effective regulatory system in operation, providing greater protection for vulnerable people. The cost to providers will be outweighed by the benefits to individual users. However, I hope I can provide some comfort by saying that we intend that the timescales will be realistic and we shall ensure that currently registered providers have sufficient time in which to meet the new standards.
It is also possible to differentiate between one standard and another when deciding on a date for their implementation. I understand the issue of the financial viability of a number of homes. My noble friend Lord Lipsey had some interesting things to say on that point. Of course there is over-capacity at the moment. On the issue of cost and the impact of that on the resources passed by the Exchequer to local authorities, I am afraid I cannot be drawn on that matter, save to say that this would be an issue for any future spending review discussions.
This leads me on to the Centre for Policy on Ageing guidelines and the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about whether the balance was too much towards physical requirements, as opposed to an emphasis on quality. Let me say to the noble Earl that the Government are very much concerned with outcome and overall quality. Although physical requirements are important, as several speakers have suggested, we are concerned that this regulatory system should ensure that issues of quality are given the importance that they deserve. I should also say to him that the first reference I could discover to the 10 square meter bedroom size goes back to 1973, when I think his party was in government. At that time building guidelines were issued by the department to local authorities. However, I have to confess that in the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts guidance in 1985 we too mentioned 10 square meters, so that figure has obviously been around for quite some time.
I would emphasise the point made by my noble friend Lord Lipsey that the agencies in most difficulty if this 10 square meter size were to be accepted would be the local authorities. In general, the consultation period on this first tranche of potential national minimum standards has been extended to 21st January 2000. We shall consider them most carefully. I believe it is important that we get them right and we shall listen carefully to the remarks which have been made by noble Lords this evening.
78
I turn to the General Social Care Council. As my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley said, that is an extremely important, long overdue measure. I pay tribute to her and to the members of her advisory council, who do so much good work to ensure that the preparations for the new council start with an excellent foundation. Both my noble friends Lady Pitkeathley and Lord Harris made clear that it is important that we have sufficient users and lay people as members of the council. I can confirm that a lay person will be appointed as chair of the council and that lay people will be in the majority.
In response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, regarding the budget, it is rather early to start talking about a definitive budget. However, as a guideline figure, the CCETSW had a budget of about £5.5 million. One could start from the transfer of that kind of money. In time, it may be that people registered by the council will pay fees. There is no question of the council having to break even simply on the fees that it might take in from those registered.
I also take the opportunity provided by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, to thank the CCETSW for its past work. Its experience will be invaluable in taking forward the work of the general council. In his notable maiden speech, my noble friend Lord Mackenzie asked about the method of registration. Registration will normally be based on completion of approved training. Any other basis will be no better than that which we have at present. We would expect the register of individuals to be opened when the majority or a sufficient number of members in any group have achieved the appropriate level of training.
In response to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, we do not seek the dual registration of nurses. We want to see professional regulatory bodies complement each other.
My noble friend Lady David asked about the issue of the children's rights director. The director's responsibility relates to the provisions in this Bill. I know that she is keen to see created a children's commissioner, but that is certainly outside the scope of the Bill and, as she will know, it is not present government policy. I can also confirm to her that there will be only one children's rights director in the move from eight regional care commissions to one. Of course, we believe that that director will have a crucial role to play in dealing with so many of the difficult issues in relation to the rights of children. With regard to whether there will be well publicised access to an independent complaints procedure for children in care, I confirm that the children will have such access and that inspections will ensure that those procedures are well publicised.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and particularly to the issue of whether people with learning disabilities who attend day care services could have those services regulated. I confirm that the Bill does not introduce regulation for adult day care services. I am conscious that there are those who regret that. We have included a provision in the Bill to allow further services to be brought within regulation at a

79
later date without the need for primary legislation. In the meantime, I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently announced a review of learning disability services, including the provision of day care.
I fear that the clock is against me. In relation to domiciliary care, perhaps I may confirm that, as a first stage of the implementation of this section of the Bill, local authorities and the NHS must use only registered agencies. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that we would expect the great majority of those domiciliary care agencies to be registered immediately.
As always, I listened with great care to the wisdom of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. The Bill generally will not cover hostels for homeless young people, although it will cover them when they act as refuges for young people who have run away from home. In such cases, the hostels will be registered as children's homes with special provision for runaways. I look forward to the noble Earl's amendment in Committee.
As he did when we debated the child protection Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, raised the issue of vulnerable adults. Overall, I believe that the Bill provides an effective procedure. As the noble Lord knows, the Secretary of State must receive a proper referral from an employer in the stated circumstances. A person can be put on the vulnerable adults list only after due process. The Secretary of State seeks views from the parties involved. He considers whether, on the balance of probabilities, the employer was right in forming a view that the person put a vulnerable adult at risk of harm. The individual will know at all stages what is happening. I agree with him that that is a serious matter for the person concerned. That is why we provide an appeal to an independent tribunal. We have also provided for a person to seek a review of the decision 10 years from the date of listing. At that stage, the tribunal could decide to remove the name from the list. I understand that the noble Lord's specific point of concern arises from provisional listing. I believe that that is—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am not so concerned about the provisional listing as about the listing in entirety. The noble Lord referred to due process in that listing but, I repeat, there is no independent consideration of evidence, there is no open procedure, there is no merits test, and it does not amount to due process in the normal sense of the term.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Nevertheless, my Lords, it is still open for the person concerned to appeal to an independent tribunal. I believe that provisional listing is an important issue which we have debated before. It provides a means of immediate protection to vulnerable adults until the matter is decided by the process. I accept that there is a difficult balance to be drawn between the individual rights of a person about whom an allegation is made and the protection of vulnerable people. We believe that we have the right balance, although I accept that the noble Lord thinks otherwise.
80
I have not been able to respond to all the points raised but I shall certainly try to follow up specific questions which I have missed out.
In conclusion, I believe that all noble Lords are agreed generally about the positive impact which the Bill will have in so many care sectors and, indeed, in the private healthcare sector. I believe that the debate has confirmed the general thrust in which the Bill is directed, although I accept that we shall have many interesting debates in Committee and at later stages of the Bill. Therefore, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I asked rather a lot of questions about children but he has not answered many of them. Perhaps he might write to me.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall be very happy to do so.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1999
7.19 p.m.
Lord Bachrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st December be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations are necessary to underpin contracts that will replace a substantial part of the existing legal aid scheme with effect from 1st January 2000. The Legal Aid Board has announced awards of around 5,000 general civil contracts to solicitors' firms and over 330 contracts to not-for-profit agencies. In future those will be the exclusive method of delivering legal aid for the categories of work that they cover. Depending on the expertise of each contractor, contracts can cover all advice and assistance in civil matters and representation in family and immigration cases.
Contracting is central to the Government's plans to improve quality, to target priority needs and to control the cost of publicly funded legal services. All contracts will go to providers of proven quality and expertise. To win a contract, a provider has to have passed the Legal Aid Board's quality franchise audit on a full or provisional basis. Provisional franchisees have to meet the full standard within one year.
In order to control cost, each solicitor's contract specifies the number of new advice and assistance cases that the provider is authorised to start next year. That number could be increased during the year to meet unexpected demand. The Legal Aid Board has retained a reserve for that purpose in each category. On the other hand, the number can be reduced if a provider's average case costs increase to ensure that the total cost of the contract remains within budget, or if it is clear that the provider will not start the number of cases allowed in the contract.

81
The effect of the regulations will be to amend the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) Regulations 1989 by excluding much of Part III of the Legal Aid Act 1988. Part III currently covers all advice and assistance, including assistance by way of representation.
From 1st January next year, legally aided advice and assistance in civil matters will be provided through the Legal Aid Board's civil general contracts. Those contracts will be governed by Part II of the 1988 Act until the Access to Justice Act 1999 takes effect on 1st April 2000. Part II is the free-standing power for the Legal Aid Board to make contracts to secure advice and assistance, and representation, provided that the Lord Chancellor authorises them to do so by direction. The entitlement to funding and protection from costs available under the other parts of the Act do not apply to services procured under Part II.
Section 8(3) of the 1988 Act provides for regulations to exclude from Part III, advice and assistance of all descriptions or of any prescribed description. These regulations, with a few exceptions, will exclude most civil matters from Part III. The purpose of that is to ensure that only those with contracts under Part II will be able to provide advice and assistance in accordance with their contracts.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, seeks to amend the Motion to approve the regulations so that it calls on the Government to defer implementation until the Access to Justice Act is brought into force. I shall not dwell on the technical validity of that. As amended, the Motion would still approve regulations which state on their face that they come into force on 1st January next year. However, the noble Lord is really asking—no doubt in a few moments he will tell us—why the contracts and related changes are being introduced under the Legal Aid Act, rather than waiting until the Access to Justice Act is brought into force.
The timetable for the contracting process, culminating on 1st January next year, was set and published by the Legal Aid Board well before the Access to Justice Act was passed. That process has involved extensive consultation at every stage and it has required a great deal of work on the part of thousands of solicitors' firms and hundreds of advice agencies in the voluntary sector in order to achieve the franchise standards and apply for contracts. The firms and agencies which undertook that work and have been awarded a contract have every right to expect those contracts to take effect on 1st January, and that they will be the exclusive means of providing legally-aided advice and assistance.
I shall deal as shortly as I can with the exceptions. First, I turn to assistance by way of representation, or ABWOR. The regulations leave most ABWOR unaffected, so it will continue to be provided under Part III of the 1988 Act; ABWOR in family proceedings is retained because it is necessary to ensure that costs protection under Section 12 of the Act continues for such cases. Nevertheless, that work will be restricted to holders of a family contract by virtue of the Prescribed Panel (Amendment) Regulations to
82
which I shall turn a little later. Those regulations also apply to representation in family and immigration cases which will be provided by contracts under Part IV of the 1988 Act.
Most other ABWOR relates to criminal matters, or to matters which, although technically civil, are essentially criminal in nature; for example, cases involving a risk of imprisonment for failure to obey a court order. Those cases will be funded as part of the Criminal Defence Service from October next year. Meanwhile legal aid remains available.
Two categories of ABWOR are excluded from Part III by Regulation 7: ABWOR for representation before the Mental Health Review Tribunals is excluded because in future that will be dealt with under the contracts under Part II of the Act; ABWOR for proceedings under the Fire Precautions Act is excluded altogether. Funding for those cases, which concern the regulation of commercial premises, is not justified under a scheme intended to help individuals.
The regulations also provide for some green form advice and assistance to remain within the scope of Part III—that is, advice and assistance relating to criminal matters, clinical negligence and personal injury.
Criminal advice and assistance will be preserved until the Criminal Defence Service comes into effect in October 2000. It is available for individuals who are arrested and held in custody or who are involved in criminal investigations or proceedings. The regulations set out a list of proceedings which are defined as criminal proceedings for that purpose. Again, that includes matters which are technically civil, but which will be funded by the Criminal Defence Service in due course; for example, proceedings for anti-social behaviour orders and judicial reviews arising out of criminal proceedings.
Advice and assistance will also continue to be available under Part III for clinical negligence cases. It will continue to be restricted to franchised solicitors under the Legal Aid (Prescribed Panels) Regulations 1999 until 1st April next year when the Access to Justice Act takes effect. At that stage, the existing arrangements will be incorporated in the general civil contracts held by relevant franchisees.
Similarly, personal injury work is excluded from the scope of the contracting regime introduced on 1st January next year. Until 31st March, any solicitor will be able to take on personal injury cases. On 1st April, the contract specifications will be amended to cover advice, assistance and representation in residual personal injury cases; that is to say, cases which are not excluded from the scope of funding by Schedule 2 to the Access to Justice Act 1999 because they do not relate to injury caused negligently. Those are, for example, cases where the client alleges that he was assaulted by the police while in custody. Personal injury franchisees with contracts will also be able to apply for additional funding in support of a conditional fee agreement in exceptionally expensive personal injury cases. The Lord Chancellor will issue a

83
direction allowing those cases, and cases that raise issues of wider public interest, to remain within the scope of public funding.
Noble Lords will notice that Regulation 5 refers, among other things, to the making of wills. The Lord Chancellor intends to make a direction authorising funding under the 1999 Act to assist vulnerable clients to make a will. That will cover broadly the same categories for which legal aid funding is available now. The Legal Aid Board's contracts will provide for that from January 2000.
Contracting will provide a guarantee of quality of service; help us to target priorities; and promote value for money. The regulations before us today help to underpin the contracting process.
We are planning to spend a total of £202 million on advice and assistance next year, compared with about £180 million this year. It is important that this public money is spent wisely. Our reforms will be good for the client because they assure him or her of a quality service; good for the taxpayer because they help to control cost and to improve value for money; and good for competent providers as well, for example, because they provide greater certainty about workload and cashflow than the current scheme. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st December be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
7.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhartrose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "save that this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to defer the coming into force of paragraphs 2 to 7 until Section 4 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 has been brought into force".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is a major step in dismantling the Legal Aid and Advice Scheme which has served the country well for the past 50 years. As was pointed out, the order does not directly concern legal aid for litigation. It concerns legal advice and assistance, provided under Part III of the Legal Aid Act 1988. It is generally known as the green form scheme.
The green form scheme has meant for many years that someone who cannot afford to pay for his own legal advice can go to any solicitor who does legal aid work. He can walk in at short notice, even perhaps off the street, and receive advice on his legal problems for an hour or so. The green form scheme is usually the first point of contact with the legal profession for ordinary people who have a legal problem or who think that they may have a legal problem. It is essential, in the interests of those people, that advice and assistance should be available as widely as possible. That is particularly true in country districts and in socially deprived urban areas.
84
At present, advice and assistance can be provided, as we have been told, under Part III of the Legal Aid Act 1988, on all matters except conveyancing and the making of wills. There are significant exceptions to the exclusion of the making of wills. However, as the Minister pointed out, we are now on the verge of fundamental changes. It is the intention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to bring the Access to Justice Act into force on 1st April next year. Under that Act, aid, advice and assistance will be funded by the Community Legal Service through contracts with providers. The Legal Aid Act will, in effect, be wholly repealed.
In debates on the Access to Justice Act, we fought hard to keep a wider network of solicitors' firms available to provide publicly funded services for those in need of them. I refer in particular to the great efforts made in those debates by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who will also speak in the short debate on this amendment.
However, we lost that battle. We shall have to accept that the Access to Justice Act or, as I prefer to call it, the restriction of access to justice Act, will come into force. But this order is made under the Legal Aid Act, not the Access to Justice Act. As we have been told, it will have the effect that almost all advice and assistance on civil matters, except for personal injury cases, will be excluded from Part III of the Legal Aid Act in non-criminal cases—that is, personal injuries and clinical negligence. On all other matters, such as housing law, employment law, family law, and social security law, advice and assistance will be available only from solicitors who have a contract with the Legal Aid Board under Part II of the Legal Aid Act.
That will, at a stroke, reduce by a half the number of solicitors able to provide advice and assistance at no cost to the client. It will reduce the number from 10,000 to 5,000 firms. That will inevitably reduce access to justice.
The Law Society believes, as I do, that there is also a serious problem with the timing of the order. As I understand it, contract offers were only sent out on Friday 26th November. That means they will not have reached solicitors until 29th November at the earliest. Those offers have to be accepted by next Wednesday, 15th December. But the timetable means that by 1st January there will be no public information about which firms have contracts. The public will not know where to go and the other advice organisations will not know where to send referrals. In some fields, such as welfare law, the Legal Aid Board has only so far offered contracts for about half the work that will need to be contracted out. That will create uncertainty as to the sources of advice and assistance for weeks, if not months, to come.
The regulations are wrong in principle because they make it harder for people who need legal advice to get it. The order is wrong in timing because the contract system is not yet capable of handling the burdens.
My Motion of amendment is not intended as fatal. The time may come when your Lordships' House will wish to exercise its powers to reject secondary

85
legislation. This is plainly not that occasion. I simply ask the Government to consider deferring the impact of the regulations until the Access to Justice Act comes into force. Then we shall be faced inevitably with different considerations. But I firmly believe that we should not use the powers under the Legal Aid Act as the engine of its own destruction. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "save that this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to defer the coming into force of paragraphs 2 to 7 until Section 4 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 has been brought into force".—(Lord Goodhart )
7.36 p.m.
Lord Phillips, of Sudbury: My Lords, this is a strange debate, coming after a long, hard-fought debate over the measure, the Access to Justice Act, as it now is. I want to avoid going over the old territory because it is passé. I fully accept what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said in opening this short debate: namely, that the deed is done and we must now make the best of it. My comments are meant in that spirit, although inevitably they will be critical. However, I hope they will be critical towards a better implementation of the massive amount still to be done under the Access to Justice Act. It is solely with that in mind that I wish to speak.
First, one must accept that there is something approaching bureaucratic mayhem in the legal aid world at the moment. The blue sky reforms which the Government pushed through—again I need not elaborate on how ill-advised we thought many of them were, however well-intentioned—have created a monster of bureaucracy. I urge the Minister to take on board that the future steps in implementation of the Act should, so far as possible, reduce the amount of bureaucracy.
Perhaps I may wave before the House this 270-page document called: General Civil Contract (Solicitors). It is merely the handbook for those who seek a franchise. It is stuffed with systems, regulations, impenetrable gobbledegook. It has 90 definitions before one can start reading the wretched book. That may seem good and dandy to those who believe that solicitors are, to a man and woman, a load of crooks wishing to rip off the system. However, in reality it is a huge impediment, particularly to the small and smaller firms which the Government should be most concerned to help. It is those small and smaller firms which are often closest to their clients, have the lowest overheads, are willing to take the rough with the smooth, understand the social circumstances with which they are trying to deal, and often have the energy and initiative which is not always present in more mature firms.
One must also have regard to the fact that the scheme is extremely expensive by reason of bureaucracy. I have talked to a number of firms which reckon that the additional bureaucracy created since the Act came into effect and in preparation for it have perhaps put 10 per cent on the overheads of providing legal aid. That money must come from somewhere or they will simply withdraw.
86
My noble friend Lord Goodhart mentioned accessibility. Again, I know that it is a deed now done—that is to say, putting the green form scheme, the old legal advice and assistance scheme, exclusively into the hands of those who have contracts— but, if the Government cannot review that decision because it has only just been taken, I urge them at least to have regard to its consequences in other areas of work.
As we have heard, something like half the firms that were doing legal aid a year ago have now dropped out. Admittedly, in many, if not most, cases they are firms which did a small amount of legal aid. But, nonetheless, we are talking about 5,000 offices spread over all parts of the country that were accessible to people in their high streets and able to provide some cheap, immediate and first-class legal aid.
We are now seeing not only a severe reduction in geographical access but also an internal blockage within the firms with the general civil contracts (which, therefore, retain the right to do the old green-form work). That is because one of the rules of the contracts states that there should be an authorisation process, which, I am told—and I know—is actually getting in the way of people giving advice to those who need it, when they need it. In other words, unless you can find an authorised partner ready and available to consider the particular item of work needed for the client, it cannot properly be done. I need hardly say that most solicitors are extremely busy, either out of the office or involved in engagements within it. Clients will not come into a solicitors' office and hang around for an uncertain time waiting in case a solicitor may come back and be able to give the necessary authorisation. So we have that problem.
As I indicated, we also have a problem with regard to small and smaller firms. Perhaps I may make reference to one particular case, which is the subject of a judicial review claim against the Legal Aid Board. It is no problem to that litigation that I mention the facts involved. Mackintosh Duncan was a firm established only last summer specifically to deal with legal aid in the fields of mental health, community care, health and human rights law. Two young solicitors with a great deal of experience came together specifically to undertake this sort of work. But what did they find? They found that they were not even asked to apply for a franchise.
Perhaps I may quote from one of the affidavits in the case that has been sent to me:
"Mackintosh Duncan is bringing these proceedings as a result of severe concern that the scheme as currently envisaged will have devastating results for the most vulnerable people in society who are most in need of quality legal advice and representation".
The affidavit continues to outline the setting up of the firm on 1st July 1999, and I should like to refer to one more paragraph in the affidavit because, as I apprehend it—I have spoken to various organisations and firms—this is a general state of affairs:
"The current confusion among practitioners has been caused by the enormous amount of documentation produced by the [Legal Aid Board] within an unrealistically short time period, the failure of the [Legal Aid Board] to provide clear and consistent information and publish figures relating to the allocation of

87
funding and the basis for such allocations, and ultimately the [Legal Aid Board's] failure to properly take into account the severe concerns raised by the profession … [has resulted in] a rigid. unworkable and wholly unrealistic regime which is due to be imposed within the next three weeks".
I do not need to tell the House that that is a particular point of view and one held by someone currently suing the Legal Aid Board. But, nonetheless, I give it as an example to noble Lords because I think that that will be found to be a general view among legal aid practitioners.
I conclude by saying that we must, of course, "suck it and see". However, I really hope that the Government will be prepared, if necessary, to go back on parts of the scheme as currently envisaged. I am delighted to see that they are already not talking, as they were not long ago, about introducing a block contracting system.
I suggest that a better relationship with the profession, particularly with the Law Society, would be a very good start towards improving this dramatic revolution in legal aid. I urge the Government that that relationship should be one of a willingness to listen; indeed, more than has been the case in the past. Although I have these strictures, I sincerely hope that what we see over the next months and years will make my fears and those of my noble friends on these Benches seem unnecessary and ill-conceived.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, as I listened to this debate it occurred to me that these regulations have a close connection with the situation of asylum seekers in this country and their need for legal advice and legal aid. As the Government's dispersal policy develops, will the Minister consult with his colleagues in the Home Office to try to ensure that there are qualified and recognised firms capable of giving legal advice in the specialised area of asylum and immigration law so that people who need such assistance can have access to it?
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, as the noble Lord the Minister knows, the Opposition supported the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, throughout the various stages in your Lordships' House of the Access to Justice Bill. Sadly, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, when he says that that is a battle valiantly fought but now lost. We have to accept the fact that the principles advanced by the Government during the course of the proceedings on that Bill now prevail.
However, it is perfectly legitimate for the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—and, indeed, the Opposition—to ask the Government to verify every stage of the implementation of the new legislation against these principles. What were those principles in relation to advice, as opposed to litigation? As I understand it, the Government set out to establish a system of advice that would prevent litigation being necessary. If you like, it was the legal equivalent of preventive medicine. How successful will these arrangements be when measured against that principle?
88
Can the Minister say what steps the Lord Chancellor's Department is taking to ensure that the arrangements, as they develop, meet the objectives set out by the Government? Both the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, have distinguished the two critical stages in this process. The first one concerns the relationship between the Legal Aid Board and the solicitors; and the second one concerns the relationship between the solicitors and the general public, or those members of the general public who need advice.
Is the Minister satisfied that the system of monitoring by the Lord Chancellor's Department is making sure that the Legal Aid Board is going to meet its targets in time for 1st April 2000? What procedures has the Lord Chancellor's Department put in place to ensure that those targets are met? Further, is the Minister confident that, from 1st April 2000, the range of expertise among solicitors who are franchised and their geographical spread will meet all the likely advice targets that the Government will have identified?
It is only if the Lord Chancellor's Department can be confident that those targets are met that it can reasonably say good-bye to the green form system. Although we accept that the principles have changed, we are now entitled to ask the Government to measure their performance against their own principles. It is concern about the likelihood that there may be a shortfall that lies behind not only the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but also those expressed by the Opposition.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, as it has been described. I shall do my best to answer the queries that have arisen.
As has already been admitted, much of what has been said was said earlier this year, night after night, and has been repeated today in very much the same terms. I shall say, as briefly as I can, roughly what was said during the good debates on the Access to Justice Bill, as it then was.
The criticism appears to be that somehow or other the Government, through the steps that we are taking, will reduce meaningful access to this provision to those who most need it. The Government refute that proposition completely. It is suggested that it will not be possible for those living in urban areas or sparsely populated rural areas to consult a solicitor who provides legal aid. We dispute that. We do not think that that will happen under the new system.
I put into context some of the concerns that have been expressed about access to legal services. As has been said, the number of firms receiving contracts for January is about half of those which have been doing legal aid work up to now. About 5,000 solicitors' offices currently account for 90 per cent of legal aid expenditure. The other 5,000 offices account for the remaining 10 per cent, and typically undertake few such cases per year. Therefore the reduction in numbers as regards those firms that will undertake publicly funded work in this field is not nearly so

89
significant as it may appear. Although there is, of course, no direct correlation between the 5,000 that carry out 90 per cent of the work and the 5,000 that carry out 10 per cent of the work, I suggest that it is common sense that those firms which have received contracts are those which on the whole have always carried out a considerable amount of publicly funded work. They have received contracts because they have qualified under the franchise scheme that has been set up. That franchise scheme is all about quality.
The Government argue that the weakness in the case that has been put forward in the amendment is that no mention is made of quality. We argue that a number of firms that have not so far obtained contracts and have not passed the franchise test frankly do not have the necessary quality to give proper advice and assistance to those in need. Some firms have not applied; others have and have so far been unsuccessful. But the door is still very much open. It is important to remember the importance of quality in terms of the advice that is given.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned asylum seekers. It has been accepted on all sides that in the field of immigration a substantial number of legal advisers, solicitors and non-solicitors, have been quite unscrupulous in raising people's hopes through giving them false advice. We have had to take notice of that. That is why a large number of solicitors and legal advisers will not appear on our prescribed list of those carrying out immigration work.
I refer to particular points—
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Lord continues, will h: undertake to consult with the Home Office on the precise point that I was trying to make earlier?
Lord Bach: My Lords, of course I undertake to do that. The matter I am discussing is not a bad example of why the Government felt that it was necessary to do something with regard to the limited resources available for legal aid. We were concerned about quality, and about legal aid going through the roof.
It is unfair for noble Lords to criticise a scheme that is only just being set up. If the scheme does not work, I have no doubt that within a short period of time noble Lords who have spoken tonight, and, I dare say, others, will criticise it in this House.
I gently chide the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for referring to a case that I am advised is sub judice. The case was heard today and I understand that the court deferred any decision. I do not think that it is proper that a case that is before the courts should be mentioned in this House at all, and certainly not in detail, when we a re discussing these regulations.
We are accused of setting up a system that is incredibly bureaucratic. I am told that the new contract issued t y the Legal Aid Board replaces and updates a wide range of existing guidance and is no longer than the provision which it replaces; indeed it is probably shorter. It is convenient for solicitors to have all this guidance in one place.
90
The Government suggest that these regulations have been used as a peg upon which to hang an old argument as regards change taking place in the nature of public funding for civil actions in this country. We have had this debate before and no doubt we shall have it again. However, I commend these regulations on the basis that change had to occur. It was necessary as quality was sometimes too low and too much public money was being spent unwisely. These regulations go some way towards putting into effect what Parliament decided was the proper way to proceed. They should be passed tonight. Therefore I ask the House not to accept the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, if it is taken to a Division.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his reply. I regret that it was, not unexpectedly, not particularly helpful. Of course I accept that the arguments which have been raised in this debate were raised on more than one occasion during the passage of what was then the Access to Justice Bill.
However, I thought that it was not appropriate that this particular set of regulations should be allowed to pass through your Lordships' House on the nod as this is an important set of regulations. Although it is not made under the Access to Justice Act, it is the first of what will no doubt be a lengthy series of regulations that will come before your Lordships' House in the next few months in order to give effect to the principles of the Access to Justice Act. That being so, I thought that it was appropriate to raise this matter for debate by way of an amendment in order to emphasise the depth of the commitment of those on our Benches to a publicly funded system of advice and assistance and the depth of our concern over the damage which we believe that the Access to Justice Act may well do to the future of publicly funded civil legal aid in this country. I accept, of course, that it is not the intention of the Government to cause damage to the provision of publicly-funded legal aid, but I believe that that may well be the result.
Having said that, this is not an occasion upon which it would be appropriate to divide the House. We shall watch with great care what happens under the Access to Justice Act over the course of the coming months and years. No doubt there will be further debates in the future. But, on this occasion, I would ask the leave of the House to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Aid (Prescribed Panels) (Amendment) Regulations 1999
8 p.m.
Lord Bachrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this order will take slightly less time than the previous one.

91
These regulations amend the Legal Aid (Prescribed Panels) Regulation 1999. The existing regulations provide that legally aided clinical negligence cases may be carried out only by legal service providers who are members of a prescribed panel. The panel consists of firms who hold a franchise from the board for that type of work.
I shall say a brief word about clinical negligence panels. It is clear that the clinical negligence panel has led to better results for the clients and less public money being wasted investigating hopeless cases. There are currently 156 firms on that panel, which has been operating now since February 1999. One of the conditions for a clinical negligence franchise, and therefore a prior condition of membership of the prescribed panel, is that the solicitor is a member of either the Law Society's medical negligence panel or the Association of Victims of Medical Accidents panel. Statistics for 1996–97 showed that members of those panels had a higher success rate compared with non-panel members, and recovered on average £48,500 for their clients as compared with £18,000 by non-panel members. For every £1 of taxpayers' money spent, panel members secured £4.10 in damages compared with £1.70 for non-panel members. I would also say—this is an important point which relates back to our last debate—that since the clinical negligence panel has been in operation, the Lord Chancellor's Department has received precisely no complaints about inadequate access.
There is an important point to be made here. People with a clinical negligence claim, which represents a tragedy in their lives, deserve expert assistance. That is what the health authority or the doctors they are suing will rightly have. People on legal aid deserve the same. We have banished for ever a state of affairs in which a solicitor could get legal aid for his client and take the case all the way through the courts—regardless of his want of expertise. Our reforms are all about quality assurance and giving people access to specialists. The short answer to complaints about the reduction in the number of franchisees is this: there is choice, but among the expert, not the inexpert.
I was gratified to read the debate in another place on these regulations. The Liberal Democrat spokesman there spoke in support of them. He said that he supported the regulations, especially with regard to specialisation and value for money. I am quite sure that will be the consistent attitude shown in this House, too.
The regulations before us today amend the existing regulations to create similar requirements for family cases and immigration cases. I should like to explain in a little more detail how a firm of solicitors can obtain a place on the family or immigration panels.
The only qualification which a firm needs in order to obtain a place on either the family or the immigration panel is to be, for the time being, authorised by a contract with the board to provide representation in that category. As I explained in the earlier debate, a precondition of obtaining a contract is to pass a full or
92
provisional audit against the legal aid franchise quality assured standard. To obtain a franchise, a firm must show competencies in, inter alia,.business planning, client care, financial management and equal opportunities. Most importantly, the firm must have a solicitor who can attain the relevant supervisor standard. To do this, solicitors must belong to an accredited panel, such as the Law Society's family panel; have gained experience, knowledge and understanding in the franchise category by doing a specified amount of casework themselves; and they must actively maintain that knowledge and demonstrate that they are sharing that knowledge with their staff. Clients can therefore be confident that, where their cases are being conducted by junior staff, those staff are being supervised by an experienced and knowledgeable solicitor.
For the first round of contracting only—that is, for contracts that commence on 1st January next year—all firms which have applied for a franchise within the board'' published timetable and which have obtained the relevant franchise, were guaranteed a contract in the family and immigration categories. These firms were put on the board's "Bid Panel A". Firms which failed to apply or qualify in time for a franchise have been placed on a reserve panel, "Bid Panel B", and may still qualify for a contract after 1st January provided there are funds available, if there are gaps in access after the award of contracts to Bid Panel A.
I have said that these regulations establish a family franchise panel and an immigration franchise panel as prescribed panels under Section 32(7) of the Legal Aid Act 1988. Section 32(1) of that Act creates a general right for a person entitled under the Act to receive advice or assistance or representation, to select any legal representative willing to do so to advise, assist or act for him or her. That right may be qualified by regulations made under Section 32(7), so that the person receiving assistance may select only from legal representatives who are for the time being members of a prescribed panel.
I do not think I need to go through with your Lordships the regulation that sets up the family franchise panel, or the definition of "family proceedings" in Regulation 6; likewise with Regulation 7, under which an immigration franchise panel is set up. Regulation 8 defines the meaning of "immigration proceedings". Perhaps I should remind your Lordships of that definition in the regulations we are considering. The proceedings are defined as,
"proceedings relating to immigration, nationality or asylum".
before specified courts. The main types of proceedings covered by this definition are judicial review, habeas corpus and appeals from the Immigration Appeals Tribunal to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords.
The number of people seeking asylum in this country has grown over the past few years and the indications are that the numbers will, for the immediate future, continue to grow. The Legal Aid Board is awarding contracts to meet this increasing demand and has retained a significant reserve which

93
will allow it to expand contracts as the patterns of genuine need become clearer. In particular, the board will be able to react to changes in the geographical distribution of demand following the dispersal of asylum seekers around the country. I hope that that statement will give some comfort, at least, to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
Under the general civil contracts, legal aid will for the first time cover representation before the immigration appellate authorities. This will reduce duplication and help to make the system more effective.
The creation of a quality assured immigration franchise panel also addresses—here I come back to an argument I sought to employ in the previous debate—the problem of unscrupulous advisers who have been able to take advantage of asylum seekers up to now. The franchise process has excluded a substantial number of unscrupulous and incompetent firms from the scheme.
Concerns have been expressed about the effect of the Government's reform on access to legal services. We have heard them clearly tonight. I have already given the figures as regards 5,000 solicitors accounting for 90 per cent of legal aid expenditure and the number of firms receiving contracts for January being around 5,000. The reality is that most of the firms which have not been awarded contracts have in the past conducted only a few cases each year. In family work, the Legal Aid Board is to award over 4,500 contracts. It is also awarding about 530 contracts in immigration work. A substantial sum is kept in reserve to allow for the number of contracts to be increased should the need arise. We would say, "Compare the number of contracts with the 800 Benefits Agency outlets in England and Wales, or indeed with the number of constituency MPs in England and Wales". I have estimated the figure at about 550.
It is also the case that the number of firms allowed to do clinical negligence cases has been limited to 156, with no detrimental effect whatsoever on access and no complaints from the public. Contracts are flexible instruments. They can be structured to deal with specific geographical circumstances. Members of the clinical negligence panel, for example—and this is important bearing in mind some of the concerns that have been expressed—are required to travel to their clients where that is appropriate.
In future, there will be a wider range of alternative methods of delivery for legal advice available to the public. The board will shortly be piloting schemes which include telephone advice, outreach surgeries in rural areas, and second-tier advice services, which will provide advice on difficult areas of law to contracted legal service providers.
As I said earlier, contracting will be good for the client, good for the taxpayer and good for competent providers. I very much hope that those who are wary of it will see its advantages in due course. I commend the regulations to the House.
94
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, my party has always supported the principle of franchises and franchise panels. Therefore in principle we do not object to the regulations, although the view that we have also taken is that any firm able to reach the appropriate quality standard should be entitled to a place on the franchise panel. That matter does not appear on the face of the regulations.
My only question about it was passed to me by the Law Society and highlights its concern with immigration practitioners. There is a serious problem of under-supply of competent practitioners. A considerable number are not competent, but those who are and who are qualified to go onto the panel are in short supply. In that circumstance it is surprising that a number of firms which are qualified to be included on the panel have received contract offers for an amount of work which is substantially less than the amount that they were doing last year.
Given that one expects the work not only to remain at least at the level reached last year, but to increase quite considerably as the backlog is tackled, perhaps the Minister can say why firms have been offered contracts for less work than they did last year when demand will increase not only because of the exclusion of incompetent operators, but also because of the strong probability of an increase in the overall work. I understand what the noble Lord said about an increase in the reserve, but surely that is required anyway to cope with the probable increase in work.
8.15 p.m
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is a little too sensitive. In both his speeches this evening he gave us a short tour d'horizon of the rationale and justification for the Access to Justice Act. He must expect a little reprise on our part, especially when it is genuinely put in the context of what seem to be current experiences. I hope it is helpful to the Government to hear what is taking place in the field. However much the Government may believe that the way in which this matter is apprehended is itself slewed by the resistance of parts of the profession to these reforms, I believe the Minister will accept that practising solicitors are extraordinarily down to earth and pragmatic. Once rape is inevitable they do not exactly lie back and enjoy it, but they do get on with it.
The few remarks that I shall now make are genuinely intended to help the Government make the best of this Act. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, has made much of the clinical panel. Indeed, it has worked well. But I believe he will accept that it concerns a very special core group of practitioners. It is not safe to generalise in terms of national needs from this very particular and specialist group of solicitors.
Perhaps I may add to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said as regards the way in which the immigration panel is working. One particular problem

95
in the summer was that the Legal Aid Board was urging firms first to get onto the panel and take out franchises and, secondly, to provide more scope and ability to contend with an increased workload. I suspect that at that stage the board thought that there would be a lower take-up for panel work in the immigration field than has been the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to the consequences. The reward of the number of cases to those on the panel has been substantially fewer in all cases than were applied for and expected. That does not matter to a firm which has a great deal of private client work and for which immigration work is a relatively small part of its practice, such as my own. But it matters intensely to precisely the kinds of firms that the Government ought to be helping and encouraging; namely, the mainline providers.
The Immigration Law Practitioners Association held a meeting last week specifically to discuss how things are going. There was a high level of concern about the way in which this particular aspect of the Legal Aid Board's contracting is working. So I mark the Minister's card on that point because I am sure that the Government will want to be flexible and reactive to real problems.
Finally, I make this point. It is all very well speaking endlessly about quality. We on these Benches have never been in any sense in opposition to the Government on the desire for quality in legal aid any more than we have been against franchising as long as one has open panels. The point that the Government must return to is that it is not realistic in this age to continue talking about quality, let alone increased quality, when the levels of remuneration for practitioners have remained unchanged for six years.
Those in the House who know a little about the way in which legal fees work may be surprised to know that the standard remuneration per hour for panel work is £48.25 pence. I would love to learn of any of the lawyers who have been adorning the Government Benches who are happy to work at that rate, which is indiscriminate as between the most senior and most junior practitioners. Unless the Government address that issue—with no increase, let alone a real increase, in legal aid remuneration all these years—they will find that their wish for quality, which we share, will disappear into the dust.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, as I said earlier, the Government got their Act. The regulations are entirely consistent with its terms. The Government claim that the Act will give better access to justice to the citizens of this country than its predecessor. I for one am prepared to give them a good year to see whether they are right.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion on the regulations. In an attempt to answer the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about the query of the Law Society concerning contracts for immigration work, we believe that there is substantial evidence that the current
96
volume of cases does not truly reflect the need. Everyone has recognised that the system has been abused by a few unscrupulous providers. Obviously the true level of genuine need cannot be known, but we estimate that it falls somewhere between 85,000 and 100,000 cases.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The problem that has arisen here is not an overestimate of the amount of work that might be generated as a result of some firms being squeezed out for doing bad work, but what will arise from the firms which will themselves be on the panel and which will be offered contracts for less work than they were doing last year. By definition, those are the competent firms.
Lord Bach: My Lords, no one is disputing that those are competent firms. They would not otherwise be on the panel. However, perhaps the reason that they are to be given less work than they might otherwise have expected is that our estimate of the total amount of work may be rather less than is sometimes thought. That is because the current volume and that generated over the past year has been artificially raised by those who have used unscrupulous methods to run effectively hopeless cases. The true level is between 85,000 and 100,000, taking account of the recent influx of asylum seekers. The pattern of demand is also uncertain because of the exclusion of unscrupulous and incompetent suppliers and the changes arising from dispersal. To retain flexibility, the board has initially allocated 85,000 new matter starts, and has kept in reserve a further 15,000 to be allocated as required. The number of new matter starts required to meet priority need in this area will be kept under review.
Furthermore, of the 85,000 new matter starts, 80,000 are allocated to solicitors and 5,000 to the not-for-profit sector. That sector is growing and is being encouraged because all would agree that there are certain fields—immigration matters may certainly be one of them—in which properly franchised not-for-profit sector practitioners may be able to offer a real improvement in service.
I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is keen on quality—I never for a moment doubted that—but the Government would say that if you wish the end, you have to wish the means as well. We would argue—we are sure that we are right on this point—that those means must include much more quality testing of lawyers and the not-for-profit sector before allowing members of the general public to seek advice, assistance and perhaps representation from those who have not always been able to deliver those services in the best way.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Can he confirm that the quality standards that the Legal Aid

97
Board is looking for from voluntary sector providers will be the same as those offered by private sector providers?
Lord Bach: My Lords, in all important respects those standards are bound to be the same. There will not be two separate levels that allow voluntary practitioners not to need to pass as high a test of quality as that of solicitors. I dare say the tests may not be precisely the same because they will be dependent upon the kind of work that is being done. However, voluntary providers will not, as it were, get through merely because they are voluntary providers rather than solicitors.
I believe that I have covered all the points that have been raised, and on this occasion I do not need to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Middle East Peace Negotiations
8.24 p.m.
Lord Hyltonrose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they view the current state of peace negotiations in the Middle East.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have deliberately framed the Question widely so as to cover the whole region, but I shall confine my remarks to the Palestinian National Authority and to Israel.
I have lived through the occupation of the entire West Bank and Gaza, the unilateral annexation of the Old City and East. Jerusalem and the agonies of the long-drawn out intifada When I last visited those parts, the uprising and the Gulf War had ceased. The prospects for peace seemed good. When, in 1993, the Oslo agreements appeared, I and many others rejoiced, but what has happened since then? Do Her Majesty's Government agree that there has been a terrible waste of time, causing stagnation and frustration, especially among the weakest and those who suffer most from poor education, unemployment and poverty? The result of such conditions is that today more than one-third of Palestinian children show signs of malnutrition. Is it surprising, therefore, that over this period those who believe in violence have gained in strength?
I should like to examine in some detail the situation as it exists. We find that 91 per cent of the West Bank and Gaza are under Israeli military control, including the large "closed military areas". Only 9 per cent of the territory is under the full jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority. Some 75 per cent of the West Bank and 42 pet cent of the Gaza Strip have been expropriated from their owners by the Israeli military administration. Thus, the Palestinians have been deprived of most of their land and only administer a tiny fraction of it. Under the Wye River and a subsequent agreement, a further 5 per cent will be returned to Palestinian administration, but even this will not necessarily be adjacent to those areas already under Palestinian control.
98
I warmly welcome the recent opening of a road route between the West Bank and Gaza, together with the removal of the 12 newest illegal settlements. I also welcome Mr Barak's statement, reported on 8th December, that 1,800 new houses in existing settlements would not be authorised. Regrettably, the confidence-building effect of those actions was undermined when Israeli officials immediately said that this was not a total freeze on all new construction in settlements, as they would need,
"to be expanded to cope with natural increase".
That was said despite the fact that a significant proportion of settlement houses are now standing vacant.
The credibility of the Prime Minister and the Government of Israel is not improved by the expropriations and demolitions of Palestinian homes that have continued since they came to office. The same is true for the restrictions placed on movements to and from Gaza airport and of the failure to achieve duty-free access for Palestinian exports and imports from the European Union. I have personal experience of excessive charges levied on a container of humanitarian goods shipped from England to Bethlehem.
Confidence would also be increased if conditions were improved for the Palestinian Bedouin. both in Israel and in the Occupied Territories, and also for the 120,000 or so Palestinians living in "unrecognized" villages within Israel.
The single factor that most affects hopes for satisfactory and sustainable results from the "final status" negotiations now beginning lies in the Israeli settlements. If one includes, as is proper, those encircling East Jerusalem and those in the Golan, the population illegally placed in occupied lands easily exceeds 300,000. What is more, the settlements are linked to each other and to Israel by roads by-passing Palestinian villages and towns. The land that will constitute a future Palestinian state is thus divided into hundreds of slices. What is more, even those roads on which Palestinian traffic is allowed are subjected to many check-points. These humiliate drivers and provoke stone-throwing by Palestinian youths, while contributing little to real security.
I have deliberately gone into some details affecting the assets and the daily lives of all classes of Palestinians. I am not surprised that many are in despair and that many of those who can emigrate in fact do so. They know the daily realities of occupation, settlement and martial law. They have relatives in detention or exile. They can see perfectly clearly the vast disparity and asymmetry in negotiating strength between the State of Israel and the so-called Palestinian Entity, an entity composed, as I have suggested, of salami slices of land and people. It is high time that the civilised nations of the world woke up to this Goliath and David situation—with the difference in this case that David has no sling and no stone. Will Her Majesty's Government give a lead within the European Union, the Commonwealth and the rest of the world to the recognition of this difference and take appropriate consequential action?

99
Of course, I recognise Israeli insecurities and fears. Many adults recall their nakedness before Hitler or their sufferings under Soviet rule. There were times when West Jerusalem might have been lost or when the Army of Israel might have been defeated. And yet, look at Israel now—a nuclear power, with armed forces superior to any likely combination of Arab states; a country with military agreements with Turkey and, above all, with an unwritten alliance with the United States. What will Her Majesty's Government and the European Union do to help redress the vast disparity between Israel and the Palestinians?
I doubt that I can do much as a Back-Bencher to assist the people of Israel to see that their real security lies in having contented Palestinians, both as citizens of Israel and as immediate neighbours. Can our Government act in a helpful way? I look forward to the Government's reply on that point.
I question whether Israel, with its fragmented public and political opinions, fully wants to be accepted as a friendly neighbour in the Middle East. The peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan do point in that direction. Full acceptance, however, cannot be won while the Palestinians remain impoverished and dispossessed and while huge numbers of their refugees can neither return homewards nor receive compensation for what they have lost. The question of refugees, like the question of entitlement to and sharing of water resources, can probably only be resolved by co-operation between Israel, Palestine and Jordan. Will Her Majesty's Government do everything possible to help establish a mechanism for co-operation, whether formal or informal?
An opportunity now exists for building peace. Already the agreed timetable is pressing—a framework for final status by next February and full agreement by the end of September 2000. The Palestinians need their own unencumbered state. The Israelis need contented neighbours and acceptance as a regional partner. The region itself needs a format for co-operation. The obstacles are fears and frustrations, together with unattainable and self-defeating aspirations. Will Her Majesty's Government and their European allies, as the main trading partners of the whole region, use every effort in the search for a sustainable solution? Will they intervene on behalf of the poorest and the voiceless? That would be particularly appropriate in this season of Ramadan and Hanukkah and as we approach the jubilee year of 2000.
I take this opportunity to thank all noble Lords who are to contribute to the debate and I look forward to a positive reply from the noble Baroness the Minister.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone.: My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for raising this matter, particularly at the moment because of three factors: Syria, Barak in charge in Israel, and a visit which my noble friend Lord Ahmed and I recently made to the Middle East together. It is good that the debate takes place when the Syrian track is reopening.
100
I suspect that Prime Minister Tony Blair and my noble friend Lord Levy had something to do with that. I am sure that we should all be congratulating both of them on any part that they have played in what we hope will be a most important step forward.
Prime Minister Barak was in Britain recently. He said not once but several times that he is committed to ensuring that we move as fast as possible towards peace in the Middle East. We know that the situation has totally changed from the situation which existed when Netanyahu was Israel's Prime Minister. I know that my noble friend Lord Ahmed will join me in saying what an extraordinary visit it was paid by the first Muslim Peer with a Jewish Peer, each of us active in our own communities and leaders in them. We were received in Israel by the Foreign Minister, by Nobel Peace Prize winner Shimon Peres, by the heads of the Foreign Office and others. We then moved to Ramallah to see Arafat and many of his team and we went on to be received by King Abdullah, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the head of the Parliament in Jordan.
That could not have happened a few years ago. It is symbolic and it is real. Throughout we found that people wanted peace. So I was terribly disappointed to hear the very negative speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I hoped that he would look for the common ground and not for problems; that he would feel that it is rather better not to preach from here to people over there as to how they should carry on their negotiations—least of all when those negotiations are going well and all concerned want them to succeed.
The discussion with King Abdullah was a private one but it is fair to say—I am sure he will not mind if I say this—that he expressed his hope and his belief that Barak would go as far as he could and as quickly as he could in the search for peace. I learnt a long time ago that when you have leaders of countries who are sensitive to each other and like each other, that is a vast movement. I was very privileged to spend most of a morning with President Sadat shortly before he was murdered. I remember two outstanding things that he said. First, he had just attacked Begin for something Begin had said. I said to him, "Look, you are trying to negotiate peace with this man. Why do you attack?" He said, "You must understand that Menachem and I are friends. We know what we are trying to do. We are each going for peace. But we each have our own constituencies. He understands that I must satisfy my people or I cannot bring them towards peace and I recognise that Prime Minister Begin, in the democracy which he heads, has to bring his people with him".
I was thinking about that when the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was speaking. It is all very well to talk about the dreadful horrors of the past of many of Israel's people, but the reality of today is that it is a very vibrant democracy, that Barak has to bring his people with him, that if they feel that he is simply giving away territory without receiving safety and security in return they will not back him, that they will have a referendum which he has to win, that they will have elections which he has to win, and that unless they feel that he is dealing with their sensitivities and their security in a way which they

101
would like, he is out, because that is a democracy. It is good, is it not, that King Abdullah and Barak understand and like each other? I have the feeling that President Arafat, too, was anxious to achieve peace and that he understood the way the negotiations had to go. They will be tough; they will go up and down; they will have a momentum. But the leaders know and understand each other, and now President Assad is also in the team. So is a good time.
I discussed with President Assad the second set of major issues. Refugees and water are huge issues; Jerusalem is an even greater one. I remember him saying that we should achieve all the common ground that we could at the beginning and begin the moves towards peace, then deal with water and refugees, and leave Jerusalem until last. He said that if Jerusalem was dealt with beforehand, we should not succeed; the issue was too sensitive. But if everything else is decided and the parties see their way to peace, then they will be prepared to hang flags in the appropriate places and to understand each other's sensitivities on the central place of the three great religions of the world.
The leaders today, all of whom I know, are anxious to achieve peace for their people. Yes, they understand that if the parties have life and food and the needs of decent living together side by side, peace will live. Yes, they understand that they have to satisfy their own electorates or they will not succeed, or the people who are waiting in the wings will not succeed them in the way that they would want.
So what can we do? Her Majesty's Government are right to encourage the path towards peace and to smooth it out in any way they can. It is right to encourage the parties to come together, hold discussions and move towards a settlement, and to attempt to smooth the common ground so that the parties will walk on it together. The Government are right not to spend their time attacking one party or the other—for example, on the one side to put the Palestinian case with the great emphasis which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has placed on it, and on the other emphasise the differences with the Israelis and their case. I do not propose to do that. I believe that we in this House can help by contributing towards bringing the parties on to common ground. When there is peace in that area, we shall all rejoice in the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, a Muslim leader, and myself, a Jewish leader, were so warmly received on that extraordinarily memorable visit.
8.42 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I, too, extend thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for sharing with us his wisdom and his realism. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is no longer in this House. The debate that he introduced in May followed the election victory of Ehud Barak. At that time, we expressed some optimism about the outcome of the negotiations. It is good to hear the noble Lord, Lord Janner, speak on this subject, and in particular to be told about his visit with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed.
102
I sense that, this time, there is rather more caution. The Israeli Prime Minister is a skilful politician who can give the impression of much more progress than is in fact taking place. However, having read his Labour Party address a few days ago in Tel Aviv, in spite of his hesitations in relation to SCR242, which seemed to me peculiar, I am sure he is sincere in his belief that at last the peace process is really taking place.
In our previous debate, I referred to the continuing illegal and discriminatory policies of the Israeli Government, especially with regard to basic human rights such as land, water and agriculture. Little of that has changed. I referred to land confiscation and the tolerance of the Palestinians, especially in the face of the pre-election wave of illegal settlements. It is true that the new government have finally ended that particular bout of oppression and, as my noble friend said, that is welcome. But it does not make the earlier settlements any more legal. Those, and the ring-roads, remain another albatross around Palestinian necks while they are forced to make concession after concession to peace.
I want to concentrate on one group of refugees who are in danger of being left out of the peace settlement. I refer to the Palestinians in Lebanon, who number about 350,000 out of the 3½, million who are registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, plus many more, perhaps a further 1 million. who are unregistered. It should be remembered that the vast majority of Palestinians are refugees—some 70 per cent of the total.
Most noble Lords will remember the horrors of Sabra and Chatila camps in 1982, whose very names recall the vicious massacre of innocent refugees. I have a personal memory of that crisis, having helped to recruit medical teams who flew out to work alongside the staff of the Middle East Council of Churches. If it was unforgettable for us, it was far more so for the persecuted families in those camps, especially the children, who will now be in their thirties. Those third generation refugees are among the poorest and most neglected groups anywhere in the world. They still live in the same squalid and overcrowded conditions and have endured years of ill-treatment by the Lebanese authorities as third-class citizens.
The Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Peter Hain, expressed the Government's routine concern for Palestinian refugees in the debate in another place two weeks ago. Whatever our suspicion of governments, we can take that to be genuine, knowing his record in the human rights field. He said that they were victims of "an appalling historic injustice". He repeated Britain's support for Resolution 194, which for over 50 years has theoretically guaranteed the Palestinian right to return. It was of course a Labour government which originally signed that resolution in 1948.
But there was no recognition in Peter Hain's speech of the special plight of refugees in Lebanon. As Dr Phyllis Starkey, who led the debate, pointed out, refugees in Lebanon have suffered especially badly because of the civil war and the attitude of the Lebanese, who have both resented them and pleaded

103
problems of their own. They are more severely restricted than Palestinians elsewhere, having no passports and rarely being allowed work permits outside the camps. Armed soldiers, tanks and checkpoints surround the camps, some of which are virtually besieged. Two-thirds of the refugees are unemployed. I understand that in some camps 90 per cent are unemployed. The result is that their families depend almost entirely on the services provided by UNRWA. That situation remains unchanged despite the articles of various refugee conventions piously repeated by our government since 1948.
Palestinians in Lebanon are suffering not just from poverty but from a form of collective depression. They are not like other refugees. Along with other 1948 refugees in other countries, they have little or no expectation of becoming recognised. Not only are they stateless now; they have no prospects of belonging to the Palestinian state. It seems that they may be left out altogether. The Palestinian authority, although it may claim hypothetical sovereignty, does not directly represent them and is unlikely to argue on their behalf during the final status talks. The only country which may be able to speak up for them is Jordan, but only if it can be sure of material support from countries such as Britain.
Even the United Nations, which has provided for these refugees since 1948, may be in some sense about to abandon them. Ironically, since the establishment of the Palestinian authority, the status of UNRWA has been in decline, and funding has steadily decreased. In the absence of any other support for these refugees, this is no time for donors to withdraw. I hope that the noble Baroness will confirm that the UK will keep up its present commitments to UNRWA and reaffirm the Government's undertaking to refugees in Lebanon under Resolution 194—which remains a legal guarantee given by the whole international community of their right to return and to compensation. If the Minister can do so, that would certainly be heard in the camps in Lebanon.
The noble Baroness may be able to comment also on the proposed international compensation fund, which will have to be generous enough to support all refugees, not just those displaced in 1967. Israel has agreed, although I understand that it does not wish to contribute to the fund.
It sometimes helps in these debates to hear voices from those close to the situation. A few days ago, an organised assembly of young Palestinians took place in Lebanon at a youth centre at Ain al-Hilweh in Sidon, sponsored by Save the Children. They came together from refugee camps all over Lebanon with the aim of informing the world of their predicament. They called for protection against violence, for the right to live in peace, and for protection from poverty and exploitation. They want the right to express their views, the right to food and places to play. Many are even denied access to a playground. Above all, they argued for the right to a nationality, the lifting of the siege around their camps and the right to return to their homeland.
104
Most poignantly, those children asked that the word "refugee" be removed from their identity cards because it makes them a target for discrimination. It gives none of the rights or protection that refugees have been granted under the 1953 convention. To those children, to be a refugee demotes the status of a human being. Is it surprising that in desperation at the lack of any solution, some refugees have tried to find refuge in countries outside the Middle East?
I ask the Minister to comment on a report from human rights groups in France that 37 refugees from South Lebanon who had sought asylum in France via Syria have been returned by France to Damascus, where some of them have been put in prison. They are not political militants but ordinary people with families, many personally known to the NGOs in Lebanon, who are trying to join their relatives in Europe. Sadly, we are learning at Christmas not only that there is no room at the inn but that police are barring the stable door. The peace process is flawed because, as the children in Sidon demonstrate, the parties to that process are ignoring a human crisis that may yet have dangerous consequences for the whole region.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for providing the opportunity to seek the views of the Government on the current state of peace negotiations in the Middle East. I am confident that every member of the House is pleased that meaningful dialogue is taking place in a number of areas that have given concern for a long time. Real progress has been made and will continue to be made, due in no small measure to the leadership of Israel's prime minister, Ehud Barak. Since becoming prime minister of the only democracy in the Middle East, Mr. Barak has shown real vision as he strives to attain peace with security for his people. His bravery comes as no surprise to those who recall his gallantry as his country's most decorated soldier.
We welcome the recent breakthrough in talks with the Syrian president, Hafez al-Assad. Both Prime Minister Barak and President Assad have signalled positive messages that can only help future discussions to the benefit of both countries.
Similarly there are hopeful signs in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian talks. No one can pretend that there are not problems yet to be resolved. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, drew attention to some of them this evening. Those problems will no doubt exercise greater minds than mine in the next few months, but I am sure that most people are heartened by a comment made by Prime Minister Barak on his recent visit to London. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the final status question and the timetable framework. Prime Minister Barak was asked if he thought it was realistic to talk about a framework for final status by next February and agreement by the end of next year. He replied:
"If there is a will, there's a way.
"I thought that it was an historic comment when he said:

105
"As my partner, Chairman Arafat, used to say, we have a major responsibility and we have to live up to the challenge. It is up to us. If we fail to do it, the alternative is being dragged into a new round of violence"
I want to say how much I welcome the Government's pledge of a further £50 mil lion in financial aid for the next three years. Another £50 million is expected to be contributed by European Union aid programmes to the Palestinians over the next five years. The debate also gives me the opportunity to advise your Lordships of a significant initiative last month. Under the auspices of the Trades Union Congress, representatives of Palestinian and Israeli trade unions met for a week-long joint seminar in the UK. The seminar—which was hosted by Sir Ken Jack son and his union, the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union—considered how inward investment to the region could be assisted to the mutual benefit of Israelis and Palestinians. The seminar also spent time teaching British experiences through partnerships with employers and employees and trade unions with governments.
The TUC-Labour Friends of Israel initiative was considered a great success by all the participants. Although it was a pilot, I have no doubt that the scheme will be repeated in years to come. The TUC has acknowledged with grateful thanks the assistance of the British Ambassador to Israel, whose active participation—in terms of transportation, visas and entry permits—made the venture possible. I echo the thanks of the TUC to our ambassador in Israel for his work.
It is essential that the international community gives every possible assistance to all the parties involved in the peace process. I respectfully suggest that some of the rich oil states i n the region could provide more economic aid to assist the Palestinians as they face up to the challenges of economic development, protecting the environment and the resettlement of refugees in their own countries.
A real threat to the future of the region is the continuing situation in Iran. Relations between Muslims and Jews are not being helped by the regime in Iran, which has locked up a number of citizens on charges of alleged espionage. Among them are 13 Jews. Those unfortunate people, together with a number of Christians and Muslims, are not able—so as far as can be ascertained—to communicate with their friends. Is my noble friend the Minister able to say something about those particular people?
Iran still supports terrorism and is capable of producing weapons of mass destruction. Any hopes of a lasting peace in the region must take account of the constant threat to that peace by regimes that are not democratic and which abuse human rights. There is a real and proper role for the international community, which has to work as hard as it can to build democracies. In a region of 100 million people, only 5 million in Israel enjoy democratic systems and structures. Any help that our Government can give to extending democracy to the rest of the region should be encouraged and welcomed by all who are working for lasting peace in that troubled part of the world.
8.58 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I was not intending to refer to the provocative road network and settlements policy. I do so only in the hope that they are eventually recognised as an impediment.
The peace process has nevertheless entered a new phase: President Barak's election; the testing final status issues—including that of Jerusalem—are upon us; and Syria shows tentative signs of dialogue and with it a greater degree of success, together with the Lebanon track. Beyond that and arguably the most important, there is the establishment of conditions to make the process work—taking the hearts and minds of the people of the region, not just those of the leaders. Arabs and Jews must integrate, tearing down apartheid barriers, while mutually respecting the principles and culture of the other.
Britain recently played its part, which augurs well. The importance of inward investment, not just as a peace dividend but as a key ingredient in ensuring fair distribution of regional assets and an equitable economic rebalance, is fundamental and it is the best guarantee of Israel's future security. For example, I introduced and oversaw negotiations at arm's length between BG plc and the Palestinian Authority which resulted in a gas concession being offered by Chairman Arafat. I was delighted, and it was absolutely right, that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, who I note is not in his place this evening, officiated at the signing ceremony in London. That was a recognition of unselfish partnership on all sides. I understand, however, that the Americans, and by extension the World Bank, expressed some concern that their interests were not involved in the negotiations. Nobody doubts that American investment is fundamental and that many opportunities will exist for its participation. The United States has worked tirelessly over the years, but it is essential that Israel's principal trading partner, the European Union, is active and successful in regional development.
The Palestinians have in the Palestinian Commercial Services Corporation (PCSC), headed by Mohammed Rashid, a vehicle to attract investment. The PCSC is a public body, run along the lines of our Crown Agents but with private sector objectivity. It releases no profits or dividends but retains them for re-investment. The criteria for this body have the task of jump-starting the Palestinian economy and encouraging and managing Palestinian opportunities. The body is a one-stop-shop model, involving risk-taking and job creation. Some put its endeavours as the creation of 50 per cent of all new jobs.
Nobody should be in any doubt about the role that cheap power creation can play in any economy, with the additional benefit that it is controlled by the beneficiaries and there is no need to import. Thus, the Palestinians will never be held hostage by the need for a key ingredient. Cheap power creates competitive industry and so will transform the economy. It is a win-win-win situation, in which the Palestinians are sensitive to American concerns by way of the supply of American-owned power station interests (the Enron

107
Corporation). I anticipate that there will be further equitable involvement by the Americans. They need not be concerned.
Fast investment is undeniably required by the Palestinians. Although the world-class input by BG plc was negotiated in short order, I can vouch that the negotiations were transparent, inasmuch as any negotiations of this importance can realistically be, in round-the-clock discussions. BG mercifully stepped in where the Italians had failed to perform after a full year. Speed was of the essence. I pay a personal tribute to the Prime Minister and to the Foreign Office Minister, Mr Peter Hain, for their pivotal support.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for initiating this debate. My contribution this evening will be very brief. My noble friend Lord Janner has spoken of our visit last month with the help of the Maimonides Foundation. For the first time leaders of the Muslim and Jewish communities visited the Middle East. I am very proud and honoured to have been with my noble friend when we met the Palestinian, Jordanian and Israeli leaders. We talked in both private and public about issues of concern to the people of the Middle East. I should like to share with your Lordships a few of the achievements, concerns and expectations in relation to the peace process.
Like many other noble Lords, I begin by expressing my delight at the news that in a few days Mr Barak will meet the Syrian Foreign Minister, Farouk al-Shara, in Washington for crucial talks on the Israeli-Syrian peace deal. I believe that the role of the Syrians is important to the achievement of a lasting peace in the Middle East. I welcome Mr Barak's promise to withdraw from the Israeli self-declared security zone in South Lebanon by July 2000 and the new peace deal with Syria based on a withdrawal from the Golan Heights. We sensed while in Israel that over 70 per cent of the Israeli population supported a peace process based on land for peace. Generally, people are very optimistic and positive and we should support them.
I believe that there are three major issues of importance to be resolved in the peace process involving the status of refugees, new settlements and Jerusalem. As to refugees, we had some interesting meetings with the leaders. King Abdullah was optimistic and expressed complete confidence in the good faith of Prime Minister Barak. He said that there were about 1.3 million refugees in Jordan but that in reality only about 50,000 would want to return to Palestine. One is not talking about millions of refugees who want to return. However, the question of refugees will give rise to compensation. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to the refugees in Lebanon. I do not believe that all of the refugees will want to return. However, that is a real concern. When one refers to large numbers it frightens people in democracies, as my noble friend Lord Janner said. The leadership must sell the idea to the public before the peace plans can become a reality.
108
As to new settlements, Chairman Arafat has expressed concern. We were assured by the Israeli leadership that the intentions of Mr Barak and his Government were clear and that they would be able to achieve a framework agreement on final status issues with the Palestinians by early next year. Again, I am quite confident that that could be achieved by the goodwill shown so far.
I turn to the status of Jerusalem. I do not have to remind your Lordships of the importance of that great city to the great Ibrahamic religions: Islam, Judaism and Christianity. For that reason I believe that it is the most difficult and sensitive issue for us all. I wish everyone well in trying to achieve a lasting peace agreement in all those areas. I believe that Muslims, Christians and Jews can work together to achieve that and that we should do all we can in our power to do so.
Finally, I too congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the important and positive role that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has played in securing the agreements so far and working with all parties in the Middle East.
9.8 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, although this has been a short debate, it has also in many ways been an optimistic one. It is difficult to divorce the particular developments that we are now seeing at the strategic level in the Middle East from the internal developments within Israel itself and in its relationship to the Palestinian National Authority. I shall return to that point, but perhaps I may also add my voice to the many that have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for taking the initiative in making sure that the debate took place.
I was delighted also to hear the story of the visit of the noble Lords, Lord Ahmed and Lord Janner, to Israel, Jordan and Palestine a short while ago. It is extremely encouraging, and an example to many, that reconciliation is not only possible but can actually be followed by other people. I congratulate them both on taking that initiative. I hope that they will keep it up and that they will be followed by others. I should like to put on record the thanks that many of us feel towards them for taking such an imaginative idea further and developing Judaic, Muslim and Christian relations in the whole of the Middle East, which is crucial, where once a good relationship is established, a great deal may be achieved.
I turn to the strategic relationship, adding my voice to the many in this debate, but also uttering a word of warning. It is an astonishing breakthrough that, after four years in which no talks occurred at all between Syria and Israel, at this stage there should not only be talks beginning within the next few days, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, said, but a great deal of the groundwork for establishing a peace settlement between Syria and Israel already under way. Indeed, it is partly because that groundwork has been quietly undertaken behind the scenes that the ambitious timetable to which the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, referred, is already becoming a possible reality.

109
However, I want to give a word of warning, because in the relationship between Syria and Israel, where undoubtedly Syria is at least in part driven by the ill health of the President of Syria and his desire to reach some kind of stable relationship with Israel while he is still in command, there are two difficult issues. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, referred to one, which is the difficult issue of water. The Golan is of strategic significance not only to the whole of that part of Syria, but also to the Galilee region of Israel. The second is the difficult issue of where the new border should actually be. Israel understandably believes that the Golan Heights should be what they say they are, while Syria is pressing For a border that would run along the coastline of the Sea of Galilee. That is going to be quite a difficult one to resolve, but not impossible, provided that agreement can be reached on the division of the crucial waters of that part of the Middle East.
It is exciting that there is a direct link between what will happen in Syria and the Golan Heights on the one side, and what may well happen in Lebanon. Lebanon is a country which has been effectively destroyed; once one of the most prosperous and successful countries in the Middle East, it has had nothing but a kind of half existence for at least 25 years, although recently there have been real attempts to rebuild Lebanon and to make it once again a prosperous country. It is an example of the way in which the prospects for the Middle East have allowed themselves to be destroyed by the battle over who has the major authority in Lebanon. It is crucial to bring Lebanon into whatever settlement is finally reached.
I find it moving that the Prime Minister of Israel said that he did not wish to preside over a future in which young Israeli boys found themselves in the miserable no-man's land of South Lebanon, continually defending their country against the possibility of terrorist attacks upon it, and that there must be some better way to resolve the problem. I wish them well because I believe that agreement about the border will imply an understanding that Syria and Lebanon will do their best to restrain terrorist attacks. In that context, the Republic of Ireland is not a bad example of how gradually to reduce and control terrorist attacks. Perhaps Lebanon will again resume its role as an important part of the economic recovery of the Middle East.
However, I do not want to suggest total disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. There is no question but that the Palestinian Authority has something far from a viable state to control. Some aspects of its control are autocratic and not attractive, as indicated by the recent declaration protesting against some aspects of the Palestinian Authority. Yet there is no doubt that it is an extraordinarily difficult state let to try to administer.
In conclusion, once Israel feels safe and does not continually have to defend itself against external enemies, the possibility of greater reconciliation and of give and take becomes real. It is on the agreement with Syria that, paradoxically, an agreement with Palestine, which allows some of the divisions so eloquently
110
described by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, could be changed and the desert could again bloom like a rose. The two are interdependent and it is only by helping and seeking peace on the strategic level that we shall gain peace at the local level.
My final comment concerns the roles of the United Kingdom and the European Union. We understand that the Foreign Secretary is in Berlin attending the discussions between the European Union and Israel. There is a tendency for the EU to be viewed as the body which, ultimately, silently pays the bills. I hope that it will go a little further, not only paying the bills but agreeing to bring its weight to bear in achieving greater reconciliation. Those of us who studied the process recognise that many in Israel and the Arab states would welcome more often the presence of the EU in the negotiating structures as opposed to a process that is sometimes largely dominated by the United States. Europe has a serious role to play both economically and politically. I hope that we shall see Europe willing to play that role in the next few crucial months to help Mr Assad and Mr Barak finally to achieve a lasting peace settlement.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on securing this debate. It is timely indeed in the light of the US Secretary of State's visit to the region last week and the recent positive announcements on the Israeli-Syrian peace track.
I find it difficult to share some of the pessimism expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, although I understand where it came from. Thanks to the recent implementation of a number of initiatives, we should not underestimate the signing of the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel. In their different ways, the Israeli-Palestinian interim agreements, the Hebron protocol, the Wye River memorandum and now the Sharm el-Sheikh agreement have marked milestones in the quest for peace. The PLO has revised its charter and President Arafat has pledged that there will be no return to violence. Now the Israeli-Syrian negotiations, dormant for so long, have been revived. Many of those are optimistic signs.
I want to take up some of the points raised tonight and I shall begin by alluding to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on the role of Britain and the international community. When she said she had reached her penultimate point, I was slightly surprised that she did not intend to mention the importance of the European Union in this context, but I was delighted that finally she did. I share many of her comments. There has been consensus in UK Government policy on the route to the goal of peace. That route is based on respect for the principles of international law and the tenets of land for peace.
The principles enshrined in UN Security Council resolutions held the key to unlocking peace, first, between Egypt and Israel and then between Jordan and Israel. In my view, they will ultimately unlock

111
peace between Israel and the Palestinians so that the historic goal of a comprehensive just and lasting Arab-Israeli peace on the basis of security for the Israelis and prosperity, justice and self-determination for the Palestinian people, with statehood as an option, can be realised.
The breakdown of the talks, restarted only by the visit of the US Secretary of State, underlines the importance of the role that international mediation, particularly American, can and has played in the peace process.
Your Lordships will remember that the Foreign Secretary launched a tripartite plan for the European Union to reinvigorate the Middle East peace process in March 1998, which included a strengthening of the European role in the peace process. The Minister will be aware of suggestions that, following the Israeli elections this year, there was a real opportunity to promote a European initiative.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Janner, on the role that this House and indeed the Government can play. I agree that there is a very important role for a European initiative. That is separate but complementary to the American process, to ensure that the deadlock which has dogged the peace process for two years was broken. In the light of criticisms that the Government's previous initiative did not succeed in securing a stronger role for Europe in the peace process, what efforts have the Government taken to secure a fresh European initiative and to make use of our many contacts and our long historical ties with the countries of the region?
Further, I think the Minister will be aware that recently Shimon Peres said there was no room in the peace process for a European mediator as well as an American mediator. To what extent does the Minister consider that this reflects on European efforts, including the Foreign Secretary's initiative and the recent visit by the Prime Minister's personal representative, the noble Lord, Lord Levy? A number of noble Lords have referred to obstacles in the path of peace. We are all only too well aware that there are still many obstacles in the path of peace and that these obstacles are formidable, ranging from hurdles which are placed in the way of peace by those implacably opposed to this process, to the simple truth that without prosperity peace cannot take root and without peace prosperity cannot grow.
However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, when he highlighted one important inextricable link between peace, security and economic prosperity. It is clear that the pace of economic growth in the Middle East cannot far outstrip the pace of the peace process. Economic prosperity and peace must be mutually reinforcing. If peace is to best able and secure then it must be seen to promote and provide a dividend in terms of economic progress. It is a well known fact that the Palestinian standard of living has fallen by some 40 per cent since the signing of the Oslo accords, while high unemployment rates undercut the support for the peace process in the West Bank, in Gaza and in Jordan.
112
Instead of enjoying the tangible benefits of peace, the Palestinian economy has suffered a severe downturn. In addition to the long-running programme of British aid to the Palestinians, what action are the Government taking to help create an environment where economies can flourish, in order to nurture and sustain peace, so that the people in the back streets of Gaza and the West Bank see real improvement in their economic position, enabling them to discover both their faith in the peace process and their hope for the future?
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, raised the role of Prime Minister Barak and President Assad. Here I am in close agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. She happens to be my only political colleague this evening on this side of the House showing, as we do, an interest in this important subject. Certainly I regret that there are not more of your Lordships present to hear what I believe has been an excellent debate. The noble Baroness alluded to the importance of the negotiations which are under way at the moment and to the vital importance given by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, to the Syrian-Israeli negotiations.
In my view, it is absolutely requisite for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace for the Middle East that the twin track of the Syrian-Israeli negotiations and the Israeli-Lebanese negotiations is also embraced. This is an absolutely integral part of the peace process, without which the promise of a new era of hope and prosperity for the entire region cannot be realised.
We all welcome the optimism expressed by Israel and Syria following the announcement of the resumption of peace negotiations after a hiatus of almost four years. This new effort is a breakthrough indeed, and we wish the meeting in Washington on Wednesday every success as the Syrians and Israelis return to the negotiating table to take the next courageous steps on the journey towards a peace of justice and a peace of security. An Israeli-Syrian peace agreement would have key regional benefits, covering a secure Israeli-Lebanese border, an ending of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the isolation of those parties who continue to reject peace and reconciliation and the gradual normalisation of relations between the Arab world and Israel. Therefore, heavy responsibility lies on the shoulders of Prime Minister Barak and President Assad to bring peace to the Israeli and Syrian people and to ensure that once again they are not disappointed. This is a historic endeavour, but I heeded the words of warning of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. There should be no illusions. The issue of water rights, demilitarised zones, the possible presence of international troops and Israel's desire to maintain a listening post on Mount Hernan will all be the subject of intense, exhausting and arduous negotiation.
If there is one point which I should like to emphasise in my remarks this evening, it is this. It is critical that the prospect of a comprehensive settlement acts as an impetus and an incentive to both the Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Palestinian tracks, and that progress on one

113
track is not achieved at the expense of the other. The process must remain inclusive, focused and expeditious or it will not succeed. There will be no winners from an approach of rivalry and competition between the two tracks.
I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, that the new spirit of optimism in the region allows us to hope that the peace process, so many times derailed, is now back on track. Bold and courageous measures which broaden arid deepen the progress already made will still be needed to end decades of conflict and to create a future of permanent peace. With those words, the Government can be assured of our full support while they demonstrate that Britain is a partner and a friend to the peace process, playing a constructive and supportive role, and working to the common objective of a peace settlement that brings security to all the countries of the region and, above all, justice to all the people of the region.
9.26 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for tabling this Question. This is a good moment to debate the Government's policy towards the Middle East. Both hope and tensions are increasing on the Palestinian track as the parties grapple with the difficult problems that have to be resolved if they are to reach agreement by February on a framework agreement for a permanent settlement. The United States Secretary or State, Madeleine Albright, has just returned from a trip to the region, with a breakthrough on the Syrian track.
I have listened carefully to your Lordships' comments. I should like to start by welcoming the progress on the Syrian track. I understand the concern voiced by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, in relation to the Lebanese refugees. But the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, and the Syrian President, Al-Assad, have shown the necessary statesmanship to open a door that can lead to peace. I believe that their public messages to one another have been unprecedented in their warmth. Bilaterally and through the European Union we have encouraged both sides to restart talks. The Americans have, of course, done the same. The result of those efforts is an agreement to meet in Washington this week to resume the negotiations which came to a halt in 1996. That is a courageous decision. The Prime Minister has welcomed the agreement to resume negotiations and is writing to Prime Minister Barak and President Assad to congratulate them.
Progress in negotiations will have an immediate effect in the region. We look forward to the implementation of UNSCR 425 and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from south Lebanon. All sides have a real responsibility to ensure that withdrawal, which we all want, is orderly and does not result in chaos in Lebanon. Much the best way of preventing unrest is for withdrawal to be part of a broader peace agreement with Syria and Lebanon. Last week's breakthrough means that that is a real possibility and offers much the best prospect of peace in Lebanon and security for northern Israel.
114
The United Kingdom enjoys good relations with both Israel and Syria. The Government offer our full support to both parties to achieve rapid progress.
On the Palestinian track, we welcome the real progress that has been made since the Sharm el-Sheik h agreement in September. The release of Palestinian prisoners, the further redeployment of Israeli troops and the restart of permanent status negotiations have all started to rebuild the relationship between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian authority.
The opening of the southern safe passage, along which the Foreign Secretary travelled on the day after its opening, has had an immediate effect on the well-being of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as have the increased number of work permits for Palestinians and the reduction in housing demolitions and ID card confiscation in Jerusalem.
However, there are undoubted difficulties. The redeployment of troops scheduled for 15th November is delayed. The release of a third group of Palestinian prisoners before the holy month of Ramadan has not yet taken place. At the heart of those problems is how, and with how much consultation, decisions on those steps are to be taken. It is for the Israelis and Palestinians to find a way forward and we encourage them to do so as soon as possible to allow the process to continue towards the main goal of a permanent status agreement.
The parties, as many noble Lords will know, are committed to using their best efforts to reach a framework agreement on permanent status by February 2000 and a permanent agreement by September 2000. Both sides have already started to address the key issues which will define how Israelis and Palestinians will live together in the new millennium.
It is not for us to provide solutions on the permanent status issues: borders between Israel and a Palestinian entity, the status of Jerusalem, arrangements for the refugees' rights over fresh water in the region and settlements in the Occupied Territories. However, we have a responsibility to put forward ideas and provide support to enable a just, comprehensive and durable settlement to be reached.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, in particular, together with others raised the issue of the Palestinian and Lebanese refugees. I am pleased that favourable comment has already been made about the statement by my honourable friend the Minister of State at the first sitting of the new parallel Chamber in the other place. I can reassure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that we are firmly committed to helping to improve the lives of refugees and to resolving the refugee issue based on the UN General Assembly Resolution 194.
Palestinians in Lebanon are a special case. There is no intention that they should be left out of the arrangement for Palestinian refugees elsewhere. We shall continue to support the UNRWA. Our bilateral contributions have increased by 33 per cent since 1997 and my honourable friend the Foreign Secretary witnessed the excellent work in October. The

115
international donor community has a responsibility and detailed arrangements will be made as the parameters for the final settlement are agreed.
The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, raised the issue of the 13 Jews together with other Christians and Muslims who have been detained in Iran on spying charges. I can assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government have raised our concerns about that case at a high level with the Government of Iran and are keeping the situation under active consideration.
We welcome Prime Minister Barak's action over settlement outposts and his statement that there will be no new construction permits issued during negotiations. However, we remain concerned about Israeli settlement activity and expansion. Settlements are illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. We understand the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, in that regard.
A further threat to the Middle East peace process is the multilateral track. I say that in response to a number of comments made by a number of noble Lords about the issue of water. The multilateral track is often overlooked, but it is important because it offers an opportunity for regional states and the international community to support the peace process and increase co-operation on water, refugees and disarmament. It provides a forum for such issues to be discussed and a practical conduit for practical co-operation between neighbours. I hope that with negotiations on the Syrian track about to resume, the multilateral track can also restart early in the new year.
We are committed to supporting progress on all tracks of the peace process. That commitment is based on the implementation of UN Resolutions 242 and 338 and the principle of land for peace. Britain and the European Union have an important role to play in the peace process. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that the European Union special envoy for the Middle East process, Mr Moratinos, plays an important role in emphasising the complementary role that Europe can play in the region.
The key requirements of a lasting agreement on the Palestinian track are that it should give real hope and opportunity to the Palestinian people, including enabling them to exercise their right to self-determination, and provide real security for Israel. That requires vision on the part of both Israelis and Palestinians. It requires each side to move towards the other. Neither will get all it wants. Compromise will be essential. But peace will be the prize for everyone in the region.
We shall encourage the parties towards a visionary settlement, creating a viable Palestinian entity and providing security for Israel. We are also providing substantial practical assistance, both bilaterally and through the European Union. We have pledged £50 million in bilateral aid for the next three years and expect to contribute another £50 million to European Union aid programmes over the next five years. The European Union and individual member states have collectively been the largest donor to the Palestinians.
116
Our bilateral aid focuses on developing primary healthcare projects and a strategic capacity for health planning and management; increasing access to water for isolated communities; improving teaching methods and skills management; and strengthening Palestinian institutions by developing a unified, modernised legal system, an effective public administration and a democratic, professional and accountable legislative body. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said in relation to his analogy with David and Goliath, but I am sure he knows his Bible well and will remember what happened during that confrontation. We understand that analogy and are providing technical advice and legal expertise to the Palestinian Negotiation Affairs Department as part of our programme of bilateral assistance. The aim of this aid is to facilitate the smooth and efficient conduct of negotiations. Such support is necessary if Palestinian negotiators are to have the confidence to reach difficult agreements with Israel.
We want to see a democratic, transparent and accountable Palestinian machinery of government. This includes respect for basic freedoms, including the freedom of speech. The Palestinian people deserve no less. It also offers the greatest possible reassurance to Israel.
The Government remain closely engaged in the peace process. Prime Minister Barak has been in London twice since his election and spent an additional night in Manchester when a baggage handler's truck hit his aircraft as it stopped for refuelling. President Arafat met the Prime Minister last month. King Abdullah of Jordan was here last week and met the Defence Secretary. Egyptian Foreign Minister Moussa was here the week before that and we are in close contact with the Syrians and Lebanese too.
We welcome the trade union initiative which the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, mentioned, as an example of co-operation which can support the political process. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, this has been an optimistic debate and we welcome the support that has echoed from all sides of the House. We very much welcome the supportive comments made by all noble Lords. We are grateful for the way in which all those who have participated in the debate contributed to it.
However, I should particularly like to join those noble Lords who have praised the efforts made by my noble friends Lord Ahmed and Lord Janner in their innovative initiative, which has been so successful. It demonstrates the contribution that has been made by so many from different religions and cultures. I should also like to pay tribute to the work done by my noble friend Lord Levy and many others who have participated in this enterprise.
The Government are making every effort to encourage comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region and are providing substantial financial and practical assistance to help promote it. We shall be doing all that we can to achieve peace in the course of next year.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill [H.L.]
Monday, 13th December 1999.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): We begin our proceedings today with the Nuclear Safeguards Bill. Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells ring and will resume after 10 minutes.
Title postponed.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Identifying persons who have information]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert ("have a duty to publish a statement of the fact that they have been made in such manner as will bring them to t he attention of persons affected by them").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and speak also to Amendment No. 2. Those two amendments effectively try to flesh out subsections (5) and (6) of this clause. Basically, given the seriousness of these issues and indeed, the punishment for infringing them—about which I do not complain because they are serious issues; people could be fined or imprisoned—it seems that we should go a little further in relation to the Secretary of State's duty to publish. We should do more than merely,
"arrange for a statement of the fact that they [the regulations] have been made to be published in such manner,"
and so on.
I suggest that we should be a good deal firmer than that and provide at there should be a duty to publish a statement of the fact that the regulations have been made, and to bring them to the attention of the persons affected by them.
Secondly, if a person is charged, a reasonable defence for him to offer would be that the Secretary of State had failed in his duty. Will the Minister explain how the Government envisage that those regulations would be made known to the people who are interested in them? Will it be through advertisements in the press or trade journals? How will it be done? We should spend a few moments just ensuring that any regulations produced by the Government are known to the people who are affected by them.
As the Bill is currently drafted, to "arrange for a statement" seems rather weak and it would be far better to impose a duty on the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The rationale behind Clause 3(5) is to ensure that if any regulations are made under this clause, they are publicised in such a way that the persons to whom they apply will know about them. I shall answer immediately the question raised by the noble Lord about how they are publicised. By analogy, I am taking the Chemical Weapons Act 1996, which will be important for a reason that the noble Lord will recognise shortly.
The regulations which have been made under that provision are publicised by giving notice of their existence without full text in The Times, Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times, and the London Gazette. Individual copies of the regulations are sent to all relevant trade associations and we envisage that we shall do very much the same thing under the regulations under Clause 3 of the Bill.
The important point I want to make is that the wording is exactly the same as the corresponding provision in Section 23(3) of the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, introduced his measure in 1996—I am sorry that he is not in his place in the Chamber—he will recall that he said at col. 1368 on 30th January 1996,
"I therefore make no apology for the inclusion in this Bill of the new powers and regulations necessary to enable the Government to honour the United Kingdom's obligations under the covenant".—[Official Report, 30/1/96; col. 1368]
Exactly the same argument applies in this case. The whole purpose of regulations under this clause is to get persons in the categories specified in the regulations to identify themselves to the Department of Trade and Industry Safeguards Office. This would not be achieved if the regulations were not widely known about, so in that sense the noble Lord is pushing at an open door. However, the reason for having such regulations in the first place is so that the Safeguards Office can find out about persons, whether individuals, companies or other bodies, who would not otherwise be known to the office. The Safeguards Office knows which category of people it needs to know about but it will not necessarily know the identity of each person in the category, and it is to them that the regulations are directed. Let me say that I see no distinction in the wording between "duty" and "shall arrange"; they both have the same effect.

CWH 3
It follows that as such regulations would be aimed at persons about whom the Secretary of State does not know, he could also not know where they are or exactly what forms of publicity are certain to come to their notice. The first amendment would place on the Secretary of State a duty which it will be impossible for him to be sure of fulfilling, and would require him to ensure that the regulations will come to the attention of everyone affected by them. However, as he will not know who will be affected by the regulations, the most he can do is work out what methods of publicity are likely to come to the attention of persons, which is what the Bill says. He cannot realistically be obliged to ensure that everyone affected by the regulation knows about them.
Subsection (5) as drafted, therefore, goes as far as it is realistic to go. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the regulations are likely to be known about by anyone affected by them. Amendment No. 2 goes further and it would mean that no one could be convicted of failing to comply with regulations under the clause unless the regulations had been publicised by subsection (5). However, if subsection (5) is amended as Amendment No. 1 provides, it would have the effect that no one would have to comply with the regulations unless they had been brought to the attention of everyone affected by them. That would entirely undermine the regulations. Even a person who was aware of them could not be convicted if they had not come to the notice of someone else, however hard the Secretary of State had tried to give them wide publicity among the types of persons concerned. Therefore, I am afraid that I am unable to accept the amendments.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank the Minister and, although he has not accepted the amendments—not to my surprise I may say—at least he has fleshed out what the Government see as their obligations under subsection (5). I am interested that "shall arrange" and "duty" are the same and I may store that away in my mind for the future. I should have thought that "shall arrange" is a little less weighty than "duty". However, I am pleased to hear how the Government will advertise the existence of these regulations. That is certainly worth putting on record. Perhaps I should also say that I am grateful to the Minister for publishing the draft regulations, as he did on the day of Second Reading. Thus he managed to shoot at least one of my foxes, quite adequately I thought. He will be pleased to hear that I shall not be doing a great deal of changing to the regulations, because they are quite technical and complicated as, indeed, is this field. I am, therefore, satisfied that this probe has established from the Minister how he intends to publicise these matters and they seem perfectly satisfactory to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Rights of access etc. for Agency inspectors]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 6, leave out ("An Agency inspector may.") and insert ("If a justice of the peace is satisfied, on information on oath, that it is reasonable and necessary in accordance with the Additional Protocol for an Agency inspector to do so, he may issue a warrant authorising an Agency inspector to,").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I will speak to Amendments Nos. 4, 8 and 11. I raised this matter at Second Reading. The Government answered it, and I understood the answer. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for his letter in explanation. However, I am still a little concerned and I have therefore put down this amendment in order to further explore the matter. I will come to what I suspect will be the Minister's answer shortly.
In this country we are keen, and no one in opposition was keener than the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to ensure that officialdom cannot go charging around, entering premises and entering homes, without some form of legal authorisation. Indeed, in Clause 4 of this Bill, as I said at Second Reading, officials of the Department of Trade and Industry may search premises for documents, including entering somebody's home. Increasingly, with e-commerce and the Internet, and material of this nature, some of which will be intellectual property and not actually bits of gear, I can see that the home may well be the place where the information exists, perhaps on a computer. Therefore, entering someone's home may well be the way to make sure that the Bill, as it stands, is actually obeyed.
Under Clause 4, however, before our own "home grown" officials can do so they must go to a justice of the peace, who they must satisfy on oath that they have a good case for entering premises, including houses, and searching for documents. That is a fundamental protection which is built into most of our legal position in this country.
However, in Clause 5 the officers of the international agency can go where they like without any regard to having to go to a justice of the peace to obtain a warrant. Indeed, it seems to me that if the Secretary of State's representative does not want to bother going to a JP, all he has to do is to persuade the agency's man or woman to go with him to take the lead. He can then enter the premises without having to bother a justice of the peace.
The Minister—and I understand this—in his defence both in the House and in the letter he sent to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and to me, pointed out that similar provisions were made under two previous Acts. I have no doubt that we shall hear about that, and I have no doubt that the words of my noble and learned friend, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, will be quoted back to me. These words come from Section 25

CWH 5
of the Chemical Weapons Act 1996, for inspections under the Chemical Weapons Convention. No doubt the Minister will also tell me, as he did in the letter, that under Section 13 of the Landmines Act 1998, under the Ottawa Convention, such inspections can equally be done without a warrant.
It seems to me that we now have three international treaties, and agents of these international bodies—three in number—will be allowed to enter premises, search and do these other things, without having to go to a justice of the peace. I wonder how many more international agencies will come along, with objectives with which we all agree, who will want exactly the same powers in our country. I begin to be rather worried. I wonder whether, when we passed the Chemical Weapons Act 1996, and agreed to this to begin with, we would have been quite so happy. Would my noble and learned friend have been quite so happy if he had realised that, within four years, there would have been three such Acts on the statute book, and three such international bodies able to do things inside this country, to citizens of this country, which we do not allow our own people to do, for the same objectives? It seems to me that it is at least worth pausing in the Committee, and not just accepting the Minister's well-argued letter at its face value, and asking ourselves, are we quite sure? I know precedent is one of the great factors in the law and in Parliament, but sometimes we have to say: "Wait a minute, when we started on this road did we realise we would end up with so many cases of this nature?". That is the first thing we must ask ourselves.
This is the third Act to give an agency powers, as I said, to do things which officials of our own Government would not be able to do. The Minister said in his letter—and also in the House—that to accept the insertion of the words I want and to require a justice of the pcace to sign a warrant, would be a breach of the protocol we have already agreed.
The Minister said in his letter that,
"Agency inspectors must have a right of complementary access to confirm the completeness and accuracy of the information provided, subject only to the conditions provided for in the Additional Protocol itself".
If "complementary access" means anything, is it not the complementary access we already have? And is not that access dependent on obtaining a justice's warrant? I do not see the problem, if it comes to it, of giving them complementary access.
The Minister goes on in the letter:
"There is no scope under the Protocol for further limits or conditions to be imposed on such access, so the UK is bound to ensure in its implementation of the Protocol that Agency inspectors' rights of access are subject to no further conditions or limits. A requirement to obtain a warrant would be a further condition, and so would appear in itself to amount to a breach of the Additional Protocol."
I did notice the words,
"it would appear in itself to amount to a breach".
Perhaps the Minister would like to think a little about this one before he answers in exactly the same vein.
Many of the countries which signed the treaty do not have the same respect for civil liberties as we do in this country, and if I am being a little pernickety about this, I think we have a long tradition of being pernickety. When the Minister was the Opposition spokesman on Home Office matters he was, quite rightly, somewhat pernickety about civil liberties. I hope he is not going to say that I did not previously respect them nearly as much as I do now, in Opposition.
We all have a duty to be mindful and, if that is the best assurance the noble Lord can give me, it would at least help me, the next time we have an international treaty of this kind, if we say to some of our friends that we have a little problem in our country; that we need a justice of the peace warrant before our own people can enter premises and so forth and therefore feel that we ought to have a justice of the peace warrant for people from their agency before they enter our premises.
I know it sounds as though I am somehow not happy with the objectives of this Act. But that is not the case at all. I understand why we need it; I understand why it is important; but, equally, the rule of law in our own country is important. I therefore ask the Government to contemplate what they will say the fourth, fifth or sixth time we come across a Bill like this. Will it be, "precedent, precedent, precedent"?
We may end up with a whole army of international inspectors who are able to do things in this country which we would never allow officials of our Government to do. I respect the officials of our Government every bit as much as I respect the international agency's people. One cannot be described as "slightly suspect" and the other "above reproach". All officials are slightly suspect and ought to go through the same hoops.
If we are to have much more of this, we shall have to consider the way in which we agree to these protocols in this country. Some of the fundamental laws which affect all of us as citizens must not be ignored for what, though it may well be a greater good, is not a greater good that should ignore our laws and the way in which we proceed inside our country. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said on this matter. The civil liberties implications are difficult and clearly this is an area which will be expanded further. However, officials of this Government working for the UN operate under similar powers in Iraq and elsewhere. That is part of the problem That is part of the problem of what I understand to be reciprocity rather than complementarity. If we want international agencies to be able to operate in other countries under conditions which are not always to the benefit or convenience of their own regimes, we have to accept that some of our obligations and prized domestic concerns will be invaded.

CWH 7
I find myself very uncomfortable with this, and I should therefore like to ask the Minister about American responses to this. It seems to me that American practice— and I have read the Supreme Court practice on the limits of international law overriding American domestic law—are much more restrictive than ours. In trying to balance those two desirable but incompatible objectives, there are some major issues to which, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish says, we shall have to return.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: When we were in Opposition, I was proud of succeeding in securing the inclusion into the Police Bill, as it then was, of a provision that the police could not carry out intrusive surveillance—bugging—of domestic premises other than with a judicial warrant from a county court judge. He is quite right in saying that I am, then and now, and he is, now but possibly not then, extremely protective indeed of personal liberty in that way.
I hope to be able to persuade him that in this case, it is not just reasons of precedent but very practical reasons which make it necessary for us to enact the Bill as drafted, and to give the powers which are given here to inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Authority.
The amendments would require the inspectors to exercise the rights which the Additional Protocol requires to be given to them dependent on obtaining a warrant from a magistrate. We say that it would almost certainly place the UK in breach of the Additional Protocol, not because we do not believe it will, but because it has never been tested in the courts, so we are being particularly cautious about that. It seems fairly clear that there would indeed be a breach. For that reason alone, it is not acceptable to the Government. It would indeed be out of line with the precedents, but in any case it is not necessary.
As regards a breach of the Additional Protocol, the access for inspectors to premises for the limited purpose allowed by the Additional Protocol is one of the key obligations placed by the protocol on the United Kingdom. That does not mean, as the noble Lord suggests, that the inspectors can go where they like. They can go only to the location listed in the Additional Protocol and they may do only what the Additional Protocol allows. To take the noble Lord's example, the DTI could not ask an IEAA inspector to go anywhere else for the DTI, nor could an inspector be asked to carry out the types of search which the department is allowed to undertake under Clause 4 or indeed Clause 8, but I shall return to that when we consider Amendment No. 5.
The right of inspection exists exactly for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. It is necessary, perhaps not so much in this country; but the inspectors should have unfettered access in all the countries whether they are nuclear or non-nuclear weapons countries. Of course, that is particularly true of Iraq.
CWH 8
UNSCOM, which was set up in Iraq under the United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 of 1991, has seen a history of Saddam Hussein and his regime seeking to frustrate the activities of the inspectors who were charged with eliminating the weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, long-term missiles, and setting up a long-term monitoring system. Time after time, as the inspectors arrive at the front door—be it a warehouse, a factory or one of Saddam Hussein's presidential palaces—they are delayed in conversation while the lorries leave by the back door.
That is exactly what would happen if the inspectors had to go to a British justice of the peace in order to get authorisation. We do not believe that in practice that will happen in this country. However, in order for inspection to work effectively in Iraq, and possibly in other countries, it is essential that we commit ourselves to exactly the same conditions as the other countries about whose motives and activities we have a great deal more suspicion. That is the basis on which the Additional Protocol has been set up. That is the basis on which nuclear weapon states are put on an equal footing with non-nuclear weapon states. There is simply no scope under the Additional Protocol or the safeguards agreement for further limits or conditions to be imposed on this access.
We are bound to ensure that it is implemented without further conditions or limits. That means that, apart from the issue of delay, if the warrant went to a magistrate who either denied the application or varied it in any way, we should certainly then be immediately in breach of the protocol. The noble Lord will not be surprised if I remind him that the Chemical Weapons Act, to which he referred and which he describes as being a poor precedent—the precedents are building up—was enacted as was the Landmines Act 1998 with exactly the same provisions. It was enacted after UNSCOM had been set up and after a great deal of bad experience with obstruction by the Saddam Hussein regime. Indeed, the Nuclear Safeguards and Electricity (Finance) Act 1978, which implements the 1976 Safeguards Agreement, would have the peculiar effect that these are the same inspectors; and for some things they would not have required judicial authorisation whereas for others they would. That really cannot be sensible. I hope that I have made it clear, without going into a great deal more detail—I am capable of doing so—that these amendments would be undesirable.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him to let me know by Report stage what the United States and France are doing in terms of ratification of the Additional Protocol.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The US will provide information and access to all relevant locations, subject to exclusions for national security only. So

CWH 9
called "managed access" will be employed where necessary. That seems to deserve a letter to the noble Lord.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister. Without flattering him too much, I know that he takes these issues of individual rights very seriously indeed. I fully appreciate that other countries—and Iraq is the classic example—frustrate the inspectors. However, because Iraq frustrates the inspectors, I wonder whether for the third time we should be setting up and allowing an international agency to do things which we would not allow any of our own agencies to do?
As regards the example of the lorries going out the back door, my understanding and knowledge is that, if an official asks a justice for a warrant, the person on the warrant to be served does not know that the official has gone for a warrant. That is certainly the case when police come for a warrant: they have not already told the person, "We are going down the road to contact a justice of the peace in order to get a warrant to come and search your house".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I accept that. I accept, too, that the argument for delay is perhaps overstated. I was thinking of the case of a leak of information, which I accept could be rare. The more important point is this. If the justice denies a warrant or imposes conditions on it, those two facts themselves are in contravention of the protocol.
4 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I understand that and I understand the international point. I am sure that occasionally police officers feel that they have been frustrated when a justice of the peace does not give them a warrant or qualifies it in some way, when they think they are in deep pursuit of people involved in criminality. That is merely one of the hoops through which we in this country like authority to go. However, I shall not continue with this matter. The Minister kindly wrote to me and I understand the point he makes. It does not resolve my concern that in a year or two's time, we might be back here on another Bill dealing with another international agency and dealing with the same issue again; and because it has been allowed on three occasions, we shall decide that it is all right.
It is just something about which we should be very careful in future. If other people—other countries—do not have a rule of law, it does not mean that we should lessen our regard for our rule of law. The fact that in this country we allow unfettered access to those inspectors will not make too much difference to Saddam Hussein's view and I doubt that anybody thinks it will do. He may pray that in aid if we say that he has to go a justice of the peace but that is rather different from the kind of chicanery he gets up to.
However, I have now given this matter an airing, which seemed only right. On reading the Bill, one notices the distinct ion made between our own, home-grown officials and officials of this agency and the issue
CWH 10
was certainly worth exploring. I am grateful to the Minister both for his letter and for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) No Agency inspector shall, by virtue of this section, search a person of the opposite sex.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment in which I am again comparing Clause 4 with Clause 5. In Clause 4, for our own inspections, especially in relation to searching a person of the opposite sex, Clause 4(7) provides that:
"No constable shall, by virtue of subsection (6)(b), search a person of the opposite sex".
I am, therefore, wondering why there is not a similar provision in Clause 5 relating to the agency inspectors. We surely cannot have a male inspector—if he has to—searching a woman or, probably less sensitively, vice versa. If it is good enough for one clause then it should also be in the other clause which deals with agency inspectors. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is a simple answer: the Bill does not give the agency inspectors the power to search individuals in the first place.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There is nothing like a simple answer to satisfy a questioner! I am grateful to the Minister for that and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 27, leave out ("may") and insert ("must").
The noble Lord said: In a way, this is a fall-hack position if the Government do not—as indeed they did not—accept the need for a search warrant for the agency inspectors. My amendment suggests that those inspectors must be accompanied by an authorised officer—that is, one of our own officials—unless the Secretary of State says so. That should prevent agents of an international agency entering and searching premises and individuals without anybody present who understands the need for warrants and the tradition of personal freedom in this country. If the Government think that "may" is sufficient, there is surely nothing in principle to prevent "must", with a provision for any special circumstances; namely that the Secretary of State can authorise a situation in which they need not have a home-grown official with them. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are a number of reasons why we do not consider this amendment desirable. The Bill permits an authorised officer to accompany an agency inspector but does not require it. It does not specify when an authorised officer should attend, leaving it in practice to the DTI safeguards

CWH 11
officer to decide whether and when it is necessary or appropriate to send someone to accompany an inspector. The Bill has been drafted in this way for a number of very good reasons.
First, if the Bill were in the terms proposed by the amendment, the UK would risk being in breach of the Additional Protocol. I apologise for using the phrase again but the noble Lord now knows why we say "likely" or "at risk".
Article 4(f) provides that the UK's right to have agency inspectors accompanied must not delay or impede inspectors in exercise of their functions; and an inspector could be impeded or delayed if he or she could not act without an authorised officer being present, or if the inspector had to wait for a ruling from the Secretary of State before being able to proceed alone.
One can also see the scope for abuse if other states included such provisions. The authorities in a regime which was concealing nuclear activity—and I suppose I refer to Iraq again but I imagine there are others; North Korea, for example, or Cuba at times—could defeat the object of an inspection by requiring inspectors to wait until a state official arrived or some government minister had given a dispensation. Again, the experience with the IAEA Action Team in Iraq shows that this is a real concern. We must not include provisions in our legislation which could be copied by other countries which might use them to undermine the safeguard system, and that indeed was the answer I hoped I had made to the previous group of amendments.
In any case, it would be unnecessarily inflexible to require an authorised officer to be present on every occasion when an agency inspector proposes to exercise the rights given by Clause 5. The number of visits which will be performed under the Additional Protocol is not known but there are likely to be few, and in practice Safeguard Office officials are likely to attend many of these visits. However, in some circumstances it would only be practical to allow visits to proceed without an authorised officer present. The protocol allows in extreme cases that visits be called with two hours' notice or less. If an authorised officer were required to be present it is difficult to see how these extreme cases would work. The authorised officer might be delayed, he might be ill or called to an emergency elsewhere, or be caught up in an accident, and that would hold up the whole inspection.
The noble Lord may point to Amendment No. 7 and say that the Secretary of State could always dispense with that, but under the examples I have given it could well be impossible to obtain a direction from the Secretary of State in anything like an appropriate timescale. We would land up with the Secretary of State giving specific rulings in ordinary cases, in other words where no accompaniment by an authorised officer was required, and not being involved in emergency cases of the kind that I have described. That
CWH 12
seems the wrong way round, and I hope the noble Lord will recognise that these amendments would be undesirable.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Again, I am grateful to the Minister. He has answered one of the questions which was forming in my mind. I am paraphrasing, so I hope I am right, but by and large officials of the department's inspectorate would accompany the agency's inspectors. That would be the norm. I may have lifted this wrongly from what the Minister said, but I did not say they would be with them every time; I said by and large they will be with them, and therefore the protection will be there most of the time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I want only to be precise. I did not say "most of the time", I said "many of the inspectors". I would not like to mislead the noble Lord.
Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish: I was paraphrasing. I managed just to write down "Send somebody to accompany" as the noble Lord was speaking, but I had the impression that at least on a number of occasions there would be a joint exercise to ensure that nothing untoward is happening. In those circumstances I understand why in certain circumstances the agency needs to go on its own, and I also understand that that reaches across to other countries, who might say, "If they can do it in Britain we can do it here, and you will have to wait 10 days before an agency inspector comes". I do not believe that would ever happen in this country but I understand the point, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of subsection (6) a certificate authorising entry by an Agency inspector shall be in a form published in regulations and of which due notification has been given in accordance with section 3 (5).").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment which almost seems to be asking about regulation and wanting more regulation, or asking how it will be done. I am asking that the certificate giving notification should be in a form that will be recognised by people who know about these matters.
I am sure the Minister knows that there are many regulations that actually set out the form in which a certificate will appear. We have almost a blank form in which the names of the people involved are not filled in, but the surrounding print is filled in and we know exactly what the form is. When someone who knows about these matters—and one presumes that the recipient of such a certificate will know about them—receives a certificate that person will be able to see at a glance that it is indeed in the form in which the certificate should be. I wonder whether we should say that the format of the certificate will in fact be published in regulation. I am sure the Minister will give

CWH 13
me some succour on this point. It is well worth just asking how the format of the certificate is to be made known. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope we have a straightforward misunderstanding here. This is not a certificate to allow entry to any premises in any circumstances. An agency inspector does not need such a certificate it order to be able to exercise the rights of entry given under Clause 5. The only purpose of this certificate is to enable the Secretary of State to resolve definitively any dispute about whether a person is or is not an agency inspector, if such a dispute ever arises in court proceedings. As you can imagine, it could well be a de fence in court proceedings if it is asked: "Is this person, or is he not, an agency inspector?" If you did not have a certificate by the Secretary of State, you might end up producing witnesses as to identity and all sorts of delay and complication in the court proceedings themselves, which would be quite unnecessary, whereas the Secretary of State, who knows, could give a certificate which would settle the issue conclusively. It would only be given when it was brought into question in court, and not before.
As to the form of the certificate, we do not yet know, because it has never been tried, what form the courts would demand of such a certificate. It is not like regulations, where it is desirable for the purposes of the general public, for there to be an agreed format. This is something the courts will determine for themselves in due course.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister. As he rightly said, I rather misunderstood the purpose of the certificate. I now understand and I am grateful for his answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 10:
Page5, line 47, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of subsection (7) above, it shall be a defence if the actions of any Agency inspector, in entering or searching premises or persons, infringe the European Convention on Human Rights.").
The noble Lord said: This is the last amendment I have. The Minister, as is now the practice, has certified somewhere in this Bill that it obeys the European Convention. However, it is just conceivable that the Minister or, more importantly, his advisors, may have missed something, and that in fact a court may take a contrary view. For example, I do not suspect that the Scottish Executive, or indeed the Westminster Government before the Scottish Executive was set up, thought for a moment that a court would find that temporary sheriffs would be in breach and create all the chaos that has been caused in Scottish courts; although at least some people have benefited, because 10 permanent ones have just been created who might not otherwise have been created quite so speedily.
We ought to make clear on the face of the Bill that a breach of the human rights legislation would in fact be a defence. The Human Rights Act is a whole new ball game and I suspect some pretty surprising conclusions will arise, such as the Scottish court case. I suspect there will be some in England, unless the Lord Advocate marks an appeal and the Appeal Court in Scotland finds that temporary justice, temporary sheriffs, temporary judges are perfectly consistent with the Human Rights convention. We shall have some surprising things. There may even be some surprising things in this Bill. I wonder whether these words should be added for the avoidance of doubt.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the noble Lord will imagine, I am very much in sympathy with the motivation behind the amendment. I have cheeky and serious answers. The cheeky answer is that technically speaking the IAEA is not a party to the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore the IAEA and its inspectors could not breach a measure to which they are not formally subject. I do not propose to rely on that argument; it would kill the amendment formally. However, I think that the noble Lord deserves a more serious answer than that.
We are confident that the rights given to agency inspectors by Clause 5 are consistent with Article 8 of the convention, on the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence, to the extent that these rights may be exercised in relation to premises within the scope of that article.
Article 8 of the convention is, as I understand it, principally concerned with domestic premises, and it is unlikely—though I concede it is not impossible—that the rights under Clause 5 would actually ever be exercised in relation to domestic premises. We are talking here about nuclear weapons, and I do not think that many of them are produced in back bedrooms.
We are confident that these rights are consistent with Article 1 of the first protocol to the convention on peaceful enjoyment of possessions. However, if an inspector acted in a way which was—to use a neutral phrase—inconsistent with the rights protected in the convention, that could be taken into account by the courts in deciding whether an offence under the Bill had been committed by someone else, if the inspector's actions were relevant to the conduct of a person charged with such an offence.
For example, if an agency inspector's actions were inconsistent with a person's right under the ECHR, that could be relevant to whether the inspector was indeed acting in exercise of a power under Clause 5 for the purposes of an offence under Clause 7, or to whether the person charged with the offence under Clause 5(7)(b) or (c) had a "reasonable excuse" for failing to comply with the request of an agency inspector, authorised officer or constable, or for interfering with things placed on land by an agency inspector. The defence of reasonable excuse is already set out in paragraphs (b) and (c).

CWH 15
Under Clause 5 as drafted an action by an inspector which was inconsistent with the ECHR could, and should, provide a defence to such a prosecution only if that particular action were relevant to the subject matter of the charge. Amendment No. 10 tabled would give anyone prosecuted under Clause 5(7) a defence if there had been any breach of the convention, even if the breach were entirely unconnected with the subject matter of the prosecution. I cannot believe that the noble Lord intended that when he drafted the amendment.
Finally, the amendment would cause confusion about the relevance of the European Convention on Human Rights to other offences by this Bill, and possibly even its relevance to offences under other legislation. One does not state in every piece of legislation that it is not in contravention of the European convention. As the noble Lord rightly said, I have signed a certificate to that effect, which is on the front page of the Bill. That is meant to cover all the provisions of the Bill. The noble Lord is perhaps familiar with the maximum legal interpretation: that to include the one implies exclusion of the others.
If we did so for Clause 5(7) alone, the implication would be that breaches of the ECHR could not be taken into account in deciding whether offences had been committed under other provisions of the Bill. We do not want that kind of confusion. There is no need to insert an express reference to the principles of the ECHR in every offence provision in the statute book. It is much better to let the courts decide on normal general principles when and how far the European Convention on Human Rights is relevant to whether any given offence has been committed under Clause 5(7) or other offences provisions in the Bill or elsewhere. I hope that the noble Lord will not seek to press his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall not press the amendment. However, it has brought forward an
CWH 16
interesting point. The AEA—I shall call it the agency otherwise I will get into a fankle—is not bound by the ECHR and yet the qualification to the Bill is that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with convention rights.
I will draw the attention of some of my legal friends to this interesting little argument, but, as throughout the Committee, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation; it certainly has been quite illuminating. I am not sure whether we go anywhere else with the amendments but I understand that it is an important Bill to try to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. Any amendments I have put forward this afternoon have certainly not been meant to inhibit that in any way, but they have been made to ensure that what we are doing is consistent with the normal practice in our country.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, concludes his remarks, may I take this opportunity to acknowledge that nothing the noble Lord has said or put in his amendments is in any way designed to inhibit the effective control of nuclear weapons. I recognise that point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for that recognition. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: That concludes the Committee's proceedings on the Bill.
The Committee adjourned at twenty-three minutes past four o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill [H.L.]
  Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

    Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill [H.L.]
    The Committee met at half past four of the clock.
    [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard.
    The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report 'stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
    I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. This Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and will then resume after 10 minutes.
    Title postponed.
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Clause 2 [Functions]:
    Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 1:
    Page 1, line 25, at end insert ("within one month of its receipt")
    The noble Lord said: This is a matter that I brought to the attention of the Minister when I was responding to the Second Reading debate. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, by inserting the wording,
    "within one month of its receipt",
    the reports that are being produced and presented to the Minister will be published as soon as possible or within a period of four weeks.
    Let me say straight away that, when the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General was the Minister for Prisons, I saw a distinct change in the way with which HMI reports at that time were dealt. They were published much more quickly and people working in the criminal justice field were absolutely delighted that they were able to find out what was contained in such reports.
    Against that, in the past, particularly when reports were fairly sensitive or were difficult in terms of criticism of government policy, the tendency was to
    CWH 18
    push them to the bottom of the pile and one did not see them for six or eight months. By that time, matters had moved so fast that the original situation that existed when the inspection was carried out was no longer relevant. That was an unacceptable practice.
    I shall be delighted—and it would be right—for HMI to present reports. However, it is perfectly feasible for such reports to be published within a period of four weeks. I understand that, from time to time, delay may occur, but the standard must be that the report is made available for public consumption in the shortest possible time. That is very much a part of the policy that the Government pursue in terms of open access to information. More importantly, however, is that it is very much in line with the Narcy Committee's report in terms of avoiding delay within the criminal justice process. If it applies to magistrates courts and other courts, why should it not apply to the Crown Prosecution Service?
    There is a maxim which says, "justice delayed is justice denied". I hope that the same applies in relation to reports. If reports are not published, they are likely to become less relevant over a period of time. I suggest therefore that it would be appropriate to insert an amendment for publication to be,
    "within one month of receipt".
    I beg to move.
    Lord Kingsland: I rise to support this amendment. I can see the technical difficulties arising from the report arriving on the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General's doorstep at the end of July, but I am sure that that is a matter that could be accommodated by agreement.
    There may be circumstances in which the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will be faced with a debate on the report in your Lordships' House and, in those circumstances, the noble and learned Lord, or his successors, may wish to have time to reflect on what they are going to say. However, I am sure that time will be given by the normal procedures that flow from tabling any Motion for debate in your Lordships' House. Therefore, I can see no circumstances in which the amendment by the noble Lord should inconvenience the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General.
    4.30 p.m.
    The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): I am very grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said about the Prison Service. This is a completely new statutory regime. Therefore those will be statutory reports. I believe them inevitably to be regarded rightly as the property of the public. I am happy to assure noble Lords that I would expect, as I am sure my successors would expect also, to lay the annual reports as soon as I receive them and. in any event, well within the one month period that is suggested by both noble Lords. There may be the occasional rare circumstance where that is not possible, as in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland; namely, were I to receive a report at

    CWH 19
    the end of July shortly before the Summer Recess. But as far as I can give any assurance—and I give it—I shall be laying these reports before Parliament substantially before the one month period. I shall not need a month to read, digest or otherwise seek to find an excuse for what is in the reports. In fact, it was a benefit to everyone, including the Prison Service, that the prison chief inspector's reports were promptly published. Therefore, I give that assurance and hope that it meets the purposes of Members of the Committee.
    Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for his support. I am very pleased with the assurance I have received from the Minister,
    CWH 20
    that not only will he ensure, as far as possible, that he will publish the report but that he will ensure also that his successor will take that issue into account. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 2 agreed to.
    Remaining clause agreed to.
    Title agreed to.
    Bill reported without amendment.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees: That concludes the Committee's proceedings on the Bill.
    The Committee adjourned at twenty minutes before five o'clock.

  Development Council, 11 November
  Development Council, 11 November
  Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999: Compensation Recovery
  Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999: Compensation Recovery
  Northern Ireland: Equality and Human Rights Commissions
  Northern Ireland: Equality and Human Rights Commissions
  Health and Social Care Concordat
  Health and Social Care Concordat
  Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999: Review of Operation
  Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999: Review of Operation
  Dental Strategy
  Dental Strategy
  Agenda 2000: Agriculture Support
  Agenda 2000: Agriculture Support
  Travel Insurance: Premium Tax
  Travel Insurance: Premium Tax
  Indebted Countries: 100 per cent Debt Relief
  Indebted Countries: 100 per cent Debt Relief
  IMF: Transparency and Accountability
  IMF: Transparency and Accountability
  The European Union and UK Jobs
  The European Union and UK Jobs
  Farmers: Mortality Statistics
  Farmers: Mortality Statistics
  The Economy: Predicted Cycle
  The Economy: Predicted Cycle
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  European Committee for the Prevention of Torture: UK Visit
  European Committee for the Prevention of Torture: UK Visit
  International Criminal Court
  International Criminal Court
  Youth Offending Teams
  Youth Offending Teams
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  WTO: UK Representation
  WTO: UK Representation
  The European Social Model
  The European Social Model
  WTO Meeting: Delegate Numbers
  WTO Meeting: Delegate Numbers
  GATT Measures and the Environment
  GATT Measures and the Environment
  WTO: UK Policy on Poor Countries
  WTO: UK Policy on Poor Countries
  Channel Islands: Arms Exports Licensing
  Channel Islands: Arms Exports Licensing
  Cats-eyes: Safety Inspections
  Cats-eyes: Safety Inspections