Sitting of 15 December 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Information Technology
    Mr. Jim Cousins: What steps she is taking to achieve full compatibility between the IT systems of Government Departments. [101542]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): Compatible IT systems can make a real difference to people. We are using the Government secure intranet to link up public servants. We are well advanced with the first phase pilot system to allow members of the public to notify Government of a change of address and we are publishing frameworks for call centres, websites, digital television, smartcards and authentication, which are the building blocks of a world-class Government IT environment.
    Mr. Cousins: I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has taken on the job of sorting out computers. The House recognises that he has the qualities and toughness needed to knock heads together and to get the job done right. However, we currently have two big computer systems—for the Inland Revenue and for the Contributions Agency—that were inherited from the previous Government; and we are commissioning new systems for Customs and Excise and for the Department of Social Security. The Government's objectives require all the systems to work together. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that happens, with the result that we have joined-up computers as well as joined-up government?
    Mr. McCartney: I give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that the problems with the previous Government's legacy and the range of computer systems will be resolved. As important is that the Government are drawing up an IT strategy for the future that covers procurement, objectives, positive outcomes and value for money. When I answer Question 4 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) I shall set out more detail of that strategy. However,
    256
    I assure the House that the quality and standards objectives of the current Government are greatly different from those of the previous Government.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: How does the Minister reconcile his IT policy with the fact that 11 of 17 Home Office IT projects are way behind schedule? Will he undertake, as a matter of principle and priority, to publish before the Christmas recess a list of all the IT projects currently under way in every Department and the success rate of those projects, including how many are late and how many are on time?
    Mr. McCartney: I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have risen to apologise for the legacy of the previous Government. Their approach to IT procurement was shambolic: no Minister took any interest in the projects, in delays, in safeguarding the public purse, or in ensuring successful outcomes. The result is that the current Government have a big job of work before them. I give the hon. Gentleman the same assurance as I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins): the current Government will get it right and we are on course to do so. In the next few months, to spring of next year, we shall review both current and previous projects to learn from mistakes made by the public and private sectors and to ensure that they are not made again.

    Anti-drugs Strategy
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the anti-drugs strategy at local level. [101543]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): There is clear evidence that drug action teams—ATs—in some areas are producing good results. In other areas there are more difficulties. We have many good examples of DATs working successfully with more than 300 voluntary organisations throughout the country on all aspects of Government policy, from rehabilitation centres to prevention work in schools. We need a fuller picture, so we have a comprehensive programme of research in place; by April, we will have a full regional breakdown of the statistics.
    Mr. Blizzard: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that it is difficult for a single drugs action co-ordinator to drive the fight against drugs throughout a large shire county? We in Suffolk have more localised drugs and alcohol forums, but they tend to consist of the usual busy people who receive little support in their locality. Will my right hon. Friend consider establishing more localised drugs action co-ordinators in the towns where the worst drugs problems are found, so that they can more effectively spearhead the fight against drugs and eradicate that menace from communities?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. In some rural areas, such as Suffolk, implementing his suggestions might help. Some areas have already established such a co-ordinator by using some of the money made available by central Government, and we are in the process of consulting DATs so that we can learn from the best practice

    257
    employed by those that have already done that. It is important both to share good practice and to build flexibility into the system, so that we do not dictate to big city areas, many of which already cope well on the drugs front. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall return in the new year with fresh proposals, if we believe that they will help.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: The Government have set ambitious targets for reducing drug abuse, especially among the young. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the most effective way to prevent young people from taking drugs is to stifle the supply entering the country and available on the streets? Although seizures have increased, availability has not declined—in fact, quite the opposite is true. Therefore, is she confident that, within the budgets available, sufficient resources are being devoted, through Customs and Excise and the police, to curtailing both supplies and the activities of dealers?
    Marjorie Mowlam: The hon. Lady should remember the cuts that the Conservative Government made to Customs and Excise—[Interruption.] To answer her question, we have provided an extra £50 million to the Department of Health and £60 million for treatment. Those are only two examples of extra money being given, out of a total of £250 million across Departments.
    Mrs. Winterton: What about supply?
    Marjorie Mowlam: The issue of supply is crucial to solving the problem. The police and Customs and Excise are working hard and I commend the actions that are taking place. It is crucial that the work is done. The money that has come in from Customs and Excise will be recycled and used to fight the problem. That is extremely helpful.
    In addition, we are addressing the question of how drugs come into the country and how to cut supply. That is crucial to making progress. Alongside that, we are trying to work at the underlying causes of drug addiction. We are working with the Prison Service so that when people leave prison they do not come out to nothing—they come out trained and have the chance of not reoffending. We are working with social services to ensure that when people come out of care the most vulnerable are not open to abuse.
    We are dealing with the problem in many different areas. We hope that over 10 years, when we have the strategy set out—it is not a problem that can be solved overnight—we shall make the necessary progress.

    Permanent Secretaries
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What plans she has to change the designation, role and employment conditions of permanent secretaries. [101544]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): I have no plans to do so but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in his answer to a parliamentary question today, the permanent secretary heads of Department are themselves driving forward a radical programme of civil service reform. That will
    258
    involve them adopting a corporate leadership role and participating in a management board for the civil service under the chairmanship of Sir Richard Wilson. That represents a major programme of change that will affect staff at all levels, including permanent secretaries.
    Mr. Prentice: I take it from my right hon. Friend's answer that Sir Humphrey Appleby is dead and buried. If we are to have a new breed of civil servants delivering on the targets on which new Labour places such great store, surely there must be absolute transparency. Those who criticise us for politicising the civil service should get short shrift because new Labour would never do that.
    There have been suggestions that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to keep a grip on Whitehall, wants to establish a Prime Minister's Department, perhaps allied with the Cabinet Office. Has my right hon. Friend any comments to make on that speculation?
    Marjorie Mowlam: My hon. Friend referred to Sir Humphrey. I had my trouble when I started working with the civil service and I did not find it easy. However, over the years of working with members of it, I have come to respect the work that they do and the impartiality and propriety that they bring to the job. I am not sure that my hon. Friend's initial comments are in any way helpful or constructive.
    We support my hon. Friend's point about transparency. When he has had the chance to read all of "Modernising government", which relates to the public service, he will recognise that transparency is a crucial part of it.
    The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's question is no.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Minister recognise that there is a remarkable coincidence, because the report to which she has referred appears just two days before the end of the evidence-taking sessions of the Phillips inquiry into BSE? Sir Richard Wilson's report on behalf of the permanent secretaries is apparently suggesting an extension of performance-related pay. Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that if there is any repetition of the bungles that were obviously characteristic of the previous Government over BSE, there will be reductions in the pay of higher civil servants?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I get the gist of the point that the hon. Gentleman is making but the nature of the report is for the civil service. It is implementing it and it is in consultation over it. I am sure that those responsible have heard the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Dr. Tony Wright: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that as a result of today's report from the head of the home civil service to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the permanent secretaries of the future will have experience of front-line delivery of services, experience of operational management and experience outside Whitehall?
    Marjorie Mowlam: Obviously, I cannot give such a guarantee, but I can say that the appointments will be open and transparent. One of the objects of the report is to encourage greater exchange between the public and private sectors, and between the voluntary sector and

    259
    both, so that best practice and good experience are shared. The process will be open and transparent. There will be some secondees—there are at present more than 100— from the private to the public sector. I hope, as does the head of the civil service, that that arrangement will continue. It is a two-way street, which can only promote the efficient use of taxpayers' money and more effective services.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that Sir Richard Wilson's report includes among the core values of the civil service its political impartiality? Will she therefore give the House two assurances—first, that the performance measures for which permanent secretaries will be held responsible will be in relation to targets for which they are directly responsible as administrators, not targets derived from the policy decisions of Ministers, for which Ministers should be held accountable?
    Secondly, given the undermining of political impartiality by political appointments such as the Prime Minister's chief press spokesman and the chief economic adviser to the Treasury, will the right hon. Lady guarantee that no further appointments in the senior civil service will be made on a political, rather than an independent, basis?
    Marjorie Mowlam: To deal with the final point first, unfounded accusations are not helpful to either party in government. I could stand at the Dispatch Box and list appointments under the previous Government, such as that of the then Mr. Burns, but that would get us nowhere. We do not make political appointments to civil service posts. The political advisers are a valuable asset because they provide a political dimension alongside the civil service. Impartiality is crucial; it exists and will continue.
    On performance targets, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the report. They are Department-linked, and I believe that that will continue.

    Information Technology
    Mr. Mark Todd: What steps have been taken to improve the delivery of Government IT projects. [101545]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): A major review of the handling of Government IT projects is under way, to identify the pillars that support successful IT projects and make sure that those are put in place in the future. Early work shows that those factors include a full assessment of the risks involved in a project, and clear plans for managing them; strong contingency plans; keeping the scale of a project manageable; making sure that both the supplier and the purchaser clearly understand the aims of the project, and their respective responsibilities; and building capacity for learning lessons from previous projects, both good and bad.
    The review will ensure that we learn lessons from past projects, so that future systems run effectively and deliver value for money.
    Mr. Todd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that full answer. He has taken out of my mouth many of the phrases connected with successful IT management. May
    260
    I commend to him the remarks of the chief executive of the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency, who also highlighted the lack of leadership skills in this area and the need to supplement IT skills in key Departments? That adds to my central point, which is that any project requires clear and accountable leadership. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. The points that I listed were not mere words. They describe a process that will dramatically improve the way in which the public sector, and central Government in particular, will produce IT projects in the future. One of the key areas is the skills and knowledge necessary to devise a project, to ensure that it is manageable, and to negotiate with those who will supply the project. My hon. Friend's remarks are well targeted. I give him an assurance that when the Government produce their IT projects strategy in March, what he said will be included in that strategy.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the Minister had a chance to look into what happened in the Home Office in relation to the IT project for passports? He will know that that was specified and ordered under the present Government, and that rather than the organisation becoming more efficient, we are told that people will have to pay 30 per cent. extra for their passports to pay for the mess that the Government created. That must surely be investigated by the Cabinet Office and the lessons learned for other projects.
    Mr. McCartney: We are prepared not only to learn lessons from what happened in the Passport Agency; part of my work is dealing with the previous Government's projects in 1995, 1996 and 1997, all of which I have to review. In fact, we have to go back as far as 1990 to resolve the problems left by the previous Government. I shall take no lessons from the hon. Gentleman about botched IT projects.

    Regulatory Impact Unit
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If she will make a statement on the work of the regulatory impact unit. [101546]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): My right hon. Friend recently set out a whole new approach to cutting Government red tape. The unit has an important role in making sure that new regulations are really necessary, do not overlap and are as comprehensible as possible.
    The unit also looks at existing regulations and asks the basic question, "Is there an alternative to regulation?"
    Mr. Chapman: Given the police's views, reported earlier this week, that their administrative burden was so great that it hampered them in their duties, and, in particular, hindered them from doing front-line work, what plans have the Government to reduce the burden of red tape, especially in the public sector, so that people can spend more time doing their jobs and less time on administration?
    Mr. Stringer: My hon. Friend is right; the police spend up to six hours completing initial paperwork for a simple

    261
    arrest. We are worried about that, and, consequently, one of my first tasks in the new year will be to visit a police station—voluntarily—to examine the paperwork involved. We are committed to ensuring that the public sector—schools, hospitals and the police—is not overburdened with red tape. We will try to find ways in which our teachers can spend more time in the classroom, our police can spend more time dealing with crime and our health workers can spend more time improving people's health.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the unit have any responsibility for regulating the speed with which Cabinet Ministers write their memoirs after leaving office? The going rate is £350,000.
    Mr. Stringer: Cabinet Ministers' memoirs are already covered by rules, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend believe that the work of the unit, which is operating under yet another new name, will mean that, next year, new measures will come before the Select Committee on Deregulation?
    Mr. Stringer: As my hon. Friend knows, next year we shall introduce a regulatory reform Bill, which will ensure that his Committee has plenty of work.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Minister refers to the announcement on 15 November as "a whole new approach". Why, only three days later, did the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), sign an inadequate regulatory impact assessment of the Representation of the People Bill? What will the regulatory impact unit do about such an assessment, which appears to ignore the credit industry's view that clause 9 of that Bill would cost industry £800 million in the first year and £600 million thereafter. Marie Curie Cancer Care told me that clause 9 would cost it between £100,000 and £150,000 a year. The regulatory impact assessment does not reflect that.
    Mr. Stringer: The matter is under review and a full regulatory impact assessment will be finalised.

    Anti-drugs Strategy
    Charlotte Atkins: What progress is being made in implementing the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [101548]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): The Government are making good progress towards the tough targets set out in their strategy document, "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain". In June 1999, the national treatment outcome research study found that, two years after treatment, former users' drug use and related offending is significantly reduced. The study supports the strategy's aim of getting offenders into treatment. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary
    262
    announced details of how £20 million has been set aside for the expansion of arrest referral schemes, which are designed to get drug misusers into treatment. That is in addition to the extra £217 million allocated to anti-drugs work as part of the previous spending review.
    Charlotte Atkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. What efforts are being made—particularly through the school system, in both urban and rural areas—to prevent young people from getting into drugs? I believe that it would be complacent to suggest that there is no drugs problem in rural areas.
    Mr. McCartney: The Government are deeply committed to dealing with what is, in effect, a war that is killing our young people. One 12-year-old in 12, one in three 14-year-olds and nearly half all 16-year-olds have tried drugs at least once. More than half of young homeless people use drugs regularly and one in 10 has tested positive for crack after committing an offence. The Government have set out basic targets to assess young people to prevent them from getting involved in drugs and to assist those who have become involved—both with their life style and in treatment programmes—to stop them using drugs, to sustain their education and employment and to give them and their families the space and opportunity to achieve a better, healthier life style.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Although I welcome the successes that the Government have been achieving, how successful have they been in sequestrating funds from known drug runners and dealers? Has further thought been given to marshalling world financial centres to do away with known drugs-funded bank accounts?
    Mr. McCartney: We are working internationally to prevent drugs from coming into this country and co-operating across international boundaries on security and intelligence issues. We are also working with developing countries to promote alternatives to growing the poppy in the killing fields. It must be made clear that the 10-year programme introduced by the Government—[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members are listening because we are talking about the youth of this country: 3,000 have died in the past year alone and that could touch any one of us, so please listen. We must make it clear in the 10-year plan that no drug baron, no drug cartel and no drug dealer can feel safe in carrying on his evil activity in this country. That requires the assistance of everybody in the community working together: the people, local government, the health service, the police, Customs and Excise and, dare I say it, Members of the House.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Minister agree that some of the saddest and most intractable examples of people with drug problems are those rough sleepers who are addicted to alcohol and other drugs? Are not the policies of the homelessness Tsarina a great encouragement and should not the House congratulate her on those new, pragmatic, practical and courageous policies?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making further announcements about investing in the care and social needs of those who are on the street. That includes access not only to accommodation, but to health care, education and training and a range of other measures that will help to bring them back into a sustainable life style.
    Mr. David Lidington: Given that about half of all drug treatment and testing orders are being breached and nearly a third have been revoked by the courts, what steps are the Government planning to take to make them more effective than they seem to be at present?
    Mr. McCartney: Without that action there would be 100 per cent. failure: no young people would be diverted into treatment programmes; no young people would be diverted from drugs into education and training; and no young people would be directed from the street into protective environments. The programme has been successful and because of it children who would have died in the next few years will live. That should be commended by all Members of the House.

    Modernisation
    Fiona Mactaggart: What impact proposals for Government modernisation will have on the Government's equality programme. [101549]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): Our commitment to modernising the civil service includes our targets to double the representation of women and ethnic minorities in the senior civil service within the next five years. Having more women and ethnic minorities in the civil service will improve our equality programme and how we deliver it for everyone, particularly through the duty on all public authorities to promote equality of opportunity.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the fact that there are no less than three Departments with lead responsibility for equality and tackling discrimination—the women's unit in the Cabinet Office, the race relations unit in the Home Office and the sex and race equality division in the Department for Education and Employment? Does she have any plans to join up the work of those Departments to make our attempts to tackle inequality and discrimination more efficient and effective?
    Marjorie Mowlam: In the Cabinet Office, we are looking into how we can prioritise the mainstreaming of the equality issue. We do that by working across Departments. My hon. Friend asked whether it is better to bring those units together. Our present view is that it is not, because if equality is central to every policy, it is better that the units are in the Departments to ensure that that policy is implemented. However, I hear what she says. We have discussed this matter, and as a result of her question we shall certainly think about it again.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. [101572] Mr. David Heath: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Heath: I thank the Prime Minister for that answer, and welcome him to the last Prime Minister's questions of the millennium.
    Why will a school in London that he knows well get from the Government next year £4,446 per pupil—and it says that it is not enough—whereas the school that my children attend in Somerset is allocated by that same Government just £2,984 per pupil? That is more than £1,400 less for each and every child in the school. His Ministers admit that that inequality is wrong, but they talk about stability for three years—I call it prolonging unfairness. When will our children get a fair deal from the Government?
    The Prime Minister: I shall not go into the individual allocations for each school. I shall merely point out that, under the Government, education spending is rising substantially. It will increase by about 17 per cent. in real terms. After what I accept were two difficult years, we are providing for the next three years the largest increase in education spending that this country has seen. That will help children in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as well as children in constituencies around the country. Class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds are falling and thousands of schools are getting the help that they need, as a consequence of which exam results are improving. As a result of the Government's education policies, we are once again increasing the proportion of national income that we spend on education. That stands in stark contrast with the record of the Tories.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: While deservedly enjoying the forthcoming celebrations, will my right hon. Friend reflect that it would be right and proper—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Indeed, I can read—to mark the contribution of older people and pensioners to this century by eliminating pensioner poverty in the next?
    The Prime Minister: We are doing a lot to reduce pensioner poverty. Millions of pensioner households receive the £100 winter fuel payment. From autumn 2000, more than 3 million pensioner households will benefit from free television licences for pensioners aged 75 or over. The minimum income guarantee will help many of the poorest pensioners. It is this Government who have cut the VAT on fuel that was imposed by the previous Government, and have restored free eye tests for pensioners, which were taken away by the previous Government. As we now know from the speech made recently by the shadow Social

    265
    Security Secretary, the £100 and all the other things we have done for pensioners would be taken away by a future Conservative Government.
    Mr. William Hague: Since 1999 was meant to be the year of delivery, will the Prime Minister tell us the latest figure for the fall in the number of police since the last election?
    The Prime Minister: I have accepted that the number of police has fallen since the last election—as, indeed, it was falling for the two and three years before the election. However, as a result of what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has now announced, the number of recruits will rise again, and police numbers will rise again. They fell in the first two years because we implemented, as we said we would, the published plans of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member.
    Mr. Hague: The number rose by 16,000 under the last Government. Why does the Prime Minister not read out the number? It must be there, in his folder. It is in the Home Office annual police statistics. The number of police has fallen by 1,062 since the last election, and this was meant to be the year of delivery. So much for delivering on the Prime Minister's promise to be tough on crime.
    If the Prime Minister does not want to give that number, will he now tell us how many more people are waiting to see hospital consultants than at the time of the last election?
    The Prime Minister: Actually, the waiting list figures have fallen. It is true that the out-patient figures have risen, as they have been rising for 10 years. The in-patient waiting lists, however, are coming down, as a result of the additional money that we have put in.
    If I may return to police numbers for a moment—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked. He said that the last Government had increased the number of police. That is correct if we take the entire period between 1979 and 1997, but, during the years when the right hon. Gentleman was a Cabinet member of the last Government, police numbers actually fell. As I have said, as a result of the additional money that the Home Secretary has allocated, those numbers will now rise.
    I can give the right hon. Gentleman the figures for the Metropolitan police. Yes, numbers fell in the first two years, but there are now over 500 more officers appointed on probation who can then take their place in the Metropolitan police, and numbers will start to rise again. I accept that during the first two years it was difficult, because we had to clear the public financial deficit and sort out the situation that we had inherited; but more investment is now going into schools, hospitals and dealing with crime. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that is the extra spending that he described as reckless and irresponsible.
    Mr. Hague: What all that waffle means is that the number of police has fallen in the year of delivery, and the plain fact that the Prime Minister does not want to read out what is in his folder. It is all there: according to
    266
    the Department of Health's statistical bulletin, the number of people waiting to see hospital consultants has risen from 248,000 to 512,000. That is the fact—actually.
    Those are people who, because of the Prime Minister, are being made to wait to be on a waiting list. The number of people waiting for two and a half years to hear him tell the truth about this has risen to 55 million. So much for delivering on waiting lists.
    If the Prime Minister does not want to give the facts about that, however, will he tell us the truth about this? Will he tell us by how much the tax burden has risen since the last election?
    The Prime Minister: Let me first deal with what the right hon. Gentleman said about health. He is wrong. We have actually treated an extra 175,000 out-patients this year, and we shall treat an extra 300,000 next year. It is true that waiting lists were rising for years before we came to office, but we have reduced in-patient waiting lists by more than 70,000 from the level that we inherited. As for tax, as I told the right hon. Gentleman a couple of weeks ago, in the first two years we cleared the financial deficit, but next year—or, rather, in the current financial year—the tax burden is falling, not rising.
    Actually—[Laughter.] This is important. I now have the figures for the Conservative plans published just before the last election by the Cabinet of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. They show that the tax burden this year and next year will be lower than under the plans that he endorsed before the election.
    Mr. Hague: We are asking the Prime Minister about his year of delivery, which he announced 1999 was going to be. It is no good saying that our figures are wrong, because they are the Government's figures. I have quoted the Home Office annual police statistics and figures from the Department of Health statistical bulletin. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that the tax burden in this country has grown from 35.6 per cent. to 37.7 per cent. of gross domestic product since he came to office, yet he said that there would be no tax increases. So that people know where their increased taxes are going, will he confirm that the cost of Government administration has risen by £1,100 million since the election—enough to pay for thousands of police and tens of thousands of hospital operations?
    The Prime Minister: I do not confirm that. On tax, the same figures that the right hon. Gentleman quoted show that this year the tax burden is falling. This year, which I said was the year of delivery, the tax burden is falling, in-patient waiting lists are falling, class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds are falling and unemployment is falling. That is precisely what we said we would do.
    As for the number of police, I have accepted that for the first two years we adhered to the plans that we inherited when we came into office, but now, thanks to the extra 5,000 recruits, those numbers will rise. Those are the facts about how we are delivering for people in this country. The right hon. Gentleman cannot actually dispute any one of them.
    Mr. Hague: The figures that I have given on the vastly increased spending on Government administration come from the Treasury's public expenditure statistical analysis.

    267
    Actually, that is where they come from. What is the point of spending an extra £1 billion on bureaucrats and advisers when the Prime Minister is not prepared to read out the facts that they put in front of him? The only way to get the truth about this Government from a Prime Minister is to ask the Prime Minister of France. [Interruption.] It is true.
    Is it not true that one of the Prime Minister's aides said to the Independent on Sunday:
    "Did we say 1999 was the year of delivery? It was always going to be next year when things really started to happen."?
    The figures show that his year of delivery has been a year of fewer police, longer waiting lists, higher taxes and more bureaucracy. Should not his new year's resolution be to keep the promises that he has been breaking over the past year?
    The Prime Minister: If I could go back through the issues, on health, the in-patient waiting lists were actually rising for years and years. They have now started to fall and are nearly 80,000 below the level that we inherited. That is the fact. Class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds are 300,000 below what we inherited. Crime is below the level that we inherited. I have already made the position on police officers clear. The tax burden is falling this year. If we are going to debate the respective positions of the two parties, it is worth saying—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order on both sides.
    The Prime Minister: We accepted that we were going to have two difficult years. [HON. MEMBERS: "The microphones are off!"] That is probably because the people operating them thought that the Conservatives had stopped listening, so there was no point in turning them on any more.
    When we came to office we had a £28 billion borrowing requirement and the national debt had doubled. As a result of the measures that we have taken, unemployment is falling, we have 700,000 extra jobs and we have got through a downturn without a recession for the first time in decades. Since someone is holding up our pledge card, let me go through it. We promised that we would keep inflation and interest rates under control—a promise kept. We promised that we would cut youth unemployment—a promise kept. We promised that in-patient hospital waiting lists would fall—they are falling. We promised that we would ensure that class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds would fall—they have fallen.
    If we adopted the right hon. Gentleman's position of opposing all the spending increases that we have proposed, where would hospital waiting lists and class sizes be then? The right hon. Gentleman also opposed the new deal that has reduced unemployment. In the end, the right hon. Gentleman can use whatever lines he likes. Yes, we had two difficult years, but we are delivering for the people of this country and their choice is between higher employment and stability under this Government or spending cuts and boom and bust under a Government led by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. David Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the Government's greatest
    268
    success stories has been the year-on-year improvement in primary school performance? Will he join me in congratulating teachers throughout the United Kingdom on delivering yet another improvement in the key stage 2 results published last week? However, will he accept that there are still problems in the presentation of the league tables in that schools representing the poorest communities can never get to the top of the tables as currently constituted? Will he assure the House that the Government will modernise the system of league tables and recognise the value added by primary schools to their pupils' performance?
    The Prime Minister: We are always looking at ways to improve the information provided by the league tables. We must take account of the fact that social factors will play some part. I have two points to make. First, as a result of the measures that we have taken for primary schools there has been an astonishing increase in literacy and numeracy. Those proposals were opposed by the Conservative party. Secondly, on secondary schools, the new specialist and beacon schools are already showing a big lift in GCSE results. That is good news for the future and it shows the difference between the two main political parties.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Leaving to one side—the House will be relieved to know—the year of delivery, will the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the House join me in acknowledging that, in terms of human progress and despite the terrible ravages of war along the way, it has been an unbelievable century of delivery in terms of prosperity, education, health, communications and so on? [Interruption.] The Conservatives seem to have difficulty with that notion. I do not know why, as they helped to contribute to it.
    Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that all that welcome progress has been purchased with one terrible toll, which is the effect on our planet's natural environment? Will he rethink his recent changes in Government policy on road building and concreting over substantial swathes of the green belt in southern England for house-building programmes? That can hardly be the right way to begin a commitment to the environment in the next century.
    The Prime Minister: The amount of greenbelt land is increasing, not diminishing. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has increased the amount that must be built on brownfield sites to a 60 per cent. target from the 40 per cent. target of the Conservatives. Therefore, those criticisms are not justified. On road maintenance, many of the things such as bypasses that have been announced by the Deputy Prime Minister are important for communities. On the environment as a whole, thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister, we have delivered through the Kyoto summit probably the biggest and best step forward in environmental standards that the world has seen for a long time.
    Mr. Kennedy: Let us move the focus away from the Deputy Prime Minister and back to the Prime Minister. During his time in office the Prime Minister has not devoted exclusively a single speech to the environment. When the Prime Minister sets that mood music from the

    269
    top, he can hardly be surprised that his Government are not behaving in an environmentally sustainable way. Why, for example, has he not honoured his pledge before the last election that he would publish a green book to accompany the Budget? Should he not take the opportunity of the new year to redouble his efforts on these issues to make sure that in the next century we begin to contribute to undoing the environmental damage of the last century?
    The Prime Minister: The criticism on environmental matters is unfair. As a result of the Kyoto summit, countries undertook an obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and this country will hit our targets. We have a set of proposals that will enable us easily to meet the Kyoto targets, and that was the biggest step forward. We also led the way at G8. It is not true to say that I have not spoken about the environment; I have spoken about it. I mentioned the Deputy Prime Minister because the Kyoto summit would have failed without him. It is a tribute to him that it succeeded.
    Ms Hazel Blears: I was delighted to be able to welcome my right hon. Friend to Salford last week, when he opened an extension to our wonderful metrolink system—which has now carried 1 million people in the conurbation. May we have his support for the massive extension of the metrolink system across the conurbation—which would help to keep our city moving and improve our environment?
    The Prime Minister: The metrolink is a great example of an integrated transport system, and its establishment has—voluntarily—reduced the number of car journeys by 2.5 million in the area. It is a great tribute to a modern transport strategy. Now, we have to ensure that we deliver that type of programme in different parts of the country.
    Sir Archie Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister think that it is right that a member of his Cabinet should sell her memoirs—for untold sums, and a reported advance of £350,000—when she is still a member of the Government?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has acted entirely in accordance with the rules.
    Mr. Hilary Benn: Since this is the season of good will towards all, will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Leader of the Opposition on his year of delivery? In particular, does my right hon. Friend agree that an astonishing achievement of the Leader of the Opposition has been to deliver a Conservative party that, today—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I must remind him that the Prime Minister is responsible only for Government policies, not for the Leader of the Opposition's achievements.
    Mr. Edward Davey:Does the Prime Minister share my concern that—despite recent improvements, thanks to the fabulous efforts of staff—patients waiting at Kingston hospital's accident and emergency unit still face painful waiting times in an out-of-date building? Will the Prime Minister,
    270
    therefore, personally intervene to ask the London region's NHS executive to confirm urgently that the new investment needed to modernise Kingston hospital's accident and emergency department will be announced? Will he give me and my constituents the assurance that the long delays in pushing ahead with the new investment will end, so that people suffering those long delays at Kingston's A and E department may, at long last, expect such waits to end?
    The Prime Minister: The regional office of the NHS Executive will be receiving the capital allocations in the first week of January, and it will be able to inform Kingston hospital of the outcome in the following week. If approved, work will start as soon as possible. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some solace that there is news on the way quickly. I assure him that the executive understands why the project is regarded as a very high priority. I should also point out that—as he will know—Kingston hospital has already received £2 million from the accident and emergency modernisation fund, and that, this year, the health authority has received an extra £11 million funding.
    I agree, however, that there is still an awful lot more to do in accident and emergency departments right across the country. That is why, by the end of next year, every accident and emergency department that needs it will have been refurbished—which is one step on the way to improving the national health service. Although Liberal Democrat Members support those changes, those capital allocations and that expenditure was opposed by Conservative Members.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the educational success of Wolsey school in Croydon in the New Addington education action zone, which became one of the top 30 improving schools in Britain through a combination of information technology, adding value to numeracy and literacy, providing breakfast clubs and fresh fruit at tuck shops—to add to nutrition and aid concentration—and using counselling techniques to improve the self-esteem and expectations of children, combined with business mentoring? Does he agree that the hope and opportunity provided by the school spreads a message throughout the land that we can provide pathways out of poverty through educational success in education action zones?
    The Prime MinisterI understand that the percentage of year 6 pupils reaching the required standard or better at Wolsey junior school has improved by 8 per cent., taking it to 84 per cent., which is a fantastic achievement for the school. Indeed, the schools in that education action zone have raised their performance by about 8 per cent. in English and an amazing 22 per cent. in maths. For all the education action zones, the average performance in maths improved by 14 per cent. Since as my hon. Friend spoke Conservative Members were shouting derogatory remarks about how Conservative support would grow in my hon. Friend' s constituency—
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Tory gain.
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman should be so arrogant as to think that. One reason why there will not be a Tory gain is that under this

    271
    Government the results have improved by 14 per cent., but the Conservative party is opposed to the very changes that made that happen. When my hon. Friend's constituents realise that the Conservatives are also opposed to the minimum wage, the working families tax credit, the new deal and sound economics, there will be even more Labour voters in that Croydon constituency.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Can the Prime Minister explain why, under the Freedom of Information Bill, information on ministerial offices, staffing levels and staffing costs should not be made available for public scrutiny?
    The Prime Minister: The provisions of the Freedom of Information Bill will allow more information to be disclosed than the code of practice under the previous Government. What is more, for the first time, there will be an independent commissioner who can require disclosure. I do not think that we should take lessons in freedom of information from a Conservative Government who opposed such a Bill at the last election and had 18 years in which they could have introduced one but refused to do so.
    Helen Jones: Does the Prime Minister agree that, on the eve of the 21st century, it shames this country to have so many people sleeping on the streets? Will he ensure that the Government not only provide accommodation but tackle the host of other problems to which many people who sleep rough are subject, such as alcohol dependency and mental health problems, so that some of our more unfortunate citizens can be given a real chance of a better life?
    The Prime Minister: As a result of the measures that have already been taken on rough sleepers, the numbers have fallen in the past six or nine months from 2,500 to 1,600, but our desire now is to ensure that we can tackle the rest of the problem. The £200 million that has been allocated from within the existing comprehensive spending review settlement will be invested in a variety of measures: new hostel beds, new housing association homes in London and a better approach to co-ordinating measures to deal with the different problems that homeless people face. It is a scandal that so many homeless people are still on our streets. This Government at least are committed to tackling that scandal and to ending it.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: Does the Prime Minister accept that his earlier answers to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition will lead many people to conclude that the year of delivery that the right hon.
    272
    Gentleman has promised has ended as a year of deceit? Will he at least come clean on the tax burden and admit that, whether or not he hopes that it will fall in the next three years, in the current year it is higher than the one that he inherited?
    The Prime Minister: The tax burden this year is falling, not rising. I said that in the first two years of this Government we had to take some difficult decisions to clear the financial deficit. I also pointed out that our tax burden is less than that planned for by the previous Conservative Government. However, there are only two choices. Either we ensure that we get rid of the financial deficit and put the economy in the shape in which it is today—where we are delivering jobs, stability, low inflation and low interest rates—or we go back to the days of the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported and of whom he was a Minister, who saw 1 million manufacturing jobs go, had interest rates at 10 per cent. for four years or more and who wrecked this country through two big recessions and had record repossessions. Everyone remembers the days of boom and bust under the Tories. Under this Government, for the first time in years, people realise that new Labour is the party of economic competence today.
    Mr. Paul Marsden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 100 years ago, in 1899, the House of Commons was prorogued for Christmas on 27 October? [Interruption.] And people complain about the length of our recesses! Is he also aware that in that year, the key concerns of hon. Members included the situation in Ireland? Is it not the case that further important developments this week in the peace process have meant that we have more grounds for optimism for a peaceful and prosperous new year in Northern Ireland than we have had for many generations?
    The Prime Minister: In respect of the recess, I hear what my hon. Friend says, as we all do, but I do not suppose that we should refer that point to the Modernisation Committee.
    There could be no better present for the new millennium than a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. We have come a very long way—things are happening today in Northern Ireland that people would simply not have believed possible before. The most heartening aspect is the sense, right across the communities in Northern Ireland, that there is for the first time some confidence and hope about the future. There are many difficulties along the way, but if a new millennium and a new start mean anything—and anything that we can look forward to—it will be a lasting future and peace for the children of Northern Ireland, who deserve a future better than the past that they have had.

Millennium Compliance
3.32 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I am pleased to update hon. Members with the results of the final monthly review of progress in tackling the millennium bug across government. The completed questionnaires, on which the review is based, will be placed in the Libraries of the House and published on the internet as usual.
The report follows my written statement to the House on 25 November 1999, Official Report, columns 183-85W. In addition to a report on central Government, I am also reporting on preparedness across the national infrastructure, including key services delivered by the wider public sector.
I am pleased to report that work on business critical systems is now complete in all Departments and agencies. That means that systems have been fixed, tested and successfully put back into operation. Business continuity plans and millennium operating regimes—BCPs and MORs—are essential safeguards against the impact of unforeseen bug failures and the other particular pressures of the millennium holiday period. All Departments and agencies also have robust and tested BCPs and MORs in place, and are keeping those arrangements under review so that they can continue to deliver essential services. An immense quantity of work has been undertaken across government to ensure completion of work on business critical systems, BCPs and MORs. I congratulate Departments and agencies on their continuing efforts.
For the central Government millennium operating regime, the Government will be operating a millennium centre from 31 December to 7 January. Staff in the centre will be drawn from the Cabinet Office Year 2000 team and Cabinet Office secretariats, supplemented by staff from Action 2000 and volunteers from other Departments; from the Y2K media co-ordination unit, supported by Departmental press officers; and from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport millennium unit.
The centre will collate information from Departments about any significant millennium problems in the sectors for which they have policy responsibility. There will also be links with similar centres in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and with the Government offices for the regions. More than 200 people in all will be involved and the team in the centre will provide up-to-the minute briefing to Ministers and the media on the emerging picture. On 26 October, Exercise Herald tested the arrangements and demonstrated that they were sound, and further improvements have been made in the light of that work.
The Government millennium centre will post all press releases and statements during the millennium period to a special website, which will also act as a signpost to other sites of interest. The website will give the public and the media easy access to information about the situation in the UK as it enters the new millennium. All this information can be found over the millennium period at www.millennium-centre.gov.uk.
Independent assessments of the readiness of the national infrastructure with respect to Y2K compliance and business continuity planning have been undertaken as
274
part of the national infrastructure assessment project run by Action 2000. Organisations within the programme were also required to have robust millennium operating regimes in place in order to achieve the top blue rating.
The process of independent assessment of the state of preparations for the date change of the UK's national infrastructure has given us one of the most—if not the most—comprehensive and objective pictures of national readiness for the date change in the world.
In my last statement to the House, I confirmed that all areas of the national infrastructure were rated as 100 per cent. blue. This means that independent assessors have not identified any risk of material disruption as a result of their full assessment, and that the public can expect a normal service. These sectors included utilities such as electricity and water, as well as police, fire, telecommunications and health care. I am pleased to report that all sectors remain 100 per cent. blue and that they will keep their state of readiness under constant review between now and the end of the year.
While there can be no absolute guarantees, the overall aim set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—to ensure no material disruption to the essential public services of the UK as a result of the millennium bug—should now be achieved. The Government and those who provide services across the national infrastructure have invested a monumental effort to meet that objective. We have less information about other countries, so we cannot be confident that there will not be problems elsewhere, but we have taken action to assess and minimise the impact of those problems on the United Kingdom.
Of course, no matter how much testing has been done, the possibility of some failures still remains, although if these occur, they are likely to be localised and short term. That is why we place so much emphasis on the need for robust and tested business continuity plans to be put in place, so that essential services can continue to be delivered.
Any disruptions that may occur over the date change could be related to bad weather or the length and scale of this year's celebrations, as much as to the millennium bug. The Government have, therefore, widened their preparations to deal with all aspects of the millennium. Even at this late stage, and with so much work completed, we cannot afford to be complacent. We need to ensure that the necessary monitoring work continues through the final weeks.
The Government will continue to lead by example and to be open and transparent about our work. I will make a further statement to the House, probably in January, on the impact of the date change on central Government and the national infrastructure.
As we approach the final days of the millennium, I pay tribute to the vast number of people in the UK across the public and private sectors who have worked tirelessly, and whose effort is almost without equal internationally, to meet the goal that we set of ensuring no material disruption in our country as a result of the millennium bug.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I apologise to you and the House, Madam Speaker, for my somewhat uncharacteristically quiet voice. I seem to have contracted a virus resulting in some form of bug.
Mr. Ivor Caplin: Did you catch it from John Redwood?
Mrs. Browning: Most certainly not.
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for making the papers available to me at half-past two this afternoon. I join her in paying tribute to those who have worked across the country in an operation that has gone on now for a long time. I have studied the detailed papers that the right hon. Lady deposits in the Library from time to time, and it is clear from reading them that a lot of work has been done in both the private and public sectors, although I did detect a slight hint of "www.not.me.guv" in the right hon. Lady's voice, in case something goes wrong. We all welcome the fact that at this date, which is so close to the end of the year, she has been able to give us such a reassuring statement.
The right hon. Lady stated that all systems have been completed. Will she confirm that that includes the testing of contingency plans? She will recall that, during her previous statement to the House on this subject, I asked about one or two individual contingency plans that still had to be tested—especially those for the Ministry of Defence. The official papers show that the MOD was not due to complete testing until December. It would be reassuring if she could confirm those points.
The right hon. Lady mentioned that lessons had been learned after Exercise Herald on 26 October. She announced the use of a website to be used by the Government millennium centre to deal with any problems. Which member of the Cabinet will have responsibility for the centre over the new year? Will it be the right hon. Lady or, perhaps, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam)? In the event of major problems, will there be a ministerial presence at the Cabinet Office centre?
Since the right hon. Lady made her previous statement, Northern Ireland has taken responsibility for its own preparations in this matter. Will she confirm that there has been a smooth transition from Whitehall to Belfast? Some late contingency plans in Northern Ireland were outstanding, such as the plan for the payment of teachers' salaries? Have those plans been sorted out?
A recurring theme in the deposited papers is that of remuneration packages in the public sector. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that all such packages have been agreed for those who will be working over the new year bank holiday to deal with any potential problems that might arise? Several of those plans were outstanding. It is important that lack of preparation should not impede the presence of key staff on the night, and afterwards, if there are problems—especially in the public sector.
I thank the right hon. Lady for her courtesy, and that of her officials, in briefing me extensively a little while ago, so that the Opposition were aware of some of the detailed background planning that has gone into the preparations.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, especially for her final remarks. I accept her thanks, especially for my staff and for the Government advisers who took part in that briefing. I am glad that she found it helpful. I am happy to record that for her to have gone through that heap of material in the Library was probably above and beyond the call of duty. I am grateful to her for confirming that it shows the position clearly.
276
The hon. Lady asked me about the testing of contingency plans at the MOD. I confirm that that work has been completed. She asked about responsibility for the millennium centre. In general, I am primarily responsible for the centre. There will be ministerial presences in the Cabinet Office during the period. The work will be shared among different Ministers; all Departments will have someone on standby and several Ministers will be available to the centre.
The hon. Lady asked me to confirm that work in Northern Ireland had been completed. I can confirm that. We experienced no problems during the handover and the transition. I am not aware that there are any outstanding problems on remuneration, although she will be aware that that matter has been settled in the individual organisations.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that earlier in the week, when I asked the vice-chancellor of a university with strong science departments what was his greatest concern about the millennium, he replied, "It's not physics or chemistry; it's the possibility of burglary and vandalism". Given that the police—like the rest of us—have families with whom they may want to spend the millennium, what can be done to monitor obviously vulnerable situations?
May I be allowed a second question? Earlier in the year, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary rightly said that he paid much regard to his talks with the Russians about the Soviet Arctic fleet. Now that relations with the Russians have unfortunately cooled, have those talks continued?
Mrs. Beckett: I hope, to some degree, to reassure my hon. Friend on his important point about the need for public services, such as the police, to continue to work over the millennium period. He is right to say that the police, like the rest of us, wish to spend time with their families. Although I am pleased to be able to pay tribute to the work of the police as a public service, my hon. Friend may not be aware that, despite that wish, all police leave in all parts of the country has been cancelled. The same applies to other emergency services, such as the fire service. The House will wish to place on record the debt of gratitude that we owe to such public servants at all times, but particularly for the commendable spirit that they have shown in these preparations.
On the Arctic fleet, I can tell my hon. Friend that, whatever the developments in general relations with Russia, there has continued to be an exchange of information, advice and co-operation. Those exchanges have taken place not only with ourselves, but with our allies. I am not aware of the specific circumstances of the Arctic fleet, but I will inquire into that. However, as I know that other work and the exchange of information has continued, I see no reason to doubt that it has continued in that case.
Mr. Richard Allan: I join the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) in congratulating the United Kingdom's information technology industry, in both the public and the private sectors, on the way that it has faced this technical challenge. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I also express my appreciation to the right hon. Lady for the responsible and sober way in

277
which she has reported to the House on these matters. That has contrasted well with the scaremongering and the attempts to make political capital that took place in the early days about what is essentially a technical challenge.
Will the report that the Leader of the House will present in January cover some of the wider issues about costs in the public sector, and will it deal with the contractual issues for Government bodies that deal with annual rather than rolling budgets?
At a domestic level, I invite the right hon. Lady to congratulate the staff of Parliament who have worked very hard to get our systems in place. I know that she has been able to write to all Members to tell them that our systems will be up and running across the millennium period. Although our constituents would probably place access to on-line Hansard slightly lower down their list of priorities than access to electricity and gas, that small example of how to approach the problem reflects very well on the staff of the House.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I shall certainly convey his thanks to all the staff who worked with me on preparing this statement. I know that his comments will be much appreciated.
I shall obviously consider the issues that we want to cover in the report back to the House. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the indications about costs suggest that they are remaining stable at about £430 million for central Government. It is harder to assess more widely than that. Figures of £1 billion and £3 billion have been suggested, and the wider costs will no doubt be of that order of magnitude. The hon. Gentleman will probably know that the costs to central Government are about a 16 per cent. increase on what was anticipated in 1997, but the figure has stayed roughly stable for quite some time.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important and interesting point about contractual issues. It will be interesting to see how they develop. One of the helpful features of the work that has been done is that it has encouraged an exchange of information rather than a contested relationship between bodies that have mutual inter-dependency. That has seen us very well in the run-up to the date change, and I hope that that attitude and experience will continue.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Can we have an assurance that the nuclear industry—both the nuclear power generation sector and the reprocessing sector—has been required to undertake to the Government that it is fully millennium compliant? Can we also be told whether Foreign Office officials have been monitoring the level of compliance by the nuclear industry in other parts of the world?
Mrs. Beckett: In addition to the assurances that it might have been required to give the Government, the nuclear industry in this country has been required to give assurances to the independent nuclear installations inspectorate, which has monitored the detail of its work and its continuity plans, such as they may be, its operating regimes and so on. All that has been independently assessed and cleared by inspectorate staff.
278
My hon. Friend asked about the monitoring of nuclear industries overseas. Part of the Foreign Office's work has been to provide as much information as it can, in the widest possible context—not just in the context of the nuclear industry—about the position throughout the world. Again, international enforcement agencies have been monitoring the position. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), there has been much international exchanging of information, advice and support in that sector. Obviously, that gives us some of the reassurance that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) seeks.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: What additional remuneration will people who are working directly for Departments get—as opposed to the additional remuneration that other people in the public sector, such as nurses and doctors, will get?
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that because there is no overall fixed regime. It has been left to Departments to make the arrangements that they need and to come to agreements with staff. Obviously, in some Departments there is a normal expectation of continuity of service that will be needed over the millennium, so different arrangements have been made by different Departments.
Mr. Brian White: My hon. Friend will be aware that the UK's role has been commended as a model of good practice internationally. However, she will also be aware that the millennium bug can lead not just to failure, but to misunderstandings. In view of rising tensions in Grozny, in particular, and in other parts of the world, can she assure the House that allowances have been made for those misunderstandings to be taken into account by the Ministry of Defence, particularly with regard to nuclear warnings? Can she assure the House that, given that the millennium bug could affect us on a number of key dates throughout next year, she will continue to report to the House?
Mrs. Beckett: I will be happy to keep the House informed. Whether we will need to have the sort of regular reports that we have had during the latter part of this year remains to be seen, although my hon. Friend is right to say that there are other key dates, in particular, obviously, the end of February.
My hon. Friend asked about misunderstandings. He may know that, for example, the American Government and Russian Government have not only exchanged information and kept each other up to date, but are to exchange personnel, so a huge amount has been done internationally to try to ensure that difficulties do not arise unnecessarily.
My hon. Friend was good enough to refer to the UK being seen internationally as a model of good practice. The House may like to know that our original Action 2000 leaflet "Home Check" was reprinted in Canada and Jersey and by Reader's Digest in China and Australia. It has been distributed to all Shell staff world wide. The business packs are being used in the United States, France and Greece. The business and domestic packs are being used in Sweden, India and worldwide by Cable and Wireless.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for the information and the

279
Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, for his work. However, we must not forget my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who started the work two and a half years ago. It is commendable that we have done all this and I congratulate everyone.
I am slightly nervous that everything is web-centric. Will the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 carry information and hotline numbers during the period? Many people will not have access to computers at school because they will be shut down. What proposals do we have to stop merchant ships and aeroplanes that are not millennium compliant docking or landing?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend asks about information being available. Representatives of the news media will be in the Government's millennium centre. They will operate freely—they will not be under our control in any sense. They will be free to report the information that they are gathering. We anticipate that some of the television media, the Press Association, and other such people will be there. We also anticipate being able to make information available, if required, on Teletext, so that it is more readily available.
My hon. Friend asked about hotline numbers. We are encouraging people to gain information about local services, which are the ones that supply their home or place of business, by collecting local numbers. From this week, there are to be advertisements in 550 local newspapers, placed by and in conjunction with local service providers, to disseminate information widely among the general public.
My hon. Friend also asks specifically about ships and airlines. I understand that any ship that has not been able to provide assurances about millennium compliance will not be on the high seas, will certainly not be allowed into port and will probably not be released to leave port in the run-up to the date change rollover. No airline is currently expected to face problems over the United Kingdom. The only airline over which a query hangs, in that it has been unable to satisfy the authorities as to its millennium compliance, does not fly into or out of this country.
Mr. David Atkinson: Given that the right hon. Lady has rightly and consistently warned the House that there are no guarantees that there will be no disruption in the first weeks and months of the new year, what is her personal advice to ordinary people, such as domestic householders, on the sensible precautions that they should have taken or should be in the process of taking?
Mrs. Beckett: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He has followed this issue since the beginning—indeed, his interest commenced far earlier than most others. His expertise is well known and I am grateful for the interest he has always shown. The only personal advice I would offer to people—indeed, the advice I intend to follow myself—is simply to make the sensible preparations that they would make for any Christmas and new year, with some slight additional recognition of the fact that they should expect more unexpected visitors who might eat and drink rather more heavily than usual.
Mr. John Bercow: We welcome full compliance and acknowledge the substantial efforts,
280
including the right hon. Lady's, made to achieve it. However, does she agree that a certain competitive tension between Departments and Government agencies to be the first to achieve the desired objective is a good thing? Consistent with that principle, will she say which Department or agency was the last to achieve full compliance and give the reason for its tardiness?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right: there is something to be said for people learning from each other and sharing best practice. However, in response to his point about potential competition between Departments, I would point out that the key to what has been achieved throughout the public and private sectors is co-operation and exchange of information. He asks me to identify which was the last Department to complete its work and to give the reason why. I think that it was the Ministry of Defence, and the reason is simple: that Ministry has infinitely more systems than any other Department. Memory tells me that, of about 30,000 systems throughout government that needed to be assessed, the Ministry of Defence has about 10,000.
Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend has been engaged in probably the largest contingency planning exercise in peacetime. It would be a great pity if all the data that have been collected were simply to be shoved aside after the key dates had been reached. Will she ensure that all Departments and Government agencies retain the data and make them available to all authorities involved in emergency planning, and to any expert groups that might be set up, with a view to extracting the best information for future planning purposes?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right: there has never been such an exhaustive reassessment and testing of diverse arrangements, including contingency plans, carried out in peacetime—the scale of the work is unprecedented. He will be pleased to learn that the Government have already set in hand a thorough process of assessment, so that we can learn as much as possible from the experience of those weeks and months, and that we intend to make that information available.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest and for the support that he has shown in this issue. As he has asked me about the things that we can learn, and as it is the eve of Christmas, I thought that I would share with the House one of the more interesting pieces of information made available to me. It is that in its testing of non-critical systems, Customs and Excise has included the need to test the hairdryer for sniffer dogs. Its continuity plan is that if it fails, it will use a towel.

BILLS PRESENTED

  MEDICAL TREATMENT (PREVENTION OF EUTHANASIA)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton, supported by Mr. Joe Benton, Mr. Julian Brazier, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Jim Dobbin, Dr. Brian Iddon, Mr. Kerry Pollard, Mrs. Marion Roe, Rev. Martin Smyth, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Nicholas Winterton and Mr. William Cash, presented a Bill to prohibit the withdrawal or withholding of medical treatment, or the withdrawal or withholding of sustenance, with the intention of causing the death of

  281
  a patient; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 January, and to be printed [Bill 12].

  CARERS AND DISABLED CHILDREN
  Mr. Tom Pendry, supported by Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. David Chaytor, Jackie Ballard, Mrs. Sylvia Heal, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Andrew Reed and Mr. Lawrie Quinn, presented a Bill to make provision about the assessment of carers' needs; to provide for services to help carers; to provide for the making of payments to carers and disabled children aged 16 or 17 in lieu of the provision of services to them; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February, and to be printed [Bill 13].
  LICENSING (YOUNG PERSONS)
  Mr. Paul Truswell, supported by Mr. Fabian Hamilton, Mr. Harold Best, Mr. Colin Burgon, Mr. John Gunnell, Mr. George Mudie, Mr. Hilary Benn, Ms Chris McCafferty, Mr. Christopher Leslie and Mr. David Taylor, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor in cases involving persons under 18; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 February, and to be printed [Bill 14].
  HEALTH SERVICE COMMISSIONERS (AMENDMENT)
  Sir Peter Emery, on behalf of Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, supported by Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mr. Alan Williams, Dr. Howard Stoate, Dr. Peter Brand, Angela Smith, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Marsha Singh and Mr. David Hinchliffe, presented a Bill to amend the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March, and to be printed [Bill 15].
  WARM HOMES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
  Mr. David Amess, supported by Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. David Chaytor, Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Ms Jenny Jones, Mr. Alan Simpson, Rev. Martin Smyth, Sir Teddy Taylor and Mr. Paul Tyler, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to draw up and facilitate the carrying out of a programme of action to provide households with a comprehensive package of home insulation, heating and other energy efficiency improvements for the purpose of reducing fuel poverty; to require the setting of targets for the achievement of that programme; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 March, and to be printed [Bill 16].

  GOVERNMENT POWERS (LIMITATIONS)
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, supported by Mr. John Bercow, Mr. John Whittingdale, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. Eric Forth, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Mr. Robert Key, Mr. Richard Ottaway, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Dr. Julian Lewis and Mr. Oliver Letwin, presented a Bill to amend the law in relation to the permitted number of Ministers of the Crown; to limit the powers of Ministers
  282
  to make certain appointments; to make provision with respect to the parliamentary scrutiny of European Union proposals and other subordinate legislation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 April, and to be printed [Bill 17].

  URBAN REGENERATION AND COUNTRYSIDE PROTECTION
  Mr. Anthony Steen, supported by Mr. Tony Baldry, Mr. Martin Bell, Mr. Crispin Blunt, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Sir Peter Emery, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Tom King, Mr. Peter Lilley, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. Patrick Nicholls and Sir Michael Spicer, presented a Bill to require local planning authorities to undertake urban capacity studies and to publish audits of derelict, vacant, under-used and under-utilised buildings and land; to place a duty on public bodies to maximise the use of previously developed buildings and land; to impose new requirements in respect of planning applications for housing development on undeveloped land or for housing development likely to have a significant impact on existing infrastructure; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed [Bill 18].
  WILD MAMMALS (HUNTING WITH DOGS)
  Mr. Ken Livingstone, supported by Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Michael J. Foster, Jackie Ballard, Ms Glenda Jackson, Mr. Norman Baker, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Ian Cawsey, Dr. Ian Gibson and Mr. Tony Banks, presented a Bill to make provision for the protection of wild mammals from being hunted by the use of dogs; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 April, and to be printed [Bill 19].
  EXPORT OF FARM ANIMALS
  Mr. Gwyn Prosser, supported by Jackie Ballard, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Vernon Coaker, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick, Mrs. Eileen Gordon, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Nigel Jones, Laura Moffatt, Dr. Nick Palmer and Angela Smith, presented a Bill to prohibit the export of live farm animals for slaughter or further fattening; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February, and to be printed [Bill 20].
  FOOD LABELLING
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien, supported by Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. Ian Davidson, Mr. Jim Dobbin, Mr. Christopher Fraser, Mr. James Gray, Mr. John Hayes, Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Mr. Owen Paterson, Mr. David Prior, Mr. John Randall and Mr. Andrew Stunell, presented a Bill to make further provision for consumers of food to be informed about the country of origin and standards of production of food presented for sale by labelling, marking or in other ways; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March, and to be printed [Bill 21].

  SEX DISCRIMINATION (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Robert Walter, supported by Sir John Stanley, Mr. Derek Wyatt, Mr. John Burnett, Miss Anne

  283
  McIntosh, Sir David Madel, Mr. David Curry, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Ms Claire Ward and Mrs. Llin Golding, presented a Bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975; to make provision with respect to discrimination concerning the provision of goods, facilities, services and access to governance by private member clubs; and to continue to permit wholly single-sex clubs and sporting events: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 February, and to be printed [Bill 22].

  BUILDING SOCIETIES (TRANSFER RESOLUTIONS)
  Mr. Tony McWalter, supported by Charlotte Atkins, Mr. David Heath, Mr. Andrew Love, Ms Christine Russell, Mr. Doug Naysmith, Ms Judith Church, Mr. David Crausby and Mr. Hilton Dawson, presented a Bill to amend the Building Societies Act 1986 in respect of resolutions at meetings of building societies relating to the transfer of the business of a building society to a commercial company or to another building society and in respect of share rights on transfer of business to a commercial company: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March, and to be printed [Bill 23].
  WELFARE OF BROILER CHICKENS
  Ann Clwyd, supported by Mr. Colin Burgon, Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mrs. Joan Humble, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms Julie Morgan, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Dr. Howard Stoate and Mr. Alan Williams, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the health and welfare of broiler chickens kept in indoor husbandry systems: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February, and to be printed [Bill 24].
  NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE RECYCLING
  Dr. Doug Naysmith, supported by Mr. Roger Berry, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Tom Brake, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. David Chaytor, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Valerie Davey, Ms Julia Drown, Mr. Don Foster, Mrs. Diana Organ and Mr. Gordon Prentice, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the collection and recycling of newspapers and magazines in England and Wales: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 February, and to be printed [Bill 25].
  HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (OFFENCES)
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge, supported by Mr. Tony Baldry, Miss Anne Begg, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson, Mr. Frank Doran, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Martin O'Neill, Ms Linda Perham, Ms Helen Southworth and Mr. David Stewart, presented a Bill to make provision about the prosecution and punishment of offences which are, or are being treated as being, offences under the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974 or the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 February, and to be printed [Bill 26].
  ORGANIC FOOD AND FARMING TARGETS
  Mr. Paul Tyler, supported by Mr. Tom King, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Colin Breed, Joan Ruddock, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Peter Bradley, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. James Gray, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Lembit Öpik and Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, presented a Bill to make provision regarding the setting and achievement of targets for organic farming and food consumption; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March, and to be printed [Bill 27].
  FIRE PREVENTION
  Mr. Peter L. Pike, supported by Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick, Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Lawrie Quinn, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Bob Russell, Mr. Peter Luff, Ms Dan Taylor, Mr. James Gray, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Stephen McCabe, presented a Bill to extend the duties of fire authorities in respect of fire prevention: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February, and to be printed [Bill 28].
  ROAD TRAFFIC
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing, supported by Mr. John MacGregor, Sir George Young, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, Mr. Oliver Letwin, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. Tim Boswell, Mr. James Gray, Mr. Desmond Swayne, Mr. Stephen O'Brien and Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, presented a Bill to make further provision about the enforcement of requirements relating to drivers' hours and about the licensing of the operators of goods vehicles; to make provision with respect to the exemption of essential users of commercial motor vehicles and operators of certain community bus services from payment of excise duty on fuel; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March, and to be printed [Bill 29].
  PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS
  Mr. Bowen Wells, supported by Mr. Tony Baldry, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Michael Mates and Mr. Ian Taylor, presented a Bill to make provision about property transactions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 May, and to be printed [Bill 30].
  PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT)
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, supported by Mr. Gwyn Prosser, Mr. Michael J. Foster, Mr. Michael Jabez Foster, Mr. Cohn Pickthall, Maria Eagle and Mrs. Betty Williams, presented a Bill to enable provision to be made for the care, disposal or slaughter of animals to which proceedings under section 1 of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 relate; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 January, and to be printed [Bill 31].

Orders of the Day
4.4 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: As I was saying last night, I do not criticise the Leader of the House for her non-attendance in the debate, even if the motion was in her name. I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who dealt courteously with several matters in the previous debate and is in his place, ready, I hope, to deal with the matter under consideration. I do not criticise the Leader of the House in that respect, but, as the motion was in her name, it would have been particularly helpful if she had been present, or indeed, if the Parliamentary Secretary had on her behalf set out the reasons for the motion.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a tendency? Does he recall that in Monday's debate on the Adjournment, when precedent suggested that the Leader of the House should be in her place, the Minister was present, but not the Leader?
Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct. Although we acknowledge that the Leader of the House is a very busy person and carries onerous responsibilities, nevertheless I should have thought that her eminent position encouraged her to be present for such procedural motions. They may not look particularly important, but we know that they can be extraordinarily important in determining the order of business.
Having had no guidance at all from those on the Government Front Bench, we are left to speculate on the meaning of the motion. I turned to "Erskine May", which is the last resort—or, for many, the first resort—when seeking to elucidate the mysteries of a motion, especially a procedural motion, such as the one under discussion. I shall share with the House, just for a short time, the entries that I found in "Erskine May" relating to messages. The nature of the messages is crucial. As we have been given no indication of the nature of the messages, "Erskine May" may help us.
I started with page 284, which helpfully tells us that when messages arise, they come after Prayers, business taken immediately after Prayers, questions and business taken after questions. That raises a number of interesting questions about the day. I assume—I could be wrong, but I am making the working assumption—that on the day in question, that is, tomorrow, we will get all the usual matters of business, with the possibility of the messages arriving.
Mr. John Bercow: Is it not possible that the Leader of the House, as a result of a particularly pressing engagement, has absented herself, but only temporarily, and that we might reasonably hope—
286
especially if my right hon. Friend is wise enough to pursue his remarks at a leisurely pace—to observe her return before long?
Mr. Forth: That must be our fervent wish, without wanting to detract in any way from the Parliamentary Secretary, who is in his place as ever, jovial as ever, and anxious to help, as ever he is. I have a modest list of questions, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to answer.
My first question is: do we anticipate a normal day's business, possibly leading up to the receipt of Lords messages?
Mr. David Maclean: I notice that my right hon. Friend quoted from page 284 of "Erskine May" and pointed out that item 6 of business taken after questions was consideration of Lords amendments. Has he noticed, however, that item 5 is personal statements? Might the motion be in preparation for the Chancellor coming tomorrow to make a personal statement about the erroneous statements that he made in the House recently?
Mr. Forth: Would that it were so. I go even further and say that I should like the Prime Minister to elucidate for the House some of the grotesque errors that he has made, no doubt inadvertently, at the Dispatch Box, including not a few this very day. We live in hope of that.
The scene is set by the apparently innocuous motion for various possibilities to arise. On page 610 of "Erskine May", I found some helpful information, as one would expect. I shall read a brief extract, as I do not want to detain the House unduly. Under the general heading "Communications between the Lords and the Commons"—
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm for those who are fortunate enough to observe our proceedings that they are witnessing a classic filibuster?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Such matters can safely be left to the Chair.
Mr. Forth: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not mean to suggest that a motion that has been properly tabled and, so far, properly debated, is an abuse of the House. I hope that he does not suggest that such matters should not be debated.
I shall return to "Erskine May" and quote from it in a spirit of helpfulness. On page 610, under the heading "Communications between the Lords and the Commons", it states:
"The two Houses of Parliament have frequent occasion to communicate with each other, not only in regard to bills which require the assent of both Houses, but with reference to other matters connected with the proceedings of Parliament."
That partially answers one of the questions that I asked earlier. I was speculating, probably rather wildly, that an accelerated legislative process lay behind the apparently innocent motion. It now appears that there is no such intention—perhaps the Minister can confirm that, and that we are probably considering
"other matters connected with the proceedings of Parliament."

287
That gives us a clue that we can work on in the absence of guidance from the Minister.
Under the heading "Messages"—we may be getting a bit warmer—"Erskine May" states:
"A message is the most simple mode of communication; it is frequently resorted to, for sending bills from one House to another"—
we have partially eliminated that possibility—
"for the interchange of reports and other documents, for communicating about joint committees or private bills, or for requesting the presence of a Member or Officer of one House, to give evidence before the other House".
It is therefore entirely possible, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) suggested, that the other place could send a message to summon the Prime Minister or the Chancellor to explain the misinformation that has flowed from the Government, not least from Nos. 10 and 11, in the past two and a half years. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his suggestion.
Mr. Hogg: Another possibility is that the other place wants to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister his reasons for believing that it is proper for the new Minister of Transport to be a Member of another place, and not accountable to hon. Members in this House.
Mr. Forth: That suggests some intriguing possibilities. More and more Ministers are in another place, and a peculiarly large percentage are from Scotland. I cannot begin to imagine the reason for that, although I am sure that they are people of great integrity and of even greater ability. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his suggestion. The nature of the relationship within Government between the two Houses of Parliament may emerge from passing messages back and forth, for which the motion provides.
I move on to page 611.
Mr. Maclean: The crucial page.
Mr. Forth: I should warn the House that I have not got into my stride yet; I am still on my preliminary remarks.
Page 611 of "Erskine May" states:
"In the Commons the reception of a message from the Lords is recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and the Journal, and any action required to be taken is normally set down for a subsequent day."
That is interesting because the subsequent day cannot be Friday 17 December as the House is not sitting. By implication, it will have to be the following Monday. In the absence of knowledge about next Monday's exact business, we are left to speculate that if a message from the Lords, which resulted from the motion, contained anything that required action, it would be
"set down for a subsequent day."
The motion does not necessarily relate to the business for one day; it could affect at least two parliamentary days. That really has surprised me, because on my initial reading of the motion I thought that only a day's business would be affected. Does not that show the value of "Erskine May"?
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way. As there will be no further
288
Prime Minister's questions before the House rises for Christmas, is it not especially significant that any Lords message might facilitate a statement by the Prime Minister on either Monday or Tuesday next week because that would enable him to put the record straight on taxation? My right hon. Friend, with his encyclopaedic memory, will recall that the Prime Minister said on 21 September 1996 that Labour had no plans to raise taxes at all, whereas today, very significantly, he did not use the words "at all" at any stage—only, and rather frequently, the word "actually".
Mr. Forth: I was not in my usual place, for reasons that I shall not go into, but I was in the Chamber and I heard the Prime Minister say that. Now that my memory has been jogged, I recall what he said previously. It is possible that such a statement might be made, but I think that my hon. Friend is falling into his usual optimism in expecting one. Be that as it may, we are left with a teasing conundrum: we not only have no idea of the content of the messages, but were we to approve the motion—which is no foregone conclusion—it may affect tomorrow's business and the business for a subsequent day. That is what "Erskine May", at page 611, allows.
We have made some progress because we have an idea of the possible scope of the business and the messages, and we know that two days business, instead of one, could be affected. I want to round off these comments by referring back to page 545 of "Erskine May", which also deals with Bills, although I think that I have, almost to my own satisfaction, eliminated the introduction of a Bill as a possibility. However, for the sake of completeness, "Erskine May" says:
"The Lords ordinarily send their bills to the Commons by the Clerk of the Parliaments, or by a clerk deputed for the purpose. When the bill has originated in the Lords a message is sent to the Commons desiring their agreement."
That reintroduces the possibility of a Bill—perhaps an emergency Bill or a surprise Bill of some kind—being introduced in the other place that may be sent to the House of Commons by message or through that process. That is rather less likely and, to set our minds at ease, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might rule it out categorically. He is in possession of much more information about what is happening in the other place, particularly with regard to Government business, although he may not be able to be absolutely categoric about private Member's business there.
Mr. Hogg: There is, of course, a further possibility that my right hon. Friend might care to bear in mind. The other place may want to communicate with the House to the effect that certain Bills now proceeding through the House are not sufficiently well thought out to justify their further progress until there has been yet further consultation. Speaking for myself, in relation to the Terrorism Bill, which was discussed last night, might not the other place like there to be further consultation before it makes further progress in the House? There could be messages from the other place about a multitude of Bills which we know the Government have in mind.
Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend has raised an intriguing possibility. Does it not highlight the symbiotic nature of the relationship between the two Houses of the legislature? There can be such intercourse

289
between the two purveyed by messages, as the motion suggests. Even on a day such as tomorrow, which the casual observer might think is one on which not much would happen in the House—
Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Forth: Yes, but I shall be concluding my remarks shortly.
Mr. Maclean: Although most observers might think that tomorrow will be a quiet day, the last paragraph of page 611 of "Erskine May" says:
"If it is necessary in the Commons to proceed upon a Lords' message on the day of its reception, the Speaker informs the House between the orders of the day (or may even interrupt the business under discussion)"
and
"the House having ordered the Lords' message to be read and considered…motions are made and questions put from the Chair".
Has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility that the Government anticipate important messages from the Lords tomorrow and intend to bounce the House by putting important questions from the Chair on a day when they expect slack attendance?
Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has typically teased out a point that had escaped my attention. I had not realised the importance of that paragraph on page 611 of "Erskine May", because I had been concentrating on the previous paragraph. My right hon. Friend may expand on that point if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because he has obviously given it more consideration than I have been able to do in my brief preparation for this important debate.
I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will agree that we have identified under this motion some possibilities that deserve a brief debate, and certainly merit an explanation from the Minister. Were the Government to decide, unusually for them, that in future they will do the House the courtesy of explaining briefly their intentions in these procedural motions, it could save time. By not doing so, they display the arrogance of assuming that we will nod everything through. They have made sinister references to the usual channels, which they seem to think determine what happens in the House. If I do nothing else, I should like to disabuse them of that.
Mr. Hogg: The important point about the usual channels is that, although Front Benchers can commit themselves, they cannot necessarily commit their Back Benchers.
Mr. Forth: That is the case on the Conservative Benches, but it remains to be seen whether it is also the case on the Government Benches. That is the valuable point that I hope will emerge from this brief debate.
Should the Minister catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will be able to satisfy me, if no one else, on the points that I have raised, so that I can decide whether 1 think the House should divide on this issue to express its view. I believe that that is a modest request.
4.22 pm
Mr. David Maclean: There are some important issues to be dealt with in the motion. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) dealt with them last night and, more particularly, today. The House knows that my right hon. Friend has drastically telescoped his remarks so that they do not interfere with our consideration of the important Bill that is before us today.
Opposition Members who are present on Fridays—my right hon. Friend and I are often here on a Friday—will realise that, had my right hon. Friend wished to pursue these matters in much greater depth, the House would be discussing them for a few more hours. If some of my right hon. and hon. Friends came to assist him, we could be debating the motion until 10 o'clock tonight. However, it is not my right hon. Friend's intention, nor is it mine, to prolong these proceedings unnecessarily.
I hope that Labour Members have learned an important little lesson from our brief discussion of this motion last night and today. The Minister is an honourable, decent man, and I suspect that he listened to the advice of the champagne socialists in the Whips Office sitting on the Front Bench with him, who told him, "Bounce it through on the nod and keep your mouth shut. Don't say a word. It's late at night and they all want to go home to bed. Just put it through without explanation." It may have seemed good advice at the time, but I suggest to the Minister that it is not the way to proceed if he wants such motions put through reasonably quickly.
Mr. Forth: Has my right hon. Friend thought about what might happen if a message from the other place had to be dealt with by a Minister in this House who was at that very time engaged in the Disneyland Chamber that we mistakenly set up somewhere off Westminster Hall? Has he thought of the procedural implications that could arise from a message from the other place, were the relevant Minister to be wasting his time in futile debate in a pretend Chamber?
Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is right. I am not sure whether the Serjeant at Arms could extract a Minister from the banana republic parish council that we have created above the Westminster Hall Cafeteria and bring him to the Chamber so that he could deal with a message. I do not want to pursue that, but the Modernisation Committee may wish to.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is conveying his own messages to the Government Front Bench about the dangers of taking the House for granted. One message that he may wish to convey is this: if Ministers ever seek to provide Government time for the promotion of a private Member's Bill that would infringe the rights of my constituents, they can be sure that every parliamentary opportunity will be taken by Members who defend human rights.
Mr. Maclean: I think that we have all noted the underlying point made by my right hon. and learned Friend. I look forward to seeing him here every Friday in future when private Member's business is being dealt with. I also look forward to co-operating with the Government to ensure that the rights of all our constituents are protected, at least for the time being, until important inquiries are completed.

291
I was making a straightforward point. The Government will be able to conclude their business more quickly if they do the House the small courtesy of explaining what are, in some cases, simple and innocuous measures. If they do not do that, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I, along with others, will conclude that they may have a more devious and sinister purpose, and will wish to explore what they are up to in more detail.
Let me give the Minister a good reason for not obeying his Whips Office in future, but trusting his own instinct and judgment, jumping to the Dispatch Box and telling the House what the Government are doing. A late lamented Transport Minister—I believe that she was once an actress—did not appreciate that, to get a Bill through the House on a Friday, she must treat the House with a certain courtesy. She became rather grumpy when a Bill that she hoped would be bounced through in 10 minutes took about five hours to debate because the House was giving it proper scrutiny.
That lady is no longer a member of the Government, which is a source of concern to some of us who would like to oppose some of her other transport measures. Because she treated the House with discourtesy and contempt, she did not win favours from her own Back Benchers. If the Minister wishes to earn favours from his Back Benchers, to conclude business by 10 pm and to get it passed, a simple explanation at the outset would be helpful. It is not good enough for him to explain that a measure is innocuous after Opposition Members have made their speeches.
I urge the Minister in future to tell us what a motion is about at the beginning, so that we do not have to drag it out of him at the end.
4.28 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The House should be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) for taking the opportunity to clarify, or at least to seek to clarify, the purpose that lies behind the motion. He has also done something else, which the Government would do well to consider: he has made it clear that, if the Government ever act in a way that is not consistent with what hon. Members think to be right, a range of possibilities are open to hon. Members to put obstacles in the way of business, and to do so in a way that is proper.
I was here earlier when the private Members' Bills were introduced. I noticed that they included the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. Any attempt to bang that Bill through the House will attract a great deal of discussion on every possible occasion. I will not be alone in going a long way to ensure the rights of our constituents to go fox hunting.
My other point is made in the spirit of helpfulness. The Order Paper often contains motions, the impact of which is unclear. I congratulate the Government on the new Order Paper, which is an improvement on what we had in the past, but it would be helpful if it gave some indication of the purpose and impact of many of the orders that we are asked to pass on the nod. The usual channels could have a profitable discussion about that. If the impact of some of the motions and orders could be set out, perhaps in an appendix, Members of Parliament such as me would have a clearer view of what we are being asked to do and we might well find that, on occasions such as this, business would pass through the House more expeditiously.
292
I am delighted to know that there are agreements between the Front Benches. That has always been so. However, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said last night, some of us feel that the rights of Back Benchers can never be compromised by agreements between Front Benchers. Front Benchers speak for themselves, but they do not necessarily speak for their Back Benchers.
4.31 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: There are occasions in the House when I am reminded of Richter's words to the third flute:
"Your damned nonsense can I stand twice or once, but sometimes always, by God, never."
My right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) have demonstrated that poachers can certainly make good gamekeepers and gamekeepers can make even better poachers, because they have been usual channels in the past. They have performed a valuable service to the House this afternoon, because they have given the Government a timely warning. One can have no objection to the measure that we are debating, but the Government should be careful about trying to slip things through too quickly.
4.32 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I apologise to the House for being a poor substitute for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I shall pass on the good wishes that have been expressed to her. Hon. Members will recognise that she is a regular, courteous and punctilious Member of the House.
The motion was debated for a limited period last night and for a slightly extended period today. The phrase "teased out" has been used several times. Some of my hon. Friends will feel that some teasing has gone on.
Let me try to set the record straight. The motion allows the Speaker not to adjourn the House tomorrow until any messages have been received from the Lords. The matter was referred to in last week's business statement, when no objections were raised.
There is nothing new in the procedure that we are advocating. There is a long-established practice of facilitating the quick and easy passage of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which will be before the House tomorrow. I anticipate that we may receive messages from the Lords by the end of the day.
Mr. Hogg rose—
Mr. Tipping: I am keen to make progress. There has been plenty of teasing.
With that explanation, I hope that we can move on to the Representation of the People Bill and making sure that this Parliament is for the people.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
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.

Orders of the Day

  Business of the House
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [15 December],
  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. Mike Hall.]

Representation of the People Bill
Considered in Committee.
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]
Ordered,
That the Bill be considered in the following order, namely: Clauses 1 to 8, Schedules 1 to 3, Clauses 9 to 12, Clauses 13 to 16, Schedules 5 and 6.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien]

Representation of the People Bill
  Clause 1

    NEW SYSTEM OF ELECTORAL REGISTRATION
    4.34 pm
    Mr. Harry Barnes: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 1, line 17, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 18.
    The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 31, in page 2, line 6, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 7.
    No. 34, in page 2, line 23, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 24.
    No. 36, in page 2, line 38, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 39.
    Mr. Barnes: The Bill extends the scope of the franchise to homeless persons through a declaration of local connection, to those remanded in custody and not yet convicted and to patients resident in mental hospitals who are not detained offenders. I support all those measures. However, if the franchise can be extended to those categories, are there not some other categories that we might consider for such an extension? My amendments would extend the franchise to overseas citizens resident in this country, in addition to the Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens who already qualify if they reside here. I understand that it would amount to about 850,000 people.
    The franchise should not go to people of voting age unless they live in a society that is making legislation that affects them. There might be a limited number of exceptions to that, such as people in such a condition that they cannot exercise a vote. Later in the Bill, we will be discussing the opposition to registration of overseas electors, and the same principle will apply. I am talking about enfranchising people of qualifying age who are members of a society with a parliamentary governmental structure that makes decisions affecting their lives. That should include people from overseas who are resident in this country but are not citizens of the Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland, but exclude people from this country who go overseas and who should be subject to the same principle in the country in which they settle.
    I seek to enfranchise people who are dependent on decisions made by elected representatives on laws, basic services, environmental protection, health and safety provision, taxation and economic prosperity. Those are all things dealt with by the House. They affect the lives of anyone who has settled in this country from overseas but not taken British citizenship.
    Welcome though these measures are, I want the Minister to explain why the Bill goes only part of the way to overcoming the current disenfranchisement problems.
    294
    Perhaps we should consider enfranchising other groups, such as prisoners. After all, the powers of the law affect them closely. Why are citizens of the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland enfranchised in this country when other overseas residents are not?
    The Commonwealth has been expanding recently. In 1990, Namibia joined the Commonwealth; in 1994, South Africa re-entered; in 1995, Mozambique and the Cameroons joined; and Fiji rejoined in 1997. Therefore, people from those countries who have settled in the United Kingdom are now entitled to be enfranchised here.
    If a country should leave the Commonwealth, people from that country who are settled in the United Kingdom will lose their entitlement to enfranchisement here. No great feat of logic is necessary to appreciate that consequence of a country leaving the Commonwealth.
    As the Commonwealth expands, ever more people who settle in the United Kingdom will acquire the right to vote here. However, the Commonwealth will not expand indefinitely, until it comprises every country on earth. Furthermore, such a peculiar development should not be necessary to ensure that people living here receive what should be an entitlement.
    I therefore ask the Committee to accept that everyone who is affected by the laws passed by this place should be able to have their say in elections, as those elections will affect their lives.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but concede that there is some intellectual force in his argument. However, is he suggesting that the right to vote should be extended to overseas persons who have been here but for a very short time, or is he saying that there should be an extended requirement of residence in the United Kingdom as a precondition to enjoying the franchise?
    Mr. Barnes: The arrangements for residents from places other than the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland should—as my amendments propose—be the same as those for Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman feels that the current arrangements for Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens are too easy, perhaps an appropriate amendment should be tabled.
    My aim is a simple one: to clarify the principle by which the franchise is granted.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: One approaches any amendment moved by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) with respect, for he has a long history of being concerned with the franchise and has given considerable thought to these matters. However, I am not entirely persuaded that, on this occasion, he is on the right lines.
    In supporting his suggestion that we should extend the franchise to all United Kingdom residents, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be citing anomalous arrangements—in some respects, they are anomalous—that allow the franchise to be exercised by citizens of the Republic of Ireland and of Commonwealth countries, and suggesting that we should extend the franchise to the point at which the link between the citizen and the state ceases in any real sense to be the reason for entitlement to exercise the franchise.

    295
    Although I do not think that, in the ambit of amendment No. 29, it is necessary to consider the appropriateness of permitting Commonwealth citizens to vote here, in his reply to the debate, the Minister may want to say at least something on the issue.
    The link between the citizen and the state is a reciprocal one: the state has the duty to look after its citizens, and the citizen must exercise his or her duty to be interested in how that service is provided. The notion of citizenship would be under challenge, perhaps even under threat, if that very considerable right were partly diminished by being no longer a characteristic of citizenship, but simply the happenstance of residence.
    4.45 pm
    The basis of the hon. Gentleman's case is that those who are affected by government should have a right to choose the Government. That is not the basis of the duty and the right to vote as I see it. Many people affected by the Government may not be resident within the United Kingdom. Many people who are not resident but who are citizens may be affected in so far as, for example, tax and inheritance laws and the ownership of property here are concerned. Their entitlement to vote rests upon their link with this state as citizens. I wish that position to be preserved.
    We shall return to the subject of foreign entitlement to vote. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised an important question about the somewhat anomalous situation of those who are entitled to vote but who are not citizens. We should consider whether we should tackle that matter. It is perhaps strange that, as he put it, citizens of Namibia should be entitled to vote but not citizens of France. After all, the latter belong to a polity, if not a state, with which we have close—almost constant—exchanges and it is conceivable that, if the offer that Mr. Winston Churchill made to the French Government in 1940 had been picked up by the then Prime Minister, we would have enjoyed common citizenship. I do not know what the Conservative party feels with the benefit of hindsight about relations with France—
    Mr. John Bercow: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is particularly important as we debate the Bill that no one either deliberately or inadvertently misrepresents the greatest Englishman of the 20th century? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the late Sir Winston Churchill said of Europe and Britain's relationship with it:
    "We are with Europe but not of it. We are linked, but not comprised. We are interested and associated, but not absorbed."
    Mr. Maclennan: I merely repeat my reminder that Mr. Churchill, as he then was, made that bold, imaginative and historically percipient offer of common citizenship to the French, which they did not choose to accept. In his view of what it was to be British, he was not exclusive, as some members of the Conservative party are today.
    The question of the entitlement of European Union citizens to participate in votes in each other's countries is growing in importance. That question has already been tackled for local government elections, where somewhat different conclusions have been arrived at, and it is time that we tackled it for national elections.
    296
    The amendment weakens the significance of citizenship and would, to some extent, sever an important link in the minds of British people to what it means to be British—the duty of voting for the Government or against is something that they should value and see as a duty that stems from the fact that they enjoy the privileges associated with British citizenship. Without more argument, I could not find it within myself to support the amendment.
    Mr. Hogg: I support what the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has said. I respect the view of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes)—there is an intellectual case to be made for it. However, his proposal is quite a serious mistake, and I have three points on which he might like to reflect.
    First, if we were starting from scratch, we probably would not extend the franchise to citizens of the Commonwealth or Ireland. Their right to vote has happened for historical reasons, but it is quite difficult, if one sets about defining why people should have the vote, to say with any great confidence that citizens of Ireland or the Commonwealth should have it. Therefore, I do not start with that fact as the working assumption of what is right and proper.
    That takes me to my second point, where I am, rather unusually, largely in agreement with the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. I think that the right of voting—the duty to vote—runs with citizenship. It is part of that relationship with society that involves affinity and allegiance; it is part of being a member of a society. I do not think that the right to vote should go beyond that. I certainly do not think that it should arise simply from the fact that a person is affected by the consequences of legislation.
    One has only to reflect on this fact to see the force of what I have just said: anybody who passes through the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, for even the shortest time, is affected by our criminal law. It would be absurd to say that, because anybody who passes through the jurisdiction is touched by the criminal law, such a person should, if he or she happens to be here at an appointed time, have the right to vote.
    That takes me to my third point—I am putting my argument very briefly. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire when I say that his proposed qualification for the franchise is met by casual residents only. He would have a much stronger case if he argued that the overseas citizen who had been here for an extended qualifying period—we can discuss what that should be—should have a right to vote. That person then has some of the characteristics of being part of the society, although such status falls short of being a citizen.
    For those three reasons, I cannot support the hon. Gentleman's amendment, although I do not say that his case is wholly without intellectual force.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), and I have a few questions for the Minister.
    First, given the improving relationships between the people in Ireland, north and south of the border, do the Government have any plans, and is there any work in

    297
    train, to give to United Kingdom citizens living in the Irish Republic the voting rights that Irish citizens have when they live in the United Kingdom?
    When the Minister was on the working party, he must have received more papers on reciprocal voting rights than on anything else. How many other Commonwealth countries, if any, give resident United Kingdom citizens the right to vote? Do the Government have any plans for that to be rationalised? Has it been taken up in the Commonwealth conference or by the Commonwealth Secretariat?
    The linked question touches on points raised by my right hon. Friend and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Do the Government believe that, no matter which other new countries might join the Commonwealth—for example, two recent new members have not been part of the usual Commonwealth tradition—the right of those citizens to vote here will be retained?
    Finally, I have many Irish citizens and Commonwealth non-UK citizens in my constituency. When they reside here and go on the electoral register for the first time or when, as Commonwealth citizens, they come into the country to settle, does anyone ever tell them that they have a right to vote? When they appear for the first time on the electoral register, is any effort made to tell them their right, what the process and the methodology is, and what the implications are? Some of the people on my electoral roll who vote least are those who are entitled to do so, but are not United Kingdom citizens. That includes Irish and Commonwealth citizens—especially Commonwealth citizens—who probably do not know that they are entitled to be on the register, but who would put themselves on if they were encouraged more clearly to do so.
    Mr. Martin Linton: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question can be seen from the surprised look on the faces of Australians and many others when one tells them that, if they were registered, they could vote in this country. No one ever tells them that, and it comes to all of them as a complete surprise.
    Mr. Hughes: That is the impression that I get. I know that we all get the form through the letter box and that the small print says, "UK, Irish or Commonwealth citizen," but, as an honest seeker after truth, I suggest to the Minister that we ought to have a system that works and that the people who have entitlements under it understand.
    Mr. Bercow: While I understand the force of what the hon. Gentleman says about informing people of their entitlement, I am less clear why he believes that that category of persons should be informed of, as he put it, the implications of their vote. Is it really necessary to create a different category of electors? That would be the result of the logic of what he is saying.
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman misinterprets my logic. UK citizens who are born and grow up here, if our system works, should have been taught, by the time that they leave school and are entitled to vote, about voting and citizenship, and the implications of them. If people
    298
    are brought up in another country and come later in life to this country, they may not have been taught about the implications of citizenship in the UK. My suggestion is not meant to be heavier than that. It seems that, when people of certain nationalities cross the border, nothing automatically tells them what coming to settle here entitles them to.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I intend to keep my comments brief, but I am bound to say that I share the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) is one with which I cannot agree. However, the hon. Gentleman is certainly right to point out the anomaly in relation to the existing law on Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Irish Republic.
    Before I looked at the totality of the hon. Gentleman's amendments on the amendment paper, I wondered whether he was proposing to delete the right of Commonwealth and Irish citizens to the franchise. That is a view with which I would have been unable to agree. It is perhaps worth bearing it in mind that, certainly in my constituency, the issue tends to be raised frequently. People ask why Commonwealth and Irish citizens should have the vote.
    What appears to have happened—I shall be interested if the Minister will confirm this—is that, at one time, Commonwealth or Irish citizenship virtually entitled a person as of right to a British passport once he or she was resident here. It is certainly not the case for Commonwealth citizens today although, curiously, it still applies to citizens of the Irish Republic. To all intents and purposes, Irish citizens are treated, if they so elect, as if they were British citizens. They can apply for a passport and obtain one without any difficulty. For Commonwealth citizens, the anomaly remains solely in terms of electoral law.
    Mr. Linton: If the hon. Gentleman describes the right as an anomaly, is he suggesting that it should be withdrawn?
    Mr. Grieve: It is one with which I am perfectly happy to live, especially in relation to citizens of the Irish Republic, curiously enough, because close links exist between our two countries. They are links of both proximity and interchangeability in terms of travelling back and forth across the Irish sea. In relation to Commonwealth citizens, justification of the anomaly is much more tenuous. Nevertheless, the anomaly has been around for a long time. I am always open to persuasion on the issue from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and from my constituents, but I am happy to live with the anomaly.
    5 pm
    The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire would widen the issue much further. I share all the reservations that have been expressed by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). The amendment would take matters too far; it would allow casual residents to have the vote. We are happy to welcome all sorts of people to our shores, to live in this

    299
    country for greater or lesser periods. However, that does not make them citizens of the United Kingdom, any more than we would be citizens of a foreign country if we chose to reside there without obtaining citizenship. Those rights should not be extended. Although, with a caveat to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I am prepared to live with the existing anomaly, I am certainly not prepared to have it extended further.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Amendments Nos. 29, 31, 34 and 36 affect the rights of people to vote and to register to vote at parliamentary and local elections. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) seems to be alone in proposing the amendments and may be alone in supporting them.
    The issue was discussed by the Select Committee on Home Affairs during 1997 and 1998; the Government responded to the Committee on 26 October 1999. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) put the matter into its historical and intellectual context. Paragraph 118 of the Select Committee's report noted that the Committee did not believe that there was a compelling argument for extending the right to vote. The Government agreed.
    The matter was considered by the Home Affairs Committee in the 1982–83 Session, and the then Government accepted the Committee's recommendation that there should be no change. Indeed the then Opposition spokesman on Home Affairs, a Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk—where is he now?—said:
    "We agree with both the recommendation of the Select Committee and the proposal in the White Paper that there shall be no disturbing of the right held by Irish and Commonwealth citizens."—[Official Report, 27 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 1075.]
    That statement holds good today.
    The amendments are an attempt to widen by about 850,000 the number of people eligible to register to vote, although the working group did not consider that matter. Anyone with a main, or sole, residence in the UK would be eligible to register to vote. The legislation allows for Commonwealth and Irish citizens living here to vote; the amendment would mean that anyone from any part of the world who was living here would get a vote.
    I realise that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire has given the matter considerable attention, but he has not fully thought it through. The amendment would mean that the citizenship test would be replaced by a residency test. That could be jeopardised, or further widened, by other measures in the Bill, such as the declaration of local interest. Taken with some of the hon. Gentleman's other amendments, the measure would disenfranchise British citizens who had moved abroad for a period, while enfranchising any Tom, Dick or Harry—I intend no offence to the hon. Gentleman—who had just entered the country.
    The hon. Gentleman is not interested in how long such people might have been in the country. Indeed, he even offered amendments to his amendments to try to deal with the problem. At least he realises that there is a problem. However, he is not interested in the length of time that people have lived in the UK. He pays scant regard to the rights of those who were born in this country, lived most of their lives here and paid their taxes here. His later amendments would deny the vote to Mr. Ashcroft, for example, but the first amendment would give the vote to Mr. Fayed, who is not a British citizen.
    300
    What about asylum seekers—60,000 of them it is estimated this year? Under the hon. Gentleman's amendment, they would be able to vote. As we know, they tend to congregate in certain parts of the country, so they could determine the results in some key seats. They would also have power disproportionate to the time that they have been in this country. They might be bogus asylum seekers, but they could argue that they are fleeing their homes and that their main residence is in the United Kingdom. To all intents and purposes, they would be correct and they would be given the right to vote as well.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect further on his amendment. If he does not withdraw it and it goes to a vote, I hope that the Government will be consistent and stick to their original intentions.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I should explain my presence at the Dispatch Box. I am on a no-fee, one-day transfer from the Northern Ireland Office to the Home Office. Whether that transfer is extended may well depend on my performance today.
    I am well aware, as is the whole House, of the interest that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) takes in electoral matters. Members have listened—some slightly more critically than others—to his arguments for his amendment, but when he speaks on electoral matters he does so with sincerity and from a background of considerable knowledge.
    I wish to deal with some of the issues raised in the debate before I deal with the substance of my hon. Friend's argument. When he moved the amendment, he implied that, if a country leaves the Commonwealth, its citizens automatically lose the right to vote. Strictly speaking, that is not so. When South Africa, Fiji and Nigeria were suspended from the Commonwealth, their citizens still enjoyed that right. My hon. Friend's assertion does not stand up in those limited circumstances.
    My hon. Friend will understand that I am correcting him for the sake of accuracy and not to make clever debating points. However, he suggested that the Bill will extend the franchise to remand prisoners and to mental patients. Again, that is not, strictly speaking, correct. Homeless people, remand prisoners and, for that matter, mental patients already have the right to vote. The Bill's provisions will simply make it easier for them to register and thereby gain access to the vote. I am not making a pedantic point, but it is necessary to make that distinction.
    My hon. Friend may not so much have been making an argument as flying a kite when he suggested that it might be possible, or perhaps even right, to consider extending the franchise to convicted prisoners. He may not have meant that as a firm proposal, but as a suggestion it should be considered. However, there is a distinct difference between a remand prisoner and a convicted prisoner. The absence of rights, including the right to vote, is part of the punishment of a convicted prisoner. I can confirm, if any confirmation is necessary, that the Government have no intention of taking up my hon. Friend's proposal. We still believe—and I would be happy to justify this—that it should be part of a convicted prisoner's punishment that he loses rights, and one of them is the right to vote.
    The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) made a characteristically interesting speech about the link between duties and rights

    301
    and between citizenship and the vote. That was a useful point to make. Alongside rights—including the right to vote—always go obligations, duties and responsibilities and it is right to consider them.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made an important point: whatever the historical reasons for their existence, the arrangements with the Commonwealth should not necessarily be taken as a precedent for arrangements with other countries that currently do not apply. That was a good point and we should bear it in mind.
    The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked several specific questions. I should like to take a little time responding to them. United Kingdom citizens already enjoy full voting rights in the Republic of Ireland, so the reciprocal arrangement to which he referred already exists.
    I am not aware of any Commonwealth country that gives UK citizens voting rights in its national elections. Equally, I am not aware that we have ever pushed for any such arrangement. For reasons of history, the position in this country is different from that in former Commonwealth countries; the reverse situation does not apply. Any country that joins the Commonwealth will enjoy all the benefits of membership, including the right to vote in elections.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about providing information to people to enable them to understand their specific rights. He will be familiar with the electoral registration form—it goes to every household and makes it clear who is entitled to be registered to vote. In addition, the Home Office conducts general election campaigns, on a non-party political basis, to raise people's awareness of their rights in respect of elections.
    I recognise, however, that often not only citizens from the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland, but people who have an automatic and clear right to vote by virtue of being born and resident here, do not understand what their rights are in relation to voting. That is part of the reason why the Bill exists and was felt to be necessary. I hope that much more information will be available on who is eligible to vote and, where appropriate, information for those who have difficulty reading English to help them to understand their rights.
    As regards the substance of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for North—East Derbyshire, I want to deal with some of the important points that apply. Under the Representation of the People Act 1983, those entitled to vote in parliamentary and local government elections are British citizens, other Commonwealth citizens and those from the Republic of Ireland, as we have discussed. In addition, European Union citizens are allowed to vote in local elections.
    As my hon. Friend acknowledged, the amendment would remove all such nationality requirements. Anyone of any nationality would be able to register and to vote in both parliamentary and local elections, provided that they were resident, over 18 and not otherwise disqualified. It would not matter how remote their ties with this country were, or for how long or short a time they intended to stay here. That is neither a sensible nor satisfactory position. I do not think that anyone who has spoken in the debate has put forward the proposition that that is a sensible arrangement for us to consider.
    302
    I am bound to point out, as others have, that we are not alone in that view. The Select Committee on Home Affairs considered the issue in its report on electoral law and administration, which was published last year. Its conclusion was both wise and unambiguous:
    "We do not think the present voting entitlements for non-UK citizens need extension".
    It could not have been clearer. That report was the product of an all-party consensus and it would be folly if the House were to depart from that consensus tonight.
    5.15 pm
    Mr. Bercow: Unless I have misinterpreted his remarks, the Minister appears to be relatively sympathetic to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that more information should be provided to electors—especially those who are exercising their right to vote for the first time—about the elections in which they are thinking of voting. Does the Minister believe that, in due course, for the benefit of electors, detailed information should be provided explaining exactly the powers available to the respective bodies to which elections are to be held, so that voters know what are the powers of the European Parliament, the House of Commons, district councils, borough councils, county councils and so on?
    Mr. Howarth: The general principle is reasonable. The hon. Gentleman might recall that, immediately prior to the most recent elections to the European Parliament, the Home Office published a leaflet, available in several languages, giving those sorts of facts about the European Parliament. It is important that people have access to such information. As one who stands at the Dispatch Box on a temporary, no-fee transfer, I do not want to commit the Home Office to taking specific action in future—and even though the prospect is tempting, I shall resist doing so. However, the hon. Gentleman's general proposition should always be part of our considerations.
    The working party that I chaired, which enjoyed a cross-party consensus and on whose work the Bill is based, bore in mind our responsibility, through legislation and other means, to make it as easy as possible, without compromising the integrity of the ballot, for as many people as possible to vote. Part of that requires people to understand why and for what they are being asked to vote, and the powers of the body involved. Therefore, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's plea to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will not fall on deaf ears.
    There are good and historic reasons why Commonwealth and Irish citizens may vote in our elections. The Maastricht treaty, which the House endorsed, gave all European Union citizens reciprocal voting rights in local elections in EU member states. I inadvertently omitted to mention the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who referred to the voting rights of citizens of the Commonwealth and of the Republic of Ireland. During his speech, it struck me that his most illustrious predecessor is Disraeli, who incorporated in the 1867 Reform Bill the so-called fancy franchises. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that we are creating the modern equivalent of the fancy franchises, but it is appropriate that a Member representing Beaconsfield should participate in this debate.
    There is no reason—good, compelling or otherwise—to extend voting facilities to those who come from countries with which we have no historical ties and who

    303
    might have no affinity with Britain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire for giving us the opportunity to debate the subject. However, I hope that, having had our debate, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment, because we do not believe that it would be appropriate to incorporate in the Bill the principle expressed therein.
    Mr. Barnes: It is a privilege to have the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), on the Treasury Bench today. When he was at the Home Office, he carried out a great deal of work chairing the working party that helped to develop the Bill and the valuable measures it contains. My hon. Friend has always responded to me courteously and taken on board the various arguments and points that I have advanced.
    A valuable feature of my hon. Friend's contribution was that I learned that at least the amendment was technically correct. Someone mentioned that when he saw it initially he thought that I was trying to get rid of enfranchisement for Commonwealth and Irish citizens resident in this country. When it was put to me that the amendment was the means by which I could achieve that objective, I was rather worried that that was the case.
    My hon. Friend said that I was not quite correct in some instances about measures to extend the franchise to homeless people and people on remand. However, for homeless people it is just about impossible to become registered, although there are some who have been able to do so. Until the Bill was put before us, it was necessary to have a residence to get on to the electoral register. By definition, that virtually ruled out a homeless person, although there were often ways and means that enabled such people to find their way around the requirement. There was often a difficult set of circumstances and some registration decisions were made by magistrates courts, for example. Those decisions did not have any wider knock-on effect. That being so, the clarity of the Bill is welcome. I used some shorthand when I mentioned these points earlier. As I have introduced Bills on these matters in the past, my hon. Friend will realise that I am involved, to some extent, in these considerations.
    The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, pointed out that I was alone in presenting the amendments. I was alone in 1988, and for a considerable period thereafter, in propounding the notion of a rolling register. We are now dealing with a Bill that contains proposals for such a register. I might be alone in presenting the idea that lies behind the amendments, but in 10 or 11 years' time others might recognise the wisdom of my arguments.
    The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) stressed points about citizenship. Citizenship is relevant to our citizens who are overseas, and the rights that they are given by the British Government that are designed to protect them in the nations in which they find themselves. Whether those rights should be extended to the franchise is another matter.
    The world has changed considerably since some notions were fashioned. We now have a cosmopolitan world in which people move in and out of different areas.
    304
    It is not always clear to people what their nation is. However, it is clear where they are, and the Government and administration responsible for making decisions that immediately affect their lives at that time can be clearly identified. We should develop electoral registration that is based on those circumstances, while recognising that there is sense in terms of citizenship.
    As we are moving towards a rolling register, it would be possible for people to spend a period overseas and, if the Government adopted the principles that I am suggesting, be registered in the other country. As soon as they returned home to the United Kingdom, they would be placed on electoral registers under the procedures that are contained within the Bill. There are alternative principles to that of citizenship, although I accept that there is significance and importance to be attached to it. Much depends on the weight that is put upon these arguments.
    Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the following bizarre situation? The citizens of some countries, such as the United States, Australia and, indeed, the UK, can vote for their domestic Parliaments even when they are overseas. If the hon. Gentleman's proposal were accepted, an American citizen would be entitled to vote both in American elections and in elections for the Westminster Parliament. That is not self-evidently sensible.
    Mr. Barnes: It is not self-evidently sensible, but if the House adopted the principles with respect to the United Kingdom, we would have good grounds for arguing that America and other nations should operate according to the same principles. Then we would have an arrangement that allowed people to vote where they were at different times of their lives.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman was using the same technique with regard to my contribution as he used in his speech. He posed the problem of people who were just passing through. He was pushing my principle to the nth degree, in order to test it. I grant that any principle pushed to the limit will seem to create peculiar and problematic situations. It is highly unlikely that anyone would pass through just to be registered on an electoral register in order to vote in an election.
    The notion that registration could be so temporary as not to matter may be correct, but it should not be allowed to destroy my general argument. There are always exceptions to principles. In general, people who are resident or who can obtain a declaration of local connection should be on registers, but I recognise that there may be some who do not qualify. The case of prisoners, which I raised, may be one of the exceptions. There are qualifications to the general principle, and awkward cases can be discovered, but that should not lead to its destruction.
    The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out that many citizens of the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland who are resident in this country have no idea that they are entitled to vote. I have been in touch with constituents from the Commonwealth who have been in the country for 20 years and are not on the electoral register. If my proposal were adopted, it would make it more easily understood that people could register once they were UK residents. That would apply to Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens, as well as to others.

    305
    It is obvious that I am a lone voice pursuing the argument. I believe that everything that I have said is correct and needs to be pushed, even I failed to put evidence about it to the Home Affairs Committee during its investigations, although I put many other points, which will be covered later.
    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in page 1, line 19, leave out "18" and insert "16".
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 70, in page 2, line 8, leave out "18" and insert "16".
    No. 71, in clause 6, page 8, line 22, leave out "18" and insert "16".
    No. 83, in schedule 2, page 28, line 5, leave out "18" and insert "16".
    Mr. Hughes: The amendment is important and would change the voting age from 18 to 16, and alter the substantive Act—currently the Representation of the People Act 1983—to effect that.
    I was between 18 and 21 when the law that reduced the voting age from 21 to 18 was passed in 1969. I became entitled to vote on 1 January 1970, and it was lucky that a general election took place in that year, when I could exercise my right to vote.
    Mr. Bercow: Where?
    Mr. Hughes: In Tanygrisiau in Meirionnydd. However, that is not terribly relevant to the debate. I remember the occasion well. We had moved away by then, but my dad and I made the long journey back and ensured that we voted.
    Having the right to vote was important to me. [Interruption.] How did I vote? I voted Liberal. I do not believe that more of my biography is required for the purpose of the argument. However, it shows a consistency that is greater than that displayed by some other hon. Members in Committee. One last bit of biography: in those days, we did not win the seats in which I voted, but now we often do. That is progress.
    Reconsideration of whether 18 is the right age for people to be entitled to vote has been undertaken on several occasions. In January 1985—International Youth Year—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) introduced the Youth Charter Bill under the ten-minute rule. One of its provisions was the reduction of the voting age to 16 and a reduction of the age for eligibility to stand for election to 18. Although the Bill did not make progress because it fell under the usual ten-minute rule procedure, it was quite widely supported.
    Since then, the proposal to reduce the voting age to 16 has appeared on the Order Paper several times. It was tabled as an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill in 1985; it was a provision in private
    306
    Members' Bills in 1991, 1992 and earlier this year. It has also appeared in several general election manifestos. The policy was included in our 1992 general election manifesto and the Scottish National party included it in its 1997 manifesto. When the Liberal Democrats were created, we adopted that policy. It has remained our policy ever since.
    I was a relatively belated convert to reducing the voting age to 16. I got into trouble with some of my colleagues and some people outside the House when, a few years ago, I argued for the lowering not only of the age of consent but the age of majority to 17. There is a need to simplify the law on when people become entitled to specific rights. However, for several reasons, I have been persuaded that, just as a majority believes that the right age of homosexual consent should be 16 to bring it into line with the age of heterosexual consent, there is a growing body of opinion in favour of reducing the voting age to 16.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hughes: Of course I will give way to my erstwhile opponent.
    Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the considerations that apply to the age at which people have sexual relations are similar to those that apply to the age at which people can vote? They are rather different activities.
    Mr. Hughes: We could discuss for how long people think before doing each and the pre-planning involved; I shall have to be careful not to get into linguistic difficulties as I nearly said "foreplanning". Of course those activities are different, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will travel this road with me. In this country an enormous number of entitlements are given at 16 and some, although not many, are given at 17. Another batch is given at 18 and some are given at 21. I say to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who has almost silently substituted for the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), that I hope that the Home Office will consider the legislation as a whole and review the age of majority—or the age at which people gain rights—because it is muddled.
    That brings us back to the point that I made in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow): if the people of this country are to learn about their rights, it is better for the legislation to be simple and for there to be as few ages of entitlement as possible, not as many as there are at present. The law changes every year in this respect, but the most recent briefing I have is last year's from the Children's Legal Centre, based at Essex university.
    Mr. Bercow: It is a great university.
    Mr. Hughes: Indeed it is. The briefing sets out 33 different entitlements or types of entitlement given at 16, eight entitlements or types of entitlement given at 17, and 34 entitlements or types of entitlement given at 18. To deal with the intervention of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), I shall say in a

    307
    moment why my colleagues and I believe that, on balance, it is right to consider changing the voting age to 16, although I should like that to happen as part of a wider consideration of the age of entitlement for young people. I hope that the Government have that on their agenda, too.
    Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Is he saying that the age of majority should be 16 for most purposes? Some of us might feel that, because of certain aspects of legal responsibility concerning majority, 18 may be a better age. I should be grateful for his thoughts on that.
    Mr. Hughes: It is proper for the Committee to consider exactly such issues and there is no theology or absolutism involved here. Other countries have different views: some use a voting age that is under 18, although the majority use 18, and I understand that it is above 18 in some countries. We should have this debate periodically.
    Mr. Hogg rose—
    Mr. Hughes: I shall give way in a moment, but before I do so I shall list the entitlements currently given at 16 to provide the backdrop for my comments. People can leave school or stay in full-time education, which is free; they can work full-time, but not in betting shops or bars, which are exceptions; they can receive a national insurance number; they can receive income support; and they must pay prescription charges unless they are in an exempt category.
    The list provided by the Children's Legal Centre carries a slightly odd description, saying:
    "You can probably leave home without the consent of your parents or anyone else with parental responsibility."
    I think that 16-year-olds "probably" can leave home and that word is probably otiose. They can also enter into a contract for housing—we all have constituents who are tenants from the age of 16 onwards—and are entitled to be housed on their own if they come within one of the priority categories outlined in the Housing Act 1985. Girls aged 16 can consent to heterosexual intercourse and 16-year-olds can marry, although that requires parental consent.
    Furthermore, 16-year-olds can join trade unions; consent to surgical, medical or dental treatment; agree to donate organs, which was discussed yesterday in Westminster Hall; and agree to give blood. They can make the most far-reaching decisions about their medical treatment, and they are entitled to have access to their records. They can apply for a passport and get legal aid and assistance, and they have a right to an offer of training under the Government's training schemes.
    Under criminal law, 16-year-olds move into a new category in respect of what they can be convicted of and the sentences that they can receive. Importantly, they can sign up for the armed services and serve our country—there is a debate about the international conventions and where they can serve. They can hold a driving licence for certain purposes, although not yet to drive a motor car on the roads. They can buy cigarettes and tobacco, and have beer, cider or perry with a meal in a restaurant. They can buy liqueur chocolates— not a law I knew about.
    Mr. Bercow: That is useful at Christmas.
    Mr. Hughes: That is true—and a reminder to 16-year-olds to do their Christmas shopping. They can
    308
    buy fireworks, they have to pay full fare on trains, and they can buy premium bonds; they may take part in public performances without a local authority licence, become a street trader, sell scrap metal, be used by another person in order to beg in the street, act as a pilot in command of a glider, purchase a knife, blade, razor or axe, and, lastly and somewhat bizarrely, they are allowed to enter or live in a brothel.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: That is a relief.
    Mr. Hughes: You may look perturbed, Mr. Winterton, but the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) said that that is a relief. The opportunity for biographical descriptions may come to him at any moment in a Committee, and we look forward to what may be sufficiently later in his life for it not to cause him any trouble now.
    It seems to me that the law would benefit from a bit of revision in this area. On occasions we may not have realised the consequences of the legislation that we have introduced. Whether we like it or not, many rights come at 16, and I shall explain why I think that 16-year-olds should be given one of the most important rights.
    Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is making a scintillating speech. Knowing him, I feel sure that the amendment is motivated by high principle and not by any grubby popularism. Given that he is a fervent admirer of the European Union, can he tell the Committee in which member state, if any, people are entitled to vote at the age of 16?
    Hon. Members: Norway!
    Mr. Hughes: As far as I know, the answer is none—not even in Norway, unless Norway legislated yesterday. My speech has not been heard there—I shall remember to take it to the folketing when I next visit.
    This country was one of the first to allow people to vote at 18. We do not necessarily have to wait for others to do something, or to be the last to do it. An increasing number of other countries allow voting at 16, although they are not European Union countries.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: This is not intended as a light-hearted point, but the hon. Gentleman is making an interesting argument for the right to vote at 16 and I wondered whether he recalls the 1960s song "Eve of Destruction" by Barry Maguire, which came out during the Vietnam war and contained the line:
    "Young enough to fight, but not for voting".
    Mr. Hughes: There is the rub. Some very important rights come at the age of 16: 16-year-olds can marry, have children, fight, work and pay taxes. They are old enough to kill and to pay tax. Colleagues may anticipate my next point, because the argument about no taxation without representation is the obvious consequence of that.
    5.45 pm
    Despite the Government's intention to retain them in education or training, many young people want to go out and work. I think that when young people are faced with choices between education and work, and between work

    309
    and joining the armed services, they should be allowed to influence the policies that determine those choices and affect their citizenship.
    There is another supremely important point, as well as the taxation and representation point. If we as a Parliament are involved in decisions to commit our armed services to going to war—although that may not require parliamentary approval—there is a strong case for allowing those whom we are committing a say in those decisions.
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to "clean up" the legislation. People are allowed to view R-rated films at the age of 18; does the hon. Gentleman wish to lower that to 16? As for no taxation without representation—or no taxation without the ability to vote—a seven-year-old buying sweets will pay value added tax. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the payment of tax by seven-year-olds should therefore be the rule?
    Mr. Hughes: Everything that is sold is subject to indirect tax.
    Mr. Evans: It is still tax.
    Mr. Hughes: It is, but it is not a personal tax in the sense in which income tax is a personal tax.
    I have not given much thought to the question of films, but in a way the hon. Gentleman has made my point for me. There is a range of legislation relating to the age of consent which the Home Office should consider.
    Attitudes change; society changes. In earlier centuries, people—monarchs as well as subjects—married at 11, 12 or 13 and had children. That was considered entirely legitimate and normal. Things have moved on, however: subjects have become citizens, and we have more democracy. We should continually re-examine issues such as this. Liberal Democrats, with the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, have concluded that it is time for us to think of making progress.
    Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hughes: I will give way once more; then I want to make some final substantive points.
    Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman said that he did not think taxation on expenditure was in the same category as personal taxation. If someone is fortunate enough to be left money by a grandfather at the age of seven and it is put in trust, it will be liable to tax. The person concerned will be directly affected by that tax in exactly the same way as someone over the age of 18 but will have no voting rights. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that voting rights should be extended to people of that age.
    Mr. Hughes: No, I am not, but a number of serious issues are involved. Matters that the House has considered before should be put on the agenda again. The Government are taking a sensible and positive attitude; I compliment them on that, and hope that the Committee will join me, but there are wider issues to be considered.
    310
    In my constituency, we are currently trying to involve the community in part of Rotherhithe in deciding the location of new play and sports facilities for young people. There is considerable local debate about whether voting rights should be given to those over 18, those who are householders or those who are over 11—who will be using the football pitch and the play areas. There are similar issues involving communities elsewhere in the country.
    Here, we are discussing the national Parliament, local government, Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the European Parliament. I believe that we should lower the voting age from 18 to 16, not lightly, ill advisedly or wantonly—to use a phrase from elsewhere—but because we feel that the time has come to do so. If the Minister says that the Government are willing to put the issue on the agenda even more formally, that will be a step forward.
    Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hughes: I will give way one more time; then I really must finished my speech.
    Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman seems to consider the fact that many 16-year-olds work and pay taxes to be a good reason for giving them the vote. Does he accept the logical corollary, which is that as an increasing proportion of 16-year-olds are not in work but are in full-time education or training, the strength of his argument correspondingly decreases?
    Mr. Hughes: No, I do not accept that. This is a topical time to raise that point. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that one of the issues that was important for us at the election was a commitment against tuition fees. That is a huge issue among the student community. It is controversial in Scotland, where it is being debated at the moment. Young people, whether in work or education, are directly affected by our decisions. For those in education, policies on who should pay for education, whether they have grants or loans, whether the money is repayable, whether there is a graduate tax and whether there are tuition fees are all important matters. Those young people do not pay tax in the same way as those who are in work, although they are liable—increasing numbers of students do weekend or holiday jobs to pull in the money to keep them through their time as students—but that does not mean that they are less likely to be interested in and affected by decisions of Parliament.
    I have given some important reasons, but the key reason why the Government should consider my proposition is that we are trying to engage young people in the political process. The Government have said that they want to do that. The people of this country are apathetic when it comes to voting. Young people vote less than any other category; older people vote more. Many young people say that they do not think that we represent them. The hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) is currently the youngest Member of Parliament.
    Ms Claire Ward: No; it is my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie).
    Mr. Hughes: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon and that of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), who is the

    311
    youngest Member of Parliament. The hon. Lady is the youngest woman. They have on their shoulders the responsibility of trying to represent all those younger than themselves—a responsibility that various Liberal Democrats have had before, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) and David Steel. Young people ask them to put their views because they are the youngest people in Parliament. The youngest ever Member of Parliament was 21. I know from my constituency experience that lots of young people feel that we do not represent them. We do not sound like them or look like them. When they start being interested when they do civics, politics, social studies or citizenship at school, they cannot engage.
    On new year's eve last year, Paul Waugh wrote an interesting and informed piece in The Independent entitled "Vote at 16 to be considered by ministers". He started:
    "Radical proposals to lower the voting age from 18 to 16 are to be considered by the Government in a fresh attempt to keep politicians in touch with the youth of the day.
    Under plans to be put before ministers next year"—
    which, for another two weeks, is this year—
    "a Representation of Young People Bill would allow the UK's 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in general and local elections."
    He went on to say:
    "The cross-party move follows a new study that shows teenagers are much more interested in politics than commonly assumed, even though many are disillusioned with the main parties."
    On an important party political issue, the article carries on:
    "Labour backers of the idea believe it could restore much-needed idealism to the Government's battered image and confirm Tony Blair's reputation as a ground-breaking premier."
    Further on, the article says:
    "A Home Office working party on electoral law will be presented with the proposals next summer"—
    that is this summer—
    "once it has concluded its current consultation on electronic voting and polling stations in supermarkets."
    It continues:
    "Although Labour stands most to gain from an expanded youth vote"—
    my colleagues and I disagree with that, but it is what the article says—
    "the Tories and Liberal Democrats believe under-18s could reap them electoral dividends.
    Policies such as the lower minimum wage rate and benefit restrictions for the under-1 8s…could lead to a backlash against Labour, they say."
    My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) is quoted as saying:
    "The simple fact is that people under 18 feel that they are prejudiced against in grounds of age. They pay tax, can have sex and die for their country, but they can't vote."
    I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether the issue is still on the Government's agenda, whether a Home Office working party will be presented with a proposal, as the article said, and whether, even if the Government cannot agree to it today, they are willing to put it on the agenda for early all-party consideration with the support of Ministers and civil servants.
    312
    We strongly support the proposal. Young people would respond positively. It would deal with apathy in this country and would engage many people who feel alienated. We hope that the Committee thinks that it is a good idea, that the Government will give a warm response and that it will be supported by all parties.
    Ms Ward: I agree with a lot of what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said. He was right to refer to the anomalies of young people gaining different rights at different ages. I have always thought that it was a strange way to bring children and young people into the world of adulthood. There should be one point at which we tell a young person, "You are now an adult. You take hold of your responsibility." Young people are expected to take responsibility at 16, then again at 18, then again at 21, rather than at one common age. I have always believed that the common age should be 16. That view is supported by the British Youth Council and, as the hon. Gentleman said, by many others, including Members of Parliament and other youth organisations. The issue has been raised in the House before and I have great sympathy with the arguments.
    I have always found it strange that people are old enough at 16 to get married with their parents' consent, but not to vote. They are old enough to pay their taxes if they work and to contribute to society in a significant and adult way, but they are not old enough to vote for the politicians who determine what happens to those taxes and what they pay for.
    Perhaps one of the most significant issues is the right to join the armed forces and fight for the country. A couple of months ago, I visited the Royal Marines training centre at Lymston and talked to 17-year-old men who will represent this country admirably. We will put our faith in those young men and they will go abroad to represent us and serve the country, but they cannot vote for the politicians who can put them in the firing line. It is a great sorrow for this country that we have been unable to make progress on that issue.
    Young people of 16 can buy cigarettes and lottery tickets, but have to wait until they are 18 to buy alcohol. I am sure that many hon. Members would be concerned about the prospect of 16 or 17-year-olds buying alcohol, but we have to set that against the current legislation, which enables them to buy cigarettes and lottery tickets. Those of us who occasionally like a drop of alcohol but do not particularly like cigarettes might say that cigarettes are far more harmful to health than alcohol. The House should address that important issue. Young people of 16 who leave school are expected to pay full prescription charges. They are expected to pay the full price for entry to public services and must pay full fare on public transport. It is a strange way to run our country and engage young people.
    6 pm
    Mr. Heald: I do not know what it is like in the hon. Lady's part of Hertfordshire because the roads are so bad that it is difficult to get there. However, in the schools that she visits, does she find that there is any real demand for voting at 16? In the schools that I have visited—I recently held a youth surgery in Royston as part of the celebration of the convention on the rights of the child—

    313
    there was no great demand for votes at 16. The young people were looking forward to voting at 18, but nobody said that that was too old.
    Ms Ward: Like the hon. Gentleman, I held a young persons' surgery in a local school and we discussed this issue. There was a mix of views. I have spoken to many young people in schools and youth organisations, and there has been a mix of views. I believe that more young people would like the right to vote at 16 mainly because they do not understand why they attain rights at different ages. They would like a simpler system so that they can vote, pay taxes and have all the other rights that have been mentioned at one particular age.
    There is more to the issue, and it involves engaging young people in politics. I am sure that many hon. Members have had discussions with sixth formers in schools in their constituencies, and have brought young people to the House of Commons. They know that, among those who study citizenship issues or politics, there is a desire to learn more. Once young people are excited about an issue, there should be an opportunity for them to engage in it in more depth.
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Lady has been a happy Member of this House for two and a half years, in which time she will have received many letters. How many has she received on this subject?
    Ms Ward: I should be most surprised if that were thought to be the only yardstick. I have discussed this issue with a number of other people and with youth organisations. We must remember that it is not just about the number of letters that we receive. Letters often come as a result of a debate or an issue being raised. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will doubtless hear more about the matter as a result of this debate.
    Mr. David Winnick: I am grateful to my young colleague—[Interruption.] I have to concede the point.
    The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) talked about the number of letters being a yardstick. I was a Member of the House when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1969, and I did not receive a single letter on the subject. I doubt whether any hon. Member received many, if any, letters on the subject. Despite that, even Conservative Members would not argue that the voting age should be 21.
    Ms Ward: I thank my older colleague and friend. I agree that, sometimes, issues are discussed and agreed in the House and that, as time moves on, there is no great desire for change. That is part of the issue. Time moves on and it is important that we look to change the current system.
    Mr. Bercow: The fact that the hon. Lady has discussed this issue with youth organisations is a necessary but not sufficient condition for her to make her case. Can she tell the Committee what study she has made of the continental experience? Also, in view of her preference for one
    314
    age of majority, has she discussed with road safety organisations the implications of issuing a full driving licence at 16?
    Ms Ward: I shall come to driving a little later. The hon. Gentleman talks about youth organisations and youth rights on the continent. I know that he shows a keen interest in Europe and matters European, although perhaps from an angle different from mine. I am aware of no country with a voting age of 16, but in many European countries there is, at the very least, a common age at which most rights are attained. I believe that most rights should be attained at one age and my preference is for that to be 16.
    In addition to the rights attained at 16 and 18, we also attain rights at other ages. At 21, one can stand for Parliament or for a council and at 25, one is entitled to additional income through the social security benefit system. It is wrong to have different ages for different rights. Surely if one is entitled to vote for a Member of Parliament or a member of a local authority, one should also be entitled to stand as a representative. At an appropriate time, I shall want to see a change in the legislation on that.
    We must look carefully at the amendment. I hope that I have made it clear that I am a keen supporter of the issue, but, with due respect to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, this is not really the way to seek change. There must be a broader debate on the issue of rights for young people and the age at which they are attained. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and he seemed to agree with that point.
    Mr. Heald: Are not the considerations different for different things? The age at which somebody might drive safely on the roads might well be different from the age at which he or she holds a sensible view on issues to do with society. There may be different ages for different things. Does the hon. Lady not think that to have one age for sexual relations, voting and so on is rather foolish and that each of those issues should be considered on their merits, as they are now?
    Ms Ward: I believe that there are genuine reasons for having different ages for some aspects of legal rights. For example, 10 is an important age in criminal law and children are considered differently at various ages before the courts. That is right for the criminal law. However, I do not believe that it is right to have different ages for voting, standing as a Member of Parliament, serving in the armed forces, buying lottery tickets, smoking or having sexual relations, whether those be heterosexual or homosexual.
    Mr. Heald: Is it not inconsistent that many Liberal Democrats argue that we should sign up to the European convention on human rights as it applies to the age at which people can join the armed forces, which is 18, while arguing that the voting age should be reduced to 16? Where is the sense in that?
    Ms Ward: As I hope the hon. Gentleman is aware, I am not a Liberal Democrat and it is not for me to answer that point. I am sure, however, that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will have the opportunity to do so.

    315
    I should not like to sign up to any clauses proposing to stop young men serving in the armed forces from the age of 16. They make a valuable and admirable contribution to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: May I tell the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that I very much support people being allowed to join the armed forces at 16 and that, on the wider point, there is not much between us. As I told the Minister, the time has come for the Government to examine the issue in the round. It is difficult to argue that one should not have civic responsibilities—such as the duty to vote and to perform jury service —at 16, whereas the state allows one to assume family and parental responsibility at 16. I am not sure that the right and duty to vote require more care, consideration and attention than the decision to have children.
    Ms Ward: Unfortunately, as we know from recent cases—there have been tragic cases in which children bear or father children—the right to have children is a much more biological issue. Although we can legislate on such issues, it is much more difficult to enforce that legislation.
    The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said that there should be a broader review of age issues, and I certainly agree with him. However, that is precisely why we should not pass amendment No. 69.
    As I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree, various anomalies already exist. If amendment No. 69 were to be passed and implemented, we would be creating another anomaly that is as great as, if not greater than, current ones. Although young people would be entitled to vote at 16, they would not attain other rights. They would not be entitled to stand for Parliament until they were 21—thereby creating an even worse, five-year gap between the ages at which they could vote and stand for Parliament.
    Mr. Hughes: Although I understand the hon. Lady's point, sometimes—as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said in the previous debate—one simply has to flag up a point and put down a marker. I have been an hon. Member somewhat longer than the hon. Lady, and my experience has been that one must push the Government to make them move. My hon. Friends and I intend to press the amendment to a vote to make the point that people feel strongly about the issue and to help bring forward the day when the Government act, rather than simply leave the matter to be resolved in the indefinite future.
    Ms Ward: The hon. Gentleman has a great interest in young people, and I hope that, if he has a real regard for their views on the matter, he will not press the amendment. If he does so, the Government, using their large majority, will defeat it. Consequently, rather than leaving the door slightly ajar so that hon. Members, organisations and the Government can re-examine the issue, the House will deliver a firm no, which might be misunderstood by young people. That is not how we should proceed.
    If the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey were to press the amendment, he could damage the case for voting at 16. As hon. Members know,
    316
    I am a strong supporter of reducing the age of majority to 16 and of allowing young people to vote at 16. However, I do not believe that amendment No. 69 is the way to achieve those goals.
    We must consider the issue much more widely. Now that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has placed the issue on the House's agenda—and, I hope, on the broader political agenda—we should make progress much more consensually to ensure that we have greater knowledge and understanding of the issues and are able to iron out some of the issues raised by Conservative Members. If the amendment were passed, many more issues would doubtless be raised in another place.
    Mr. Bercow: I have been listening intently to the hon. Lady's speech and found it most intriguing, but I find her latest comments quite extraordinary. It is not for me to defend the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, but it is extraordinary for the hon. Lady, who is vigorously articulating the case for wider democracy, suddenly to denounce the hon. Gentleman for retarding—should he press his amendment to a vote—the cause of allowing people to vote at 16.
    6.15 pm
    Ms Ward: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. We have to consider the issue more deeply and not in isolation. We should not change one part of one Bill, to give 16-year-olds the right to vote, as that would create other anomalies. We should examine the broader issue of young people attaining rights and the age at which those rights should be conferred. I would certainly support such an approach.
    Changing one small—but important—Bill is not the right way to address the issue, as that would not deal with all the anomalies. I should prefer a Government Bill or a private Member's Bill to seek to change the age of majority, as the passage of such a Bill would have a ripple effect, changing all legislation affecting young people.
    Mr. Hughes: I am not sure that the hon. Lady had planned on making that argument. However, as she has, she will have great difficulty in supporting the Government's Bill on equalising the age of consent. That legislation deals with precisely the same principles as those in this Bill: the age at which people gain rights. It would be very difficult for her to support that legislation, but not to vote with us today.
    Ms Ward: I shall have no difficulty in doing just that. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill will address an issue of equality and end a very clear anomaly by ensuring that the age of consent is equalised between heterosexuals and homosexuals. That Bill will end an anomaly without consequently affecting other legislation applying to 16-year-olds. Subsequently, the House should consider a more comprehensive package on changing legislation on young people.
    As I said, by pressing the amendment, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey might damage the argument. The damage would not be to the principle that people should be able to vote at 16, but young people might start to feel that change is unlikely. Change is possible, but only if we work on the broader issues and discuss them more widely.

    317
    I urge the hon. Member not to press the matter, but to seek conciliation and consultation with other hon. Members and with various organisations. Perhaps we shall even be able to enlist the support of some Conservative Members.
    Mr. Evans: In the numerous and lengthy discussions on the issue that the hon. Lady has had with young people—she has received no mail on the issue—has she told them, "I want the voting age to be lowered to 16, which is why I shall vote against it at the first opportunity to do so in the House?"
    Ms Ward: The hon. Gentleman made that point; I did not.
    Mr. Bercow: What is the answer?
    Ms Ward: I shall explain to young people that, at some point, we should introduce legislation—which may have the support even of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and other Conservative Members—that makes changes to young people's rights and does not seek, in isolation, to make only one change that will create other anomalies.
    Mr. Bercow: Can we clarify the position for 16-year-olds who read the broadsheet or tabloid newspapers tomorrow and reflect on the hon. Lady's sage words? Do I understand her aright when I say that, by pressing the amendment to allow people to vote at 16, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is an inveterate opponent of equality, whereas the hon. Lady, who will go eagerly into the Lobby with the approval of the Patronage Secretary to vote against the amendment, is an enthusiastic champion of that equality?
    Ms Ward: As usual, the hon. Gentleman seeks to make mischief and he is not going to make mischief with me.
    The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey believes strongly and wholeheartedly in the rights of young people—I do not doubt that for a moment. I want to be helpful. We may have more success if the matter is given more thought and there is more understanding of it among a broader section of the community and of the House than if it is pushed to a vote tonight.
    Jackie Ballard: Even if one accepts the hon. Lady's argument that we should consider all the issues that surround the age of majority together—I do not—does she agree that it would be helpful if there were a strong vote in favour tonight, in that it would guide the Government in the right direction?
    Ms Ward: The hon. Lady knows well that it is also important for the issues to be raised in the House. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and others have raised some important points. It would be useful if we could discuss the issue at a more appropriate time, perhaps with better legislation, to ensure that the changes that I am sure we all want can take place across the board.
    318
    Young people need to be engaged in, and excited by, politics and the issues that they face every day, and about who makes decisions for them. I certainly hope that the generation that is going through our schools will be the beneficiaries of the Government's changes in the national curriculum, which will result in more emphasis being put on citizenship studies. Hopefully, more young people will be interested in playing their part as citizens and being engaged in politics and the issues surrounding political life, as well as the most important matters that determine how they live their lives.
    I have made my views clear. I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will not push the amendment to a vote. I trust that the House will discuss the issue at some other time, as a Bill or an amendment to a Bill that would change all legislation affecting young people and change the age of majority to 16 would give young people the right that they richly deserve.
    Mr. Robert Syms: It is a pleasure to be in a Committee with you in the Chair, Mr. Winterton.
    I listened to, and enjoyed, the contribution of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The House is at its best when it debates first principles. It gives people a clear view of the constitution.
    This has been a century of change. There have been many changes in the electorate under Liberal, Labour and, indeed, Conservative Governments. In 1929, the first election in which both men and women voted on an equal basis took place. That was a milestone and it was introduced, with reservations, by Stanley Baldwin's Government and the Conservative party. By and large, it has stood the test of time.
    Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that Stanley Baldwin's excellent initiative was one reason why the Conservatives won the Bermondsey seat in 1931?
    Mr. Syms: I do not think that we would have won it in 1929. If we won it in 1931, a few other factors probably helped.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: For the record, my researches revealed that that election was won for two reasons. The candidate was relatively wealthy and dispensed some of her wealth, and certainly the things that she acquired with it, to the electorate in ways that had not been known before, and have not been known since.
    Mr. Syms: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that he was a Member of this House when it reduced the voting age to 18. The 1969 by-election in Bridgwater was the first occasion on which 18-year-olds could vote and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was the first beneficiary of such votes. However, I am not persuaded about the argument for voting at 16. I would not say that I have ruled it out for ever, but it needs consideration. At this point, I would not vote for it. I and those of my colleagues who are at present on the Conservative Benches are perhaps the modernising wing of the Conservative party and I am sure that we would like to give the matter further consideration. However, 18 is probably the best age, as is reflected throughout the European Union.

    319
    The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey read out a long list of responsibilities that one has at 16. It is not good to use one argument to justify that age for all the issues. It cuts both ways. Sixteen might be a sensible age of majority for one issue, but it might not be a sensible age for others. That might result in people arguing that the age should be pushed up for a range of other matters. Basically, 18 is a good age. Age limits vary because the House has judged on a number of occasions and in a number of Committees that different age limits are sensible, particularly with regard to the benefits system.
    If one says, "That is the age of majority," and everything follows on from it, it will produce as many anomalies and concerns as the present system. We have heard the argument about people driving at 16. We all know that there are problems with young drivers—they tend to have more accidents. I am not convinced that 16 is the right age—certainly not yet. I support the argument for 18. That age of majority has worked well since the 1970 general election, when it was first generally introduced.
    Many countries have a variable age of majority. In this country, one can vote at 18, but one has to be 21 to stand for Parliament. In the United States, one can vote at 18 but cannot stand for some forms of public office until one is much older. I cannot remember whether one has to be 30 or 32 to stand for the Senate—there certainly is an age limit. There is also an age limit for standing for President. That was written into the constitution because it was felt that standing for public office was important.
    I am never persuaded by the argument about taxation without representation—the fetish that, because people pay taxes, they should have more of a say in the affairs of our nation. What about people who do not pay tax? Are they any less worthy? Are their views and values and their contribution to society worth less? I do not believe that to be the case. We heard about taxation on inheritance, value added tax and the tax on sweets. One cannot establish exactly when someone has started to pay tax and so should be able to vote. Frankly, the moment that someone is born, the state will take something off them. Therefore, I am not oversold on the tax link.
    There is no great public demand for reducing the age of majority to 16. I have received no letters on the subject. Like most hon. Members, I have spoken in schools. Young people ask about many things, but I have not got the impression that they want the voting age to be reduced from 18 to 16.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend points out, quite rightly, that there is no demonstrable demand for such a lowering of the voting age. Is he aware that one of the great problems facing democracy in the United Kingdom is getting those in the 18 to 30 age group to vote, let alone those who are between 16 and 18?
    Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have always felt that our education system does not do enough to educate people about their rights and responsibilities, the British constitution and the importance of participating in democratic elections. That is a different issue from lowering the voting age from 18 to 16, but we could do much more to get young people interested.
    320
    Of course, youngsters have other interests. As people get older, they tend to participate more in the electoral process. We have to hope that some of the young people who abstain today vote tomorrow. All political parties should be concerned about this. Public participation is very important for the democratic legitimacy of this House and the whole body politic.
    Apart from education, perhaps political parties should try to tune in a bit more to young people and make them more interested and excited. The hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) made that point. I have no doubt that, over the next 18 months, all the political parties will be trying to tune in to young voters and their interests.
    Jackie Ballard: Drop out.
    Mr. Syms: Not drop out, but tune in.
    I am not persuaded by the amendment. I have not totally closed my mind to it; this has been an interesting debate, and I would like to reflect further on the views expressed. If there is a Division on the amendment, I will not be in the same Lobby as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, in spite of his wonderful contribution. However, I will reflect on what he has said, and perhaps I will change my view. I do not know.
    Ms Ward: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as he has not closed his mind to the issue, he would feel uncomfortable at being forced to make a decision here tonight? Surely it would be better if the issue were brought back another time.
    Mr. Syms: I think that the hon. Lady makes that point more for her defence than for mine.
    I will reflect on the issue, and ask my constituents and the classes that I address what they think. It has not been debated much in the newspapers—it is not a great popular topic —but perhaps after this debate tonight, The Sun and other newspapers will have an opinion, and we will start to read more about it.
    Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend must be as open-minded a Conservative Member of the House as I know.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The only one.
    Mr. Bercow: There are many open-minded Conservative Members. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) agree that if he accepted the inviting logic of the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), that would probably entail him in arguing for the abolition of most, if not all, votes in this House on the grounds that there were very few issues upon which he would not entertain the possibility, in the long career ahead of him, of changing his opinion?
    Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are here to vote and to make decisions. I would not criticise any hon. Member for pressing the amendment to a Division because that is their perfect right, but then they have to accept the consequences of that vote. This may not be the right time to vote; the Committee may not be persuaded to support amendment No. 69. The hon. Member for Watford may be right, and the hon. Member

    321
    for Southwark, North and Bermondsey may have wasted an opportunity. Nevertheless, he has a perfect right to press the amendment to a Division, and the fact that the issue is voted on will no doubt be in reported in Liberal Democrat News and in the popular press, and may even help persuade people of his argument.
    I do not intend to prolong the proceedings. This is a good debate, and I look forward to hearing more of it.
    Mr. Winnick: I shall be brief. I am not in the same age group as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward). However, as Bridgwater was mentioned, I remember that, some time before the by-election in 1969, I went into a bank in Somerset. Identification was required, and I gave my occupation. I remember the clerk behind the counter saying, "Surely you're too young to be a Member of Parliament." Years have passed, and I am in a different age group, but I remember those words.
    This topic should certainly be discussed. I do not in any way criticise the Liberal Democrat party for tabling the amendment. They will undoubtedly put it in Focus, in my constituency as well as others, and show how we voted. We shall have to bear up to the consequences and see what can be done.
    This is an important topic. I am reminded, as I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, that there was opposition to lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. I must be quite honest—not having checked Hansard, I am not sure whether the Conservatives opposed it, but there were certainly Conservative Members who opposed the change. It was argued that 21 was young enough to vote and that it would be unfortunate and irresponsible to allow the vote to people who did not have much experience of adult life. Those arguments should certainly have been heard, although I am glad that they were rejected. Ultimately, the decision was taken to lower the voting age to 18. As I said earlier, no one, including the strongest opponents of lowering the age further, would now argue that the voting age should be increased to 21 again.
    I am not certain about allowing voting at 16; I have received no letters on the subject. However, I agree that we should keep an open mind. In fact, mine is not so open on this subject—I am more inclined to lower the age to 16. There are strong arguments for doing so—I shall not repeat them because of lack of time and because they have already been made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). They are valid arguments, which the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), will have to address seriously.
    I am concerned about the alienation of young people. Only this week, an opinion poll showed young people's lack of interest in politics. That is a matter of serious concern. It is not the end of democracy; it does not mean that such people will not take a greater interest in politics when they get older, and decide to vote. The fact that there is a gap between older people and youngsters under 21, some of whom are indifferent to politics for all kinds of reasons, is serious. It cannot simply be dismissed out of hand, because the future of our democracy depends on
    322
    future generations. It means that any democratic society must involve the interests and participation of the majority when it comes to voting.
    Mr. Bercow: The widespread apathy and even hostility towards the political process is a legitimate preoccupation for all hon. Members. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is conceivable that people are antipathetic to the political process when they are very young not because they are denied the right to vote but because more and more decisions that affect the totality of the people of this country are taken outside the United Kingdom by institutions that are not accountable to the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Winnick: Never let it be said that any Conservative Member loses an opportunity of taking an anti-European stand. I do not want to try your patience, Mr. Winterton, but, as someone who has for many years been something of a Eurosceptic in my party, I shall say only that Conservative xenophobia makes me more inclined to take the European viewpoint.
    I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) that young people's apathy and indifference is certainly not because they lack the right to vote. Even the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and his colleagues would not wish to give the impression that large numbers of 16 and 17-year-olds are ready to demonstrate at any opportunity, rather like the suffragettes of old, for the right to vote. That would be a misunderstanding and an exaggeration, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman who moved the amendment would not suggest that it was not but, if we conclude that there is a case for lowering the voting age, as we did in 1969, we should seriously consider it.
    No words of mine or of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford will dissuade those who want to press the amendment to a Division from doing so. Of course they want to have a Division. They have made their point and they will test it in the Committee. I will not vote with the Liberal Democrats on this. There are occasions, as the Whips know, when I abstain or vote against the Government, but I do so rarely. Liberal Democrat Members would do the same if they formed a Government.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not be dismissive—I am sure that he will not—of the amendment that has been moved tonight. There is a strongly held view that a lower voting age would be valid. I doubt that this point will be accepted, but it would be better if there were cross-party support for such a move and more consultation between the parties. That is always better. If the Government of the day want to take a decision on constitutional matters, they can do so of course, but it is far better to achieve cross-party support on matters of voting, qualifications and so on. A unanimous House of Commons has greater credibility on these matters.
    The Liberal Democrats will lose the Division, but I hope that further consideration will be given to the matter by the Government, the parliamentary Labour party and the Labour movement, as well as perhaps the Conservative party, following what the hon. Member for Poole said. We should not have a closed mind. It is an important subject. It is worthy of debate and I look forward to the Minister's response.
    Mr. Maclennan: I share with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) memories of the passage of the Bill that reduced the voting age to 18. In the context of the extremely interesting debate tonight, it is worth recalling two or three historical incidents which have some lessons for us today.
    The then Labour Government did not choose to wrap up the question of the voting age with that of the age of majority. Contrary to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), the then Labour Government set up a Committee on the age of majority chaired by Mr. Justice Latey. I had the honour to be invited to serve on that Committee. Its remit covered civil rights, but not civic duties or rights such as voting. It reported in favour of reducing the age of majority from 21 to 18. It covered a large range of matters, including the right to marry without parental consent, which was a matter of some controversy at that time.
    The Latey committee recognised that the process of maturation was not the same for all people; some people became older more quickly than others. For some, it was possible that as legislators we should at least have in mind the importance of protecting young people from legal obligations that could become burdensome. So the argument for the big bang, with everything happening at once at the age of 16, is not one that I necessarily accept. One should recognise that people have to grow into maturity and that to become an adult for all purposes overnight is not necessarily in the interests of young people.
    6.45 pm
    Certain anomalies about the current age of majority legislation are worth considering. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) was correct to say that as legislators we had considered the merits and appropriateness of certain ages for certain purposes discretely. I strongly suspect that that is the right way to approach the subject. I hope that the suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made to the Minister will be taken up. It is time for a review of the law on the age of majority. It is more than 30 years since the Latey committee considered the issue in the round. Another such study has not been done. We would have been assisted in considering the discrete arguments about ages of majority if such an overview had been taken. I invite the Government to consider that and come back to the issue. However, it would not be appropriate to wrap up in a review of the age of majority the question of voting age, or to make it dependent on the outcome of such a review.
    It was interesting that in 1969 the Labour Government decided to separate the issues clearly. They referred the age of majority to a Speaker's Conference. They firmly expected that the conference would recommend that the age of majority should be reduced for voting purposes to 18, in line with the view taken by the Latey committee on the wider aspects. That was not what the Speaker's Conference recommended. To the surprise of the then Lord Chancellor Gardiner, the Speaker's Conference recommended that the age of majority for voting purposes should be 20. That was a surprising recommendation. I remember being hauled before the late Lord Gardiner to explain my vote on that issue, because he expected me, as a member of his party, although not of his Government,
    324
    to follow the party line. Others have subsequently been disabused of any hope that I would always follow the party line.
    The reason why the Speaker's Conference took place when it did was that the then Government accepted the view expressed tonight by the hon. Member for Poole that for different purposes it was perfectly rational to consider different ages. The Labour Government paid no attention to the view of the Speaker's Conference and introduced legislation, commended it to the House and carried it, to reduce the age of voting to 18. They did so without my partisan support; they did so with some support from the Conservative party, but not bipartisan support. A decisive move was taken; it was taken not following an exercise such as that recommended by the hon. Member for Watford—of wrapping the question up and seeking consensus across the House. It was done on the basis of a Government initiative that enjoyed broad support, but it was not the result of any kind of consensus, desirable though consensus is in constitutional matters.
    The lessons of 1969 are that we are right to raise the issue here in the context of the reform of our franchise and our voting systems, and of making the vote more accessible. I take that view because all who have spoken in this interesting debate have realised that alienation of the young from the political process is a problem. By means of the Bill, we want to make the process easier so that people can have a greater involvement in it.
    We are all aware that there is no simple answer to the problem. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) asked why we should want to lower the voting age to 16, as it was difficult enough to persuade people aged between 18 and 30 to vote. One of the reasons that we should consider lowering the age is that it will help to focus the minds of the young on certain issues if, as adults, they have to make decisions at an earlier age. They may choose not to exercise their right to vote at the age of 16. However, even if they dislike the outcome of an election in which they did not vote, they will feel some responsibility for that outcome.
    Mr. Fabricant: What evidence does the right hon. Gentleman have for that statement? What makes him believe that the right to vote at the age of 16 will focus people's minds such that they might vote on a future occasion, if those who could vote at 18 still do not vote when they are 30? That is the current practice.
    Mr. Maclennan: I am not sure what evidence would be needed to convince the hon. Gentleman. Such evidence as I have is only anecdotal; it would not be conclusive. However, that is the nature of the debate on this subject. During the past 30 years, I have given much thought to the age of majority, but the evidence presented to the Latey committee and the Speaker's Conference mainly took the form of anecdotal accounts of people's views. I suspect that the views that I have received on the subject are not dissimilar to those received by the hon. Gentleman.
    It is probably true that there is no great demand to vote among 16-year-olds. However, in schools in my constituency I have heard 16-year-olds forcibly express the view that they want the vote. That view is not universally held, but it is strongly held by some young people.
    Jackie Ballard: Has my right hon. Friend considered that most—although not all— people entitled to vote at the

    325
    age of 16 would still be at school? Most secondary schools hold mock elections at the time of a general election campaign. One could thus argue that young people have a more heightened awareness of the political process, and of the fact that voting is taking place, than people who are older and are out at work.
    Mr.Maclennan: That is certainly true. I well remember that, during the last general election, I spoke at a school where several young people aged just under 18 expressed considerable frustration that they did not have the vote. I had some sympathy with them.
    Mr. Graham Brady: May I trouble the right hon. Gentleman with another piece of anecdotal evidence? When I was 17, I was interested in politics; I looked forward to being able to vote, and regarded it as a privilege. If we reduce the age at which people can vote, might we not reduce their appreciation of the privilege of living in a democracy where they have the vote?
    Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman's point reminds me that, throughout the debate, I have felt strongly that I wanted to alter the emphasis of our approach to this matter. There has been much talk of the entitlement to vote—the right to vote. It is time we acknowledged that we are talking about more than that: to vote is an important duty of citizenship. It is a sign of maturation that that duty has arrived. Sixteen is not too young to assume the duty of considering the impact of one's political views on the shaping of the decisions of public authorities. I would like to think that, from the age of 16, an informed interest would begin to develop and that that process would be assisted by the knowledge that, if an election were to take place, people would have the right to use their judgment as to how to influence society.
    Mr. Fabricant: I was fascinated by the right hon. Gentleman's use of the word "duty". What is his view of the system in Australia and in other countries, where voting is compulsory? If voting is a duty, should people be compelled to vote? And if people are compelled to vote, does the right hon. Gentleman think that they will think about the political and voting processes?
    Mr. Maclennan: Duty, and legal obligation, are not identical. I do not favour making the duty to vote a legal obligation. None the less, voting remains a duty of citizenship. I hope that serious consideration will be given to the possibility that the duty to vote would stimulate discussion among young people—many of whom would still be at school—about participation in democracy. They would not have to wait until they left school to participate.
    However, if not all 16-year-olds voted, I should not regard that as calamitous; it would not be a good reason for not allowing them to have the vote. To reduce the voting age would bring forward the process of political maturation through political awareness and discussion. Young people would discuss among themselves the fact not only that they are affected by the decisions of Government, but that they are able to influence those decisions.
    326
    I do not find wholly persuasive the argument that there is no public demand. The hon. Member for Walsall, North pointed out that, in one sense, there was no public demand when the voting age and the age for the exercise of other legal obligations were reduced to 18. That was to be expected. Few constitutional issues give rise to express public demand until there is the most pressing hardship. There was no massive public demand for a Bill of Rights; however, it was wise to include that matter in the election manifesto and to introduce legislation.
    I hope that the Government will agree not only that the debate has been interesting and persuasive, but that the House would be glad to have their support on the matter. Even if the Government are not ready to support the amendment, I hope that some Members are persuaded of the merits of the argument and will not consider it a sin against the Patronage Secretary, or anyone else, to express their view and to vote accordingly.
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: The debate has been interesting. It is important that we are holding it. We have heard some good contributions; they have led me to consider matters that I had not previously thought about. In essence, the amendment makes us think about how we modernise our democracy—what sort of democracy we want and how it can fit into the modern times in which we live.
    It is crucial that the Bill and other measures contribute to dealing with the alienation that appals all of us. An important aspect of that is the age at which we consider it appropriate that people should exercise the right to vote. The lowering of the voting age deserves serious consideration. If I were making laws on my own, I would accept that the age should be reduced to 16. People should be able to exercise their democratic right at that age.
    I shall set out some of the arguments that persuaded me that the age of the franchise should be changed. Over the past few weeks and years, many of us have visited schools and talked to students. I taught in schools and, for 20 years, I tried to enthuse young people with the democratic process. Although we could not often enthuse them about the party-political process, students were not unwilling to discuss the issues of the day.
    7 pm
    Young people in schools and youth clubs have talked to us about the issues of fundamental importance to them. They have challenged us about the environment, law and order, third world debt, unemployment, pollution and issues in their local communities. I do not know the experience of other Members, but when I am challenged in a school sixth form, I do not find that the students show a lack of maturity or understanding of the issues that confront them. In many respects, it is particularly difficult to argue with them. They often say politely, "We're not going to take any rubbish from you," although they sometimes put it another way.
    One argument that is often used against lowering the age at which people can vote is that young people lack maturity. I have experience of young people and have listened to the views that they have expressed in schools and youth clubs. Their maturity and understanding of many of the fundamental issues that affect us all are quite refreshing.
    Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman's experiences are similar to my own. When I speak in schools in my

    327
    constituency, I meet people who are mature and have strong views on a range of issues. The hon. Gentleman has enunciated some of them. However, have any of the students that he has met told him that they want to vote at the age of 16?
    Mr. Coaker: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is the whole purpose of the debate and of the amendment. He is saying that, because no one has ever raised the issue with me, we should not discuss it. However, we should discuss the issue and when we go to schools and youth clubs or speak to young people in employment, we should ask them whether they think it appropriate for us to discuss the age at which they can vote. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. The fact that the subject has never been raised does not mean that we should not consider what we should do. Young people bring to the issues an idealism and lack of cynicism that it is important for us as a democracy to capture. If we can harness that enthusiasm, dynamism and youthful vigour, we will be able to improve our democracy.
    In answer to the question of why we should extend the franchise, I say that that is the logical extension of the Government's drive—and the desire of us all—to build on citizenship education in our schools. If we believe that the curriculum should do more to encourage young people to understand and be involved in the political process and to discuss the issues, the logical extension of that is to consider the appropriate age at which they should be able to have the franchise. I think that we should certainly consider the age of 16.
    Reducing the age at which people can vote would encourage participation in the political process and lead to improved participation rates. It is not a party- political argument. Real issues are involved. The House of Commons research paper on the Bill estimates that
    "about 40 per cent. of 18 to 24 year olds in Britain did not vote in 1997."
    That is in none of our interests. I do not want to be pious or holier than thou about this —I would prefer them to vote Labour—but it is important that they vote. It undermines our whole democracy if nearly half the people in that age group do not vote. We need to discuss why they do not vote, and there is a powerful argument to say that we can tackle that issue by extending the franchise.
    The vote is symbolic. In extensions of the franchise in the past, it was not just the physical act of voting that was important. Being able to vote is symbolic of the fact that one is part of the democracy in which one lives. Extending that dramatic symbolism to 16-year-olds would enable us to start to say something to them about the importance of the political process and of their being involved in their democracy.
    I acknowledge the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). As a Parliament, we need to discuss the related age issues. There are no easy answers and we can make good debating points about the age at which we should be able to do certain things. At present, we can marry, pay taxes and national insurance, drive and determine our sexuality before we are allowed to play a full part in civil and political society. At the very least, we should consider whether that is right.
    We allow young people of 16 to join the armed forces and we allow 17-year-olds to enter hostilities. I have examined the figures. In the Royal Navy, there are
    328
    816 17-year-olds; in the Royal Air Force, there are 403; and in the Army, there are 4,105. This issue transcends party politics. If 17-year-olds are considered old enough to enter hostilities on behalf of this country, we should at least ask whether they should be given the right to vote.
    The amendment has given the House the opportunity to debate the hugely important issue of extending the franchise. Alongside that debate are other questions about what we consider to be the appropriate ages for a whole range of other activities. However, the core of this debate is how we reinvigorate and regenerate our democracy, which is creaking in certain areas. Extending the franchise can build on the improvement to citizenship education in schools and it is a fundamental question for us. We should consider it and look for the proper way forward.
    Mr. Fabricant: I listened with considerable interest to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker). He made what I thought was a very impassioned argument in favour of voting at the age of 16, so I shall be curious to see whether he joins the Liberal Democrats in the Lobby if they force the amendment to a vote.
    The hon. Gentleman completely misunderstood the purpose of my intervention. I agree with him that the question of whether young people are demanding the right to vote at 16 is irrelevant to our debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on tabling the amendment. Consideration of the Bill should enable us to re-examine the age at which people are allowed to vote. That is an important issue.
    I am not convinced that 16 is the appropriate age. I was interested in the argument of the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), who pointed out rather well that it is a strange anomaly that one can vote at the age of 18, but that one has to be 21 before one can become a Member of Parliament. I suggest to the Minister that that matter needs to be dealt with in the near future. If people are old enough to vote, they should be old enough to be elected to the Chamber, or at least to put themselves up for election. That is a reasonable argument.
    I am not as convinced by the argument of the hon. Member for Watford on not forcing the matter to a vote. She said that she had had lengthy discussions on the issue with young people in her constituency. I suspect that she has also had lengthy discussions with the Whips on it, and will be uncomfortable if there is a vote.
    I quoted earlier the famous song "Eve of Destruction" by Barry McGuire:
    "Old enough to kill, but not for voting,
    And even the Jordan river has bodies floating,
    And you tell me, we're not on the Eve of Destruction".
    The hon. Member for Gedling made a good point when he said that people were old enough at 17 to be involved in conflict. There are 17-year-olds in the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia, but they are not old enough to vote. That is a strange anomaly.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Is not the real answer that 17-year-olds should not be in conflict, rather than the other way around?
    Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises a fascinating point. Unfortunately, there are problems in

    329
    recruitment. I suspect that a recruitment age of 17 has been forced on the armed forces. However, if there were no problems with recruitment, I would agree with him. Anyway, is anyone old enough to kill and be killed? The answer is probably not. Where do we draw the line? The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but, unless I am mistaken—perhaps it has been dealt with before; I have not been able to attend the whole debate because I have been at a Select Committee—there are no 17-year-old British soldiers in Kosovo, or serving in areas of conflict. They are certainly not allowed to go to Northern Ireland until they are 18. I think that that applies to other operational areas as well.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is an expert on such matters. It is interesting that there is at least synchronicity between voting and going into conflict —both can be done at 18—although if, God forbid, this country were ever involved in a fullscale war, I suspect that 17-year-olds would be engaged. I invite him to intervene if I have it wrong. I believe that the current regulations within the armed forces are that people are ready and able to go into conflict from the age of 17 onwards.
    Mr. Robathan indicated assent.
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend confirms that that is right, so there is that inconsistency.
    I was fascinated by the speech of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), who talked about maturation being uneven. He is right. Some people are very mature at 16; others are immature. Although I would not wish to stray from the issue at hand, I often felt that one of the failings of the 11-plus was that it was held at 11, although I took it at the age of 10. Just for the record, I passed.
    Mr. Pound: Under what name?
    Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman makes a sarcastic remark from a sedentary position, but, as he helped me earlier with the quote from Barry McGuire, I shall not pursue that issue. However, the system of entry into public schools at the age of 13, when there is greater commonality of maturity, is sensible. It is a great shame that we did not have a 13-plus instead of an 11-plus.
    Should 16 be universally adopted—the point was raised by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross? I do not know; I am not sure. Although I like to think of myself as a very young, energetic and fit person, I was reminded by someone only this lunchtime that I will suffer my 50th birthday next year. I will not be holding a party as I hope the whole thing will be forgotten very rapidly.
    7.15 pm
    The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross raised an interesting point in passing; I wonder whether it was in the notes of his speech. He felt that young and, indeed, old people have a duty to vote.
    330
    He rightly pointed out that there is a difference between a duty and a legal obligation. I might be tempted to table an amendment, if there is not one already, so that we can debate —whether we force the matter to a vote, I do not know—whether there should be a legal obligation to vote.
    A number of hon. Members, both Labour and Conservative, have said that young people are not voting. I wonder whether a legal obligation to vote, or at least to turn up to a voting station—as exists in Australia and, I think, Switzerland—would force many more people to vote than simply giving 16-year-olds the opportunity to vote.
    Therefore, I believe that 16 is probably too young. I do not think that one can have a commonality of age for different things. After all, people have to be 18, I believe, to drive.
    Ms Ward: Seventeen.
    Mr. Fabricant: It is 17; I thank the hon. Lady. People have to be 18 to drink—I know that—but 16 to go into a pub; that seems rather perverse. As she has said, people have to be 21 to be a Member of Parliament.
    I will not support the amendment in the Lobby, but, as I have said, I welcome the fact that the amendment has been tabled. It has provided a useful opportunity to discuss the matter. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, the matter should be revisited regularly and discussed in the House of Commons.
    Mr. Evans: It has been an important and enjoyable debate, but the amendment should be resisted. Sixteen-year-olds are obviously more intelligent than the average Liberal Democrat, but I do not believe that that is a sufficiently compelling reason to give them the vote.
    I have mentioned that, in my seven and a bit years as a Member of Parliament, I have not received one letter on the issue. I accept that, just because people are not writing to us on various issues, it does not mean that we should not lead the way. There again, even in my discussions with youngsters, none of them said that the voting age should be reduced.
    Mr. Barnes: Hon. Members have said generally that they have never received any representations on the matter, but I have just conducted a United Nations Children's Fund "Meet the MPs" surgery and it was raised there. I brought away a number of unanswered questions for written answers. Today, I answered someone in connection with the point.
    Mr. Evans: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being perhaps the only Member of Parliament to have the matter raised.
    Mr. David Heath: The point has also been raised with me at my advice surgery. Will the hon. Gentleman apply the same test to all the amendments that he has tabled for discussion during consideration of the Bill—the test of whether he has received letters on the subject?
    Mr. Evans: Clearly not. Obviously, hon. Members have received some representations on the matter in some way, shape or form—but I suspect not many. That does

    331
    not mean that the debate should not have taken place. In many ways, I am glad that it has. Perhaps it will not only increase the interest of 16 to 18-year-olds in getting the vote, but encourage more 18 to 24-year-olds who already have the vote to use it. As the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) pointed out, many do not. It must disturb all of us that 40 per cent. of them did not vote at the last general election.
    We have heard many arguments. The taxation argument has been used. I do not believe that, if people pay tax, they should get the vote. The reverse is also true: if they do not pay tax, that should not mean that they do not get the vote. It is nonsense. The taxation argument is weak.
    The hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) utilised the multi-age argument. She felt that we should have one age and it should be 16. She felt that the age for voting should be 16, but she would not support that this evening because we were not reducing the age for everything else to 16. From now on, that sort of thing will be known as the Watford gap. If the hon. Lady sincerely believes in her arguments, she should go into the Lobby with the Liberal Democrats to support the amendment, perhaps accompanied by the hon. Member for Gedling and one or two other hon. Members.
    I have read all about the laws governing the European Parliament elections—a ripping read, no doubt available in all good bookshops. In all EU states, the age at which one is allowed to vote in European Parliament elections—and, I imagine, all others—is 18. I am not sure what Norway's voting age is, but I suspect that it is probably 18 as well —Norway is so good on all things European. In some of our neighbouring countries, one is able to do all sorts of weird and wonderful things at widely differing ages. A research paper on the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual acts reveals that it varies widely throughout the EU: it is 14 in Austria, 12 in Spain and 16 in Luxembourg; and in the UK, the age of consent for homosexual acts is 18. Therefore, a multiplicity of ages is used throughout the EU.
    I agree that there is an anomaly about the age at which one can stand for election. That one can vote at 18, but not stand for election to Parliament until one is 21, is certainly anomalous. The Home Affairs Committee examined that issue and decided that matters should remain as they are. However, it is interesting to note that in seven EU countries, one may stand for election at 18; one may stand at 19 in Austria, at 21 in five other EU countries, at 23 in France and at 25 in Italy—despite the fact that in all those countries, the voting age is 18.
    Our opposition to the amendment should not be regarded as a slight by 16 and 17-year-olds. The hon. Member for Gedling mentioned that, although under-16s are not as interested in joining political parties as they once were, they often show strong interest in political issues that affect them and the world in general. My discussions with young people have ranged over many issues, including the environment, both domestic and global. I find it heartening that they are concerned about such matters, not only for their own sakes, but for the sake of future generations. Young people also take an interest in animal welfare and many other serious issues.
    332
    Therefore, just because they do not have the vote, we should not think that everyone under the age of 18 is uninterested in political issues.
    The line has to be drawn somewhere and, in matters of age restriction, a balance has to be struck and a judgment made. All of us have knocked on doors when canvassing for votes and been told by someone, "I turn 18 the day after the general election." It almost seems as though that one day has cheated them of the opportunity to vote. I do not believe that an additional 24 hours on this earth gives anyone the wisdom needed to participate in elections, but the fact is that the line has been drawn. The Liberal Democrats say that the voting age should be 16, but why stop there? Why not make it 15, 14 or even seven? The Liberal Democrats have chosen to draw the line at 16, but that is just as artificial as drawing it at 18. Our view is that 18 is an appropriate age: for many people, education ends and citizenship is extended at that age.
    We have often discussed the problem of 18 to 24-year-olds not voting. Before the general election, I did my bit by getting involved with the "Rock the Vote" campaign to get young people interested in voting. I went to the launch of the campaign at the Ministry of Sound —I am not sure whether any of my hon. Friends have been there recently, but I suspect that they have not. The issue concerns all parties and we all got involved in the campaign to get young people to register and to vote. Unfortunately, the statistics in the Library paper reveal that the campaign was not as successful as we had hoped it would be, so we have to consider other ways of encouraging more young people to vote.
    That has to be achieved by educating young people in schools about citizenship and voting. At the time of general elections, many of my local schools hold mock polls, in which young people stand as candidates and participate in the election process. In the late 1960s, when I was at school, I participated in such elections—indeed, I stood as a Conservative candidate in one of them. I lost that election, which prepared me well for the many other elections that I have subsequently lost.
    Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend will be aware that, at a similar age, the Prime Minister also declared his allegiance by standing as a Conservative candidate. Now, he hides that allegiance behind new Labour.
    Mr. Evans: We remember it well, but, in the spirit of understanding and reconciliation, I shall not pursue that point.
    We have to use education to get across to young people the message about voting. We should also exploit facilities such as the internet. The House of Commons has excellent pages where young people can look up what has been said and what documents are available. All the political parties have an internet site, as do many individual Members of Parliament— mine is www.nigelmp.com, and I am sure that many hon. Members will now rush off to have a look at it. In addition, we all encourage young people to join youth organisations.
    Mr. Fabricant: I remind my hon. Friend that, here at the House of Commons, there is an incredibly good

    333
    education unit which will visit schools in various constituencies with its travelling roadshow. Sadly, far too few Members of Parliament—
    The Temporary Chairman (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. I am sure that the Library will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the advertisement, but we should return to consideration of the amendment.
    Mr. Evans: I urge all Members of Parliament to speak to young people who visit the House of Commons in the summer. For the past six years, I have spoken to them about the work of a Member of Parliament, which helps to prepare them for the time when they are able to vote.
    Today's debate will not end with the Division; it will continue well into the future. We all have a duty and an obligation to our constituents to encourage as many as possible to show an interest in politics, to get involved and, not least, to use the vote that was so hard fought for in general elections, local elections and European elections.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): This has been a worthwhile, interesting and, at times, lively debate. We have heard high-quality speeches from, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Ms Ward), for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). No one can dismiss the issues raised in the debate and no one would try to do so. The Government take them seriously and I hope to persuade the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to do so as well.
    It might help the House if I briefly set out the history of the issues. The age of majority was reviewed in the mid-1960s by the Latey committee, which in 1967 recommended that the age of majority be lowered. For most purposes, that was achieved by the Family Law Reform Act 1969; but, for electoral purposes, as a result of a similar recommendation, it was reduced from 21 to 18 by the Representation of the People Act 1969. That remains the position.
    7.30 pm
    Obviously it would not be wise to give the right to vote to all people, no matter what their age. So an age must be chosen at which it can be accepted that most people are sufficiently politically aware, mature and independent to make up their minds and choose between the various election candidates. A balance must be struck in deciding that age. Doubtless all of us know people under 18 who exhibit wisdom and responsibility and could be trusted to exercise the franchise sensibly. Equally, we can probably all think of people over 18 who lack the necessary maturity to make responsible decisions.
    That brings me back to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, who says that there is no absolutism about these matters. I agree with him. It is also a truism that there is more likely to be a higher percentage of people aged 18 who are able to exercise judgment properly with maturity and independence than
    334
    of those aged 16. Eighteen is the most common voting age throughout the world, and we believe that it is still the most appropriate minimum age.
    These are serious issues that deserve to be debated. However, it is important that changes are brought forward with a degree of consensus. The Bill is the result of an all-party working group and a significant degree of cross-party support and agreement about the way forward. We may disagree about some of the details but there is a broad consensus that many of the ideas set out in the Bill are good ones that can command broad support. Indeed, representatives of each of the major political parties were on the working party that recommended the proposals that we are discussing in considering the Bill.
    The Liberal Democrats' proposal to reduce the voting age to 16 has not had the same degree of broad-based support. It is regrettable that in bringing forward this idea they have not sought the support of Conservative Members, Labour Members and others by securing their agreement to put their names to the amendment.
    As I have said, the issue deserves to be treated seriously and discussed in an all-party context. I suggest that the Select Committee on Home Affairs might be the appropriate venue. An appropriate cross-party group, of which there are several, might properly consider it.
    It was interesting that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said that he did not want piecemeal legislation on the age of majority. If he were to press the amendment to a vote, that is precisely what he would be urging upon the Committee.
    As the hon. Member for Poole said, there are arguments for different ages of majority. Perhaps these need to be considered, but I suggest that they are not matters for the Government to examine internally. Perhaps the Select Committee on Home Affairs or another all-party group might be appropriate bodies to consider them and to decide whether it is right to have a certain age or a number of different ages.
    It is important to get young people involved in political issues. However, I am not convinced that lowering the age of voting will do very much to bring about a significant change in the interest that young people take in political issues.
    Interestingly, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey did not refer to the anomaly—it was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford and by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—that people can vote at 18 but are unable to stand for Parliament or even a local council. They have to wait until they are 21. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have taken up the argument. It is much more difficult to justify because in many ways there is an anomaly. There are arguments in favour of a voting age of 21, but I will not outline them now.
    The hon. Gentleman's proposal would increase the disparity between the voting age, if it were to be 16, and the age of 21 at which people could stand for election to Parliament or a local council. He has put forward no solution that would deal with that issue. These are complex matters that need to be debated in a cross-party and consensual way, not within Government but in another forum. The working party has ended its deliberations. I have not read the article to which the hon. Gentleman referred but, as I understand it, the working party did not consider the issue. Perhaps he should not

    335
    believe all that he reads in the newspapers, no matter how reputable some of the journalists no doubt are. I think that the issue should be taken forward in a non-governmental way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that approach rather than pressing the matter to a Division.
    I appreciate the strength of feeling that Members on both sides of the Chamber have expressed. I do not dismiss the idea because it is one worthy of debate. However, I am not convinced by the argument that people should be able to vote at 16. There are routes other than pushing the amendment to a Division. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said that the Latey committee sought to bring forward these matters in a consensual way, and I think that that is the appropriate approach. I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will see fit to withdraw the amendment. If the issue is to be taken seriously, it needs to be pursued in an all-party manner.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Watford was right to say that if the hon. Gentleman presses the amendment to a vote, I shall charge the Liberal Democrats with not being serious. I charge them with grandstanding and indulging in political gestures. The hon. Gentleman has been given advice on how to take the matter forward. We shall now see if the Liberal Democrats have the maturity to exercise judgment. In many ways, the issue is a test of their maturity. Are they scoring party political points or are they serious? I say seriously that they should not demean the seriousness of the argument. Let them take it forward in a consensual way, seek a cross-party approach and treat young people with the seriousness that they deserve. They should not divide the Committee.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Until two minutes ago, this had been a good-natured and non-party political debate. I am sad that the Minister spoiled it in the past two minutes.
    We have had a good debate with Members from the north, the midlands, the south of England and Scotland taking part, the majority of whom were in favour of the proposition that I and my hon. Friends have put forward. If the Minister heard my original remarks, he would have heard me saying that my party is both committed to reducing the age of voting to 16 and to reducing the age at which people can stand for elections to 18. Therefore, widening the gap between the two ages is not our position—the gap would be narrower if the two ages were reduced.
    The Minister sought to say, and I had argued, that everything should be looked at in the round. I put two propositions to the Committee. First, we should accept that now is the time to move to voting at 16. Secondly, we should consider in the round the age of majority and all the other issues. I was hoping for an indication from the Minister that the Home Office was willing to do that. Sadly, that was not given. My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) reminds me and the Committee that when the Latey committee did its work—he was there at the time—that was the subject of general consideration. The Labour Government's proposal, produced by the late Harold Wilson, reduced the voting age from 21 to 18, but that was not the result of a consensual agreement. It was a proposition that could be taken on its own.
    Two questions have been asked. First, is there a commitment to a reduction in the voting age to 16? In Westminster Hall, where there have been great gatherings
    336
    of young people in recent years, there has been a demand. There have been letters, and many young people raise the issue. I organised a Youth Parliament in a Committee Room some weeks ago, and the issue was raised then. I believe that there is a demand, and there is academic support for that in studies from Loughborough and Nottingham universities, which make it clear that only 5 per cent. of those under 19—a much younger group was also polled— thought that voting was a waste of time.
    I shall put one final argument to the Committee after a good debate. It justifies constitutional matters being dealt with on the Floor of the House. At 16, young people go from being under authority to being free from authority. They are free to make their own choices, by and large. They have just come out of the period of compulsory education, when citizenship, voting and the electoral system are taught. They are usually settled in their homes and have not started to be mobile.
    It is much more likely that 16 to 18-year-olds would vote than people who are slightly older. They are more settled and their education would be more relevant if it taught them that a chance to vote was about to come, than if it taught them about some vote a long time in the future.
    We will not misinterpret colleagues who say that they cannot vote with us because the time is not right. This is a historic vote for Parliament and the Committee. It is the first time that young people under 18 will see it put to a Committee of Parliament that they should have the opportunity to vote. We ask colleagues in all parts of the House to support us. We have made the point and flagged up the proposition. If the Government defeat us tonight, we will go on to work with the Government and others. It is not one or the other: it is vote tonight and collaborate to make sure that we debate the issue across parties and in other places in the days ahead.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 36, Noes 434.

    Division No. 20]

    [7.41 pm

    AYES

    Allan, Richard

    Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Brake, Tom

    Livsey, Richard

    Burstow, Paul

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

    McDonnell, John

    (NE Fife)

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Chidgey, David

    Moore, Michael

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Öpik, Lembit

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Rendel, David

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Sanders, Adrian

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Grogan, John

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Harvey, Nick

    Tyler, Paul

    Webb, Steve

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Willis, Phil

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Jones, Ms Jenny

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Sir Robert Smith and

    Keetch, Paul

    Jackie Ballard.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Ainger, Nick

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Alexander, Douglas

    Ashton, Joe

    Allen, Graham

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    337

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Corston, Jean

    Barnes, Harry

    Cousins, Jim

    Barron, Kevin

    Cran, James

    Battle, John

    Cranston, Ross

    Bayley, Hugh

    Crausby, David

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Beggs, Roy

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Cummings, John

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    (Copeland)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Benton, Joe

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Bercow, John

    Dalyell, Tam

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Darvill, Keith

    Best, Harold

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Betts, Clive

    Davidson, Ian

    Blackman, Liz

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

    Body, Sir Richard

    & Howden)

    Borrow, David

    Dawson, Hilton

    Boswell, Tim

    Day, Stephen

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Denham, John

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dobbin, Jim

    Brady, Graham

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Brazier, Julian

    Doran, Frank

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Drew, David

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Duncan, Alan

    Browne, Desmond

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Edwards, Huw

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Effort, Clive

    Burden, Richard

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Burgon, Colin

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Etherington, Bill

    Butterfill, John

    Evans, Nigel

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Faber, David

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Fabricant, Michael

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Fallon, Michael

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Cann, Jamie

    Fisher, Mark

    Caplin, Ivor

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Casale, Roger

    Flint, Caroline

    Cash, William

    Flynn, Paul

    Caton, Martin

    Follett, Barbara

    Cawsey, Ian

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Chaytor, David

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Chope, Christopher

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Clapham, Michael

    Fraser, Christopher

    Clappison, James

    Fyfe, Maria

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Gale, Roger

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Galloway, George

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Gibb, Nick

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Gill, Christopher

    Clelland, David

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Clwyd, Ann

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Coaker, Vernon

    Godsiff, Roger

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Goggins, Paul

    Cohen, Harry

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Coleman, Iain

    Grant, Bernie

    Collins, Tim

    Gray, James

    Colman, Tony

    Green, Damian

    Connarty, Michael

    Greenway, John

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Cooper, Yvette

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Corbett, Robin

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    338

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Grogan, John

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Lidington, David

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Linton, Martin

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Lock, David

    Hammond, Philip

    Loughton, Tim

    Hanson, David

    Love, Andrew

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Luff, Peter

    Hawkins, Nick

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Hayes, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Heald, Oliver

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Healey, John

    Macdonald, Calum

    Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

    McFall, John

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Hepburn, Stephen

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Heppell, John

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hesford, Stephen

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Hill, Keith

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Hood, Jimmy

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Hope, Phil

    McNamara, Kevin

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    McNulty, Tony

    Horam, John

    MacShane, Denis

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    McWalter, Tony

    Howells, Dr Kim

    McWilliam, John

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Madel, Sir David

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Malins, Humfrey

    Hunter, Andrew

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hurst, Alan

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hutton, John

    Marshall,David (Shettleston)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Illsley, Eric

    Marshall—Andrews, Robert

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Martlew, Eric

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Jamieson, David

    Maxton, John

    Jenkin, Bernard

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Jenkins, Brian

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Merron, Gillian

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Jones, Ms Jenny

    Miller, Andrew

    (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    (B'ham Yardley)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Moss, Malcolm

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Mountford, Kali

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Mudie, George

    Key, Robert

    Mullin, Chris

    Khabra, Piara S

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Kidney, David

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Norris, Dan

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Lansley, Andrew

    Olner, Bill

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    O'Neill, Martin

    Laxton, Bob

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Leslie, Christopher

    Paice, James

    Letwin, Oliver

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Levitt, Tom

    Paterson, Owen

    339

    Pearson, Ian

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Pickles, Eric

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Pike, Peter L

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Plaskitt, James

    Streeter, Gary

    Pond, Chris

    Stringer, Graham

    Pope, Greg

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Pound, Stephen

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Swayne, Desmond

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Syms, Robert

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Primarolo, Dawn

    (Dewsbury)

    Prior, David

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Purchase, Ken

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

    Rammell, Bill

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Randall, John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Rapson, Syd

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Raynsford, Nick

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Touhig, Don

    Robathan, Andrew

    Tredinnick, David

    Robertson, Laurence

    Trend, Michael

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Trickett, Jon

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Rogers, Allan

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Rooney, Terry

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Tynan, Bill

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Roy, Frank

    Viggers, Peter

    Ruane, Chris

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Ruddock, Joan

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Ruffley, David

    Wareing, Robert N

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Waterson, Nigel

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Watts, David

    Salter, Martin

    White, Brian

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Sawford, Phil

    Whittingdale, John

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Wilkinson, John

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Willetts, David

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    (Swansea W)

    Singh, Marsha

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Wilson, Brian

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Winnick, David

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Snape, Peter

    Woodward, Shaun

    Soames, Nicholas

    Woolas, Phil

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Worthington, Tony

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Spring, Richard

    Wyatt, Derek

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Yeo, Tim

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Steen, Anthony

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

    Stevenson, George

    Mr. Jim Dowd.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Mr. Barnes: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 1, leave out lines 20 to 23.
    The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 32, in page 2, leave out lines 9 to 14.
    340
    No. 33, in page 2, line 20, leave out "is resident" and insert
    "has his sole or main residence".
    No. 9, in page 2, line 24, leave out "and".
    No. 10, in page 2, line 25, at end insert
    ";and
    (e) in making his application for registration or his declaration of local connection or his service declaration, states all other addresses in respect of which he had at any time within the period of twelve months preceding the relevant date been registered in the register of parliamentary electors for any constituency or part of a constituency.".
    No. 35, in page 2, line 35, leave out "is resident" and insert
    "has his sole or main residence".
    No. 11, in page 2, line 39, leave out "and".
    No. 12, in page 2, line 40, at end insert
    "; and
    (e) in making his application for registration or his declaration of local connection or his service declaration, states all other addresses in respect of which he had at any time within the period of twelve months preceding the relevant date been registered in the register of local government electors for any electoral area.".
    No. 14, in clause 6, page 8, line 23, at end insert—
    "(g) whether the declarant is registered in the register of parliamentary electors for any other constituency or for any other part of a constituency and, if so, the name of that constituency or part of a constituency".
    Mr. Barnes: Earlier, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) pointed out that an amendment appeared only in my name. That applies to amendments Nos. 30, 32, 33 and 35. However, as I said earlier, some amendments on rolling registers that stood only in my name in the past were accepted, and their proposals have become common practice for the Government.
    The purpose of the amendment is to end double or multiple electoral registrations. A person who has more than one residence currently qualifies to appear on more than one register. However, it is illegal to use more than one vote on the same day, although there is no means of checking whether people have been dishonest and have fraudulently voted more than once.
    A fully fledged rolling register should ensure that double registration does not take place. I have tabled amendments—some have cross-party support—that try to extend the provision for a rolling register and build on the Government's proposals. We shall discuss some of those matters later. We want the rolling register to be fully fledged so that, as soon as people move from one part of the country to another, their names are put on the new area's register and deleted from that of the previous area. Such a system removes the need for double registration and its attendant problems.
    If we want to know the exact number of electors in the country, double registration does not help us. The Government are tackling some problems: for example, they intend to make arrangements to remove from registers the names of people who have died. Their presence on registers renders current figures inaccurate when calculating turnout.

    341
    The amendment would provide clarity and ensure that someone was registered in one place for voting and could transfer registration only on moving.
    8 pm
    Mr. Grieve: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's argument. I listened carefully to his earlier argument about votes for foreign visitors to this country, although I fail to see the logic of the position that he is adopting on this matter. People are much more mobile, often have homes in different locations and have multiple residences. If they wish to vote only once, why should they be deprived of the opportunity to choose where in the United Kingdom they cast that vote?
    Mr. Barnes: We need a modern, up-to-date electoral registration system precisely because we have a mobile, rootless society in which people move around a great deal or leave bedsitter land to become homeless or live in another area. The rolling register is intended to produce such a system. I believe that the Government version of it is a shadow of what we could have, but, given modern technology, it should be possible for one place to be considered a person's sole or main place of residence. That is where he would register.
    Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Barnes: In a moment.
    Amendment No. 35 allows for such provision to be made. The notion of a sole or main place of residence was introduced by the Conservative Government in the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which introduced the poll tax. People had to register for their main poll tax payments at their sole or main place of residence and, although they paid poll tax for their other residences, arrangements to change the sole or main place of residence could be made quickly when they moved. If that principle could be used for an anti-social measure that cleared masses of people off the electoral register and destroyed electoral registration— attainers, who appeared on the register for the first time, hid from it because their household would have had to make multiple payments—it is only justice to introduce a measure that will help to restore full electoral registration.
    The principle of a person having a sole or main place of residence can be used in such a connection. Even if a person has multiple residences, he will be associated mostly with one place and must decide which will appear on the register. If his life style changes and he wants to call another of his homes his sole or main place of residence, the rolling register will make that possible.
    Mr. Hogg rose—
    Mr. Robathan rose—
    Mr. Barnes: I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).
    Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman has raised so many points that I must prevent myself from making a speech, although I must ask why a person who has to pay
    342
    council tax on each home should not also have a vote. I want to pick up a point that was referred to on Second Reading. He is trying to prevent people from voting more than once. Is it not about time that the Government—I am not referring in particular to the Labour Government or the previous Conservative Government—checked up to ensure that people have not voted more than once? I do not think that we have heard any promise on that yet.
    Mr. Barnes: People cannot purchase the vote because they pay a certain amount of tax or council tax. Technically, people are allowed to vote only once. A system that checked the current arrangements to make sure that nobody was abusing them would be useful, but, if the method that I propose were adopted, that would become terribly unnecessary. People would be on one register at any time, it would be illegal to be on another register and there would be nothing to prevent a central system—a link between different electoral registers —from making sure of that. That can be done in connection with the purchase of lottery tickets, so we must be able to do it with franchise rights, which are far more important.
    Mr. Hogg: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to our first debate, in which we both participated? He made a point that had certain intellectual logic, asking why overseas voters resident in the United Kingdom and affected by laws were not entitled to vote. He has tabled an amendment that would prevent a person from registering in more than one local government area. If a person has a number of properties, he is affected by local government tax— the council tax—wherever he registers. Is it not right that, as he is affected by the level of council tax in respect of all his properties, he should have a local government vote in respect of each local government area?
    Mr. Barnes: Certainly not. Every person should have the franchise; every person should count merely as one and should therefore be able to vote only in the area that he chooses. If someone is wealthy enough to have properties all over the place, lucky for him, but why should he have a say in how local government works in umpteen places? One person, one vote is what we should have.
    Mr. Robathan rose—
    Mr. Hogg rose—
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) say to whom he is giving way?
    Mr. Barnes: I am giving way to the hon. Member for Blaby.
    Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to you, Mrs. Dunwoody, and to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will add his remarks later. Does the hon. Gentleman remember the great cry, "No taxation without representation"? Local taxation concerns local issues, such as what is spent on the road outside my house. If I owned two houses—I regret to say that I do not—surely I should be able to influence rubbish collection,

    343
    road maintenance and what is done in schools. I pay two council taxes because I rent a house by my constituency. As I pay council tax, surely I should be allowed to vote in local council elections.
    Mr. Barnes: It is entirely inappropriate that people should be able to choose several main areas and main concerns. If they are lucky enough to own all sorts of property, good for them, but why should they have all sorts of influence over what the authorities do in those areas? Remember, they have a vote in general elections, which determine what the law of the land will be. That includes decisions on local government finance, the standard spending assessment and other measures, so they are in the system and they are in it on the same basis as the poorest person in society, who should—at least on election day—have the same right as the mightiest in the land.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is not there an argument converse to that put by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)? If there is no taxation without representation, there ought to be no representation without taxation. There are consequences to people having a right to influence the area in which they live simply because they live there; people who do not live in that area should not have a right to such influence. That being so, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt vote with me on my amendment to abolish the overseas vote.
    Mr. Barnes: I am certainly with my right hon. Friend in connection with the overseas vote. In respect of our earlier debate, I tabled amendments concerning people from overseas who have settled in this country having the right to vote on the same basis as Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens. I used exactly the same argument and it should apply to who we decide to enfranchise in this country. It should also operate in relation to people who go overseas. We should argue for them to be enfranchised overseas, but once they return they should be put back on the register.
    Mr. Hogg: I want the position to be made absolutely clear. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, although it is right that no one can have more than one vote in a general election, he is proposing to take away existing rights in respect of local government elections in which local government electors can vote more than once if they have a number of properties in different local government areas.
    Mr. Barnes: On this issue, I am in the tradition of the Chartists and the suffragettes and people who believe in one person, one vote. That arrangement should have been entered into years ago. The system that operates in general elections should apply to local government elections. There should not be privileged people who, because of their wealth, have more votes than other people. Members of Parliament with residencies in London and in their constituencies where they mainly reside should not be able to vote in two places. That would be open to abuse. There should be one person, one vote in any election.
    Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) forgets what took place not under the Chartists but under the Attlee
    344
    Government, when people had two votes in local elections: they had the residential vote and the business vote. They were able to vote twice in the same area or in two different areas. The Conservative party has always supported fancy franchises.
    Mr. Barnes: The points made by Conservative Members have a resonance in the past. People also had two votes for the university seats, which were abolished in 1948. We should not allow a system in which people have two votes. In a democracy, everyone in the country who is covered by its laws and operations should have a say in elections on the basis of equality. Equality means one person, one vote.
    Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his forbearance. Earlier, we discussed the issue of foreign residents. The hon. Gentleman must know that one of the consequences of our tolerance of dual nationalities is that many people can vote in this country and in another country at general elections. Under the principles enunciated by the hon. Gentleman, they also have an unfair advantage, one which he was previously prepared to promote and extend, but is now seeking to restrict. I do not follow the logic of his argument.
    Mr. Barnes: Perhaps in time we will put that right. I believe that people should have the vote in the place in which they are resident. If people have dual nationality, that should make no difference. They may reside in a country of which they are not a national, and that is where they should vote. There is nothing inconsistent about the principle that I was propounding.
    There may be a problem with students. Under single registration, where should a student register? The Bill improves the operation of postal voting. If students register in the place where they study, that should present no great difficulty when they go back to their home residence during the long summer break. However, if we had a modern, rolling electoral registration system, students could decide that while they are settled in the area where they are studying that is their sole and main place of residence, but during the long summer vacation their home is their sole and main place of residence, and their voting rights could be transferred accordingly. The system should allow us to handle that.
    The problem that I have with the other amendments is that, unless some of the later amendments that I have tabled are carried, they will detract from the principle that I am trying to establish. It is important that we consider whether double registration should be allowed, or whether we should have rolling registers to prevent that. Difficulties may arise if people can vote in different areas for local government elections and for parliamentary elections and by-elections.
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) should cast his mind back to what he said, very eloquently, in the first debate. He made the point that if people are in the United Kingdom, even if they are residents and citizens of an overseas country, they should be entitled to vote in UK elections. He justified that by arguing that they are affected by the consequences of Government policy in the

    345
    United Kingdom, so they should have a say in the choice of that Government. That was a respectable argument—he knows that I disagree, but no matter, because it had a certain amount of force.
    Let us consider his argument in the context of what he is now proposing. I have no great difficulty with amendment No. 30 with regard to the general election. We have long accepted that people should have only one vote in a general election. It could be on the basis of a main or sole residence. That is not something that I would particularly recommend, because the present law has caused no problems, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about the right of choice. However, that is not a fundamental difficulty.
    What is a fundamental difficulty is when we come to local government elections. The point that I was trying to make in my intervention on the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire was that, if people have more than one property in more than one local government area, they inevitably pay more than one set of local authority taxes. It would be quite wrong if they were under an obligation to pay taxes but had no say over the composition of the local authority that levied those taxes. The proposition that those who pay taxes must have a say in the choice of the authority that levies them is essential to democracy within the society of which we have been speaking.
    Mr. David Heath: Under the present system of council tax, if people have multiple residences they establish one place as their principle residence and pay an abated council tax for the others. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that they should pay the full council tax for each residence and have equal democratic rights?
    Mr. Hogg: In a mobile society, some people inevitably have to have more than one residence. They may not necessarily have ownership: they may be tenants. Many hon. Members, because of the nature of our work, have to have two residences. That is not confined to Members of Parliament. Many people in society have to have two residences, and some of them are not on particularly large incomes. We should consider the propriety of levying two full sets of council tax on two or more properties. Those people would face too large a burden if we were to decide to do that. I would not go along that road, because it would have an inequitable result for people on modest incomes.
    Mr. Barnes: What cuts me to the quick is the criticism that I am inconsistent. People have often said that I am consistent—consistently wrong. I like to be logically correct in these matters. I have not argued that the payment of taxes should be the basis for registration; I have said that if people live in a society and are affected by the decisions made on a whole host of issues—health and safety, the environment and others— they should have a say in its operation. It is more difficult to use that argument against me on the local government franchise, because people have one vote according to their sole or main place of residence.
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right. In the first debate, he used the term "affected". He, of course, had in mind taxation, but I am perfectly willing to accept that he
    346
    was also referring to the other consequences of living in a society, such as the impact of the criminal law on people's activities. That is also true, albeit to a lesser extent, in local government areas.
    Local authorities have the power—albeit a much lesser power—to regulate life in their communities. It is not just a question of their levying tax; they do many other things that impact on the citizen. The argument is not confined to taxation: it relates to the power of regulation vested in local authorities.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: Do we not encounter certain logical difficulties and contradictions when departing from the principle of one person, one vote, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has referred? Must not the logic applying to the making of financial contributions in more than one area also apply to those making contributions under the Child Support Act 1991? Such people might legitimately argue that the same principle of buying votes should apply to them, in the same measure.
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. I feel that some interventions are almost becoming speeches.
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point, which I shall try to answer.
    When we are dealing with Parliament, we are talking about the composition of one body. Giving the individual citizen a right to cast more than one vote means giving him or her a disproportionate weight in terms of the composition of, say, the House of Commons. That is why we argue for only one vote in parliamentary elections. The same principle would apply to the granting of more than one vote to an individual elector in regard to the composition of one local government area: undue influence would be conferred. That is probably why we did away with the business vote, as well as what would then have been the ratepayer's vote. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made a valid point about that. In this instance, however, we are dealing with another issue—the composition of different local authorities. The local government elector can have only one vote in respect of each authority; he therefore does not have a disproportionate say in the composition of that authority.
    Mr. John Greenway: In a sense, I am reluctant to prolong this discussion, but has it occurred to my right hon. and learned Friend that a disadvantage of the arrangement proposed by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) in respect of local government is the fact that local elections take place in different ways in different years in different parts of the country? It is highly likely that someone with two or three residences could change his main residence to ensure that it was in the right place for the purpose of the current local election.
    Mr. Hogg: I am sure that that is factually correct. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the ingenuity of his conclusion, which had not occurred to me.
    I must end my speech, which has only been prolonged by interventions—although I do not grumble about interventions that were entirely serious. Let me finally say

    347
    that it is wrong to deprive an individual of a vote in respect of the composition of an authority that taxes him and regulates his activities. I hope that we shall not change the present law in so far as it relates to local government elections.
    Mr. Linton: I urge the Government to support amendment No. 33, which suggests that a person should be able to register to vote in parliamentary elections in the constituency that contains his or her sole or main residence. I cannot speak to the amendment that I tabled, because it is starred, but it is couched in similar terms, suggesting that a person should be registered to vote in parliamentary elections only in the constituency that contains his or her principal residence. It bears no relation to what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said about local government, and does not impinge on the amendment relating to registration for local elections.
    I am speaking in pursuance of a recommendation by the Home Affairs Committee, and also because I feel that the perfect amendment to a Representation of the People Bill, from the Government's point of view, would have cross-party support, and would deal with an anomaly in the law that was not created by the present legislature, but has appeared for other reasons. This amendment falls into that category. Certainly, it deals with an anomaly in the law.
    People speak as though dual registration had always existed. In a few cases that may be true, but it has existed to any real extent only since the 1970s. Very few students voted until the 1970 general election—although I seem to remember voting in the 1966 election, which happened to occur during a university vacation. At that time, however, few students tried to "double register", because few were of what was then voting age. Only in 1970 was the issue tested—in a case called Fox v. Stirk, the outcome of which confirmed that people could register to vote in parliamentary elections in two constituencies. Before that, the position was uncertain.
    As a result, it had to be spelt out in the Representation of the People Act 1983 that it was illegal to vote in two constituencies in parliamentary elections. It was not that anyone had believed before that it was legal; the situation simply had not arisen, because it was assumed that people registered their principal residence in any one constituency. The matter really became an issue because of the lowering of the voting age.
    When he made his ruling, Lord Denning said:
    "The first principle is that a man can have two residences. He can have a flat in London and a house in the country."
    I think that Lord Denning was thinking mainly of people like the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who was used to having two residences even before the lowering of the voting age. There may have been cases before the 1970s of people who registered in their London house and their country house, but the main reason why the provision was spelled out in the law was that it was regarded as a new phenomenon and the law had to make it explicit that double voting was illegal.
    It is an anomaly that people can register in two constituencies. It was never intended by Parliament and has never been passed in a Representation of the People Bill. The anomaly emerged because people started to do it and the law held that it was not illegal.
    348
    At the same time, a case in Scotland—the name escapes me; I think that it was called Phillips—came to the opposite conclusion that a voter should register only in the constituency of his or her principal residence. Many Scots are under the impression to this day that they are not allowed to double register. In fact, that is probably not true, because Fox v. Stirk was heard in a higher court and therefore takes precedence. The Scottish law's answer was that people could not be double registered and the English law's was that they could. Both legal rulings had nothing to do with the intention of Parliament.
    There is cross-party support on the issue. The Home Affairs Committee heard evidence from representatives of the three main parties, all of whom made it clear that they would like an end to dual registration. Chief among those giving evidence was the then chairman of the Conservative party, Lord Parkinson, who said that students and second-home owners should nominate their principal place of residence. He clearly opposed the two main kinds of dual registration.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Robathan: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with interest. I had understood that the purpose of the Bill was to make it easier to vote. That seems to be the idea behind the rolling register and other proposals. The Minister is nodding. If I were a university student and had nominated the university as my place of residence but was at home when the election was called, I would have to get a postal vote. We all know that postal votes are not the easiest way of voting, and that the Government want to make it easier to vote. How will people be encouraged to vote if they cannot register in both the places where they live during part of the year?
    Mr. Linton: This is a good time to correct the anomaly because the Bill's main proposals, which I applaud, are a rolling register and postal voting on demand. Those provisions will make it much easier for students who live in two places to vote in elections. It is difficult at the moment. Students who are registered in only one constituency do not have much time after an election is called to apply for a postal vote. They cannot apply for a permanent postal vote. They have to apply at each election. In 1974, for example, students had only a few days to apply for a postal vote to ensure that they could register their vote in the other constituency.
    The Bill will introduce postal voting on demand. It will be possible to have a permanent postal vote for any reason. Students who live in two places will find it the easiest thing in the world to get a postal vote in the other constituency. It will be open to students to decide which constituency to register in, because they will still have a claim of residence in both. The amendment would merely force them to choose which should be their principal residence where they want to be on the parliamentary register. In the current circumstances, the amendment might lead to more difficulty, but, given the other proposals in the Bill, voting would not be more difficult.
    Mr. Robathan: Voting will be easy in theory. The hon. Gentleman came to the House in 1997. In my limited experience, postal votes are not a panacea, because the whole business is very complicated. Postal votes sometimes do not arrive. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to

    349
    say that it would be easier for students to vote. I think that fewer people would vote, not more. We are trying to encourage more people to vote.
    Mr. Linton: Yes indeed, but the Bill will make it much easier for people to get postal votes. There will also be pilots in other voting systems, which could allow students, or anybody else, to vote in any post office, library or town hall anywhere in the country and have their vote registered in their home constituency. Distant voting will no longer be difficult. I cannot predict how successful the pilots will be or how soon they will be rolled out across the country, but I have every confidence that the Bill will ensure that it is no longer difficult to vote from another part of the country. On Second Reading, I cited the example of Sweden, where it is possible to vote at any post office in the country until 5 pm on election day and have the vote transferred to one's local polling station by the close of the polls at 8 pm. There is no reason why we cannot introduce such a system under the Bill, taking all the pain out of postal voting.
    The Liberal Democrat representative told the Select Committee:
    "I can see why they"—
    students—
    "should be able to vote in either place in local elections"—
    and that takes up the point made by Conservative Members. He continued:
    "I do not think they should have a right to choose though which of those two giving them the entitlement to vote in Parliamentary elections."
    In other words, in parliamentary elections, there should not be dual registration even if it is permitted for local elections.
    The Labour party representative said:
    "Certainly in Parliamentary and European elections it would be better if people when they sign their declaration say this is their main or principal residence".
    Whatever may be the case with local elections, at parliamentary level, all three parties support an end to dual registration.
    The Home Affairs Committee recommended that there should be an end to dual registration in parliamentary elections and said that people should be required to specify their main residence. That recommendation was misinterpreted by the Home Office working party on election procedure, which studied all these issues before they were put in the Bill. That working party read it as a requirement for people to make a declaration about the constituency of their principal residence, as if they had to sign a form when registering to vote. The working group concluded that it would be complex to administer and would discourage, rather than encourage, voting.
    That is making far more of the proposal than was intended. Without dual registration, it would be perfectly simple for people to register only once for parliamentary elections but to register twice for local elections. That is perfectly possible now. European nationals and Members of the House of Lords can register for local and European elections. Their electoral number is usually appended with a G, a K or an L in the electoral register. It is an accepted
    350
    device now, and this change in the law would mean that, as a parliamentary elector, one could register only once while continuing to register twice for local elections.
    The next test of the amendment is whether the law as it stands creates any mischief. 1 argue that it does. There is a clear advantage to people who have the option of dual registration in that they can cast their vote in the more marginal seat. That point was made strongly in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee by one of the academics. He said:
    "persons registered in two or more constituencies may prefer to cast their vote in the constituency which is more marginal and therefore where their vote is more likely to prove of political impact to the result."
    We know from experience that those who are dual registered cast their votes in a tactical way, giving them an advantage possessed by nobody else. The academic continued that a choice of constituency in general elections applies most commonly to our more affluent citizens by virtue of their ownership of two or more houses and said:
    "It would be preferable to remove this element of electoral chicanery which has systematically favoured the better-off."
    I do not know how true it is that double registration helps the more affluent, but I am sure that we all agree that it does confer an unfair advantage on some people who can choose to vote in the constituency in which their vote makes more difference.
    The Home Affairs Committee identified two groups who benefit from dual registration and said that constituencies that can be influenced by dual registration are those with large student populations and a large number of second homes. The Committee's report said that in probably very few constituencies was the result influenced by the votes of double-registered voters. However, I am not sure that we were right on that. The student vote is substantial in many constituencies, and the election date is essentially a lottery for candidates in those constituencies, many of whom wait to discover whether students will be able to vote at university or, in the vacation, at home. Under the new system, although students will still have the choice of registering at their university or home address, they will have to make that choice in advance, rather than tactically at the election.
    I urge the Government to accept this group of amendments. There is cross-party support for change in the law. The anomaly was never intended by Parliament; it has simply developed, and is unfair electorally.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: There are several propositions: the first is on choosing representation at parliamentary elections; the second is on choosing representation at local government elections; and the third is on registration for both types of elections.
    On the first proposition, and for reasons that have already been elucidated, Liberal Democrat Members are minded to support amendment No. 30. In parliamentary elections, everyone should have one vote, and everyone's vote should have equal worth. The Government are to be congratulated for ensuring that "everybody" now encompasses more people—including those without permanent places of residence, such as those who are homeless, in mental hospitals or on remand.
    Everyone has one place to which they are more closely tied. If people have more than one place of residence, they are entitled to choose where to vote. Therefore, some

    351
    people have the advantage of deciding where their vote might be more useful. As long as we have a constituency-based system—regardless of whether it is first past the post or multi-member—those people will have an additional advantage.
    The advantage is as available to students—it was when I was a student—as it is to hon. Members. Some hon. Members live in my constituency. Until recently, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) lived there; I do not know whether he still does. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) lives in my constituency, as does the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). If they thought that they had a safe seat and decided not to vote in their constituency, they could vote in the constituency in which their parliamentary residence is located, perhaps affecting the outcome in a less-safe seat. It is terribly wrong—[Interruption.] I shall not embarrass the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham by saying how he voted.
    Mr. Hogg: I vote for my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh).
    Mr. Hughes: It is terribly wrong to give people an additional advantage. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) said, that advantage is the result of an anomaly. When I was a student, I remember being aware that I had the choice of where to vote, and I exercised that choice by being on the register in the place where I could most intelligently use my vote.
    Current electoral law is the aspect that baffles us all. The most recent electoral form, and previous ones, sent to me asked me to state where I resided on the relevant date, which was 10 October. One certainly cannot reside at more than one place on one date. Does the Minister think that it should be possible for people to register in more than one place?
    Both the electoral form and the law state that, by signing a form in one place, one is declaring that that place is one's normal or regular place of residence. It is probably not proper for people to fill in forms in two places—although it is commonly accepted that, if one has two homes, one probably is able to fill in two forms.
    8.45 pm
    Thirdly, there are different arguments about local elections. Although they are not conclusive, there are arguments to suggest that, because one is electing the administration for local government services for that area, one should have a vote in more than one area if one can register. The elections are at different times. Theoretically, they are different elections. Also, one is contributing in each area. That argument is difficult to sustain because it was the argument for the old business rate—one contributed and, therefore, one got a business vote. Although that parallel exists, it cannot be put in the same frame as local government and parliamentary elections.
    There is a strong case for saying that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), for example, has a London and a Somerset residence, is entitled to fill in the form for both—he has simply to fill in a form to say that he is resident in both, not that he has a principal, main or sole residence—and has a council tax
    352
    obligation in both, as one would have if one had two homes but no more than, he should be entitled to vote in both places.
    Mr. David Heath: I do not register both for my address in the east end and for that in Somerton and Frome because I read the form and I understand the wording of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which states that one is required to be resident on the qualifying date. I take it that the normal meaning of those words is that I can be living only at one place on that date. That is why I am mystified by the state of the present law.
    Mr. Hughes: Clearly, the rolling register would allow people to move their vote. The easier that that is, the better, but it is not the complete answer. Will a student who is based at the family home in the holiday and at college or university in term time think about changing the vote from one place to the other? I realise that people could do so and that the theory of the system is that they will, but I am not persuaded that it will necessarily follow that people will think, "There is an election. I am on the list in Caithness and I want to transfer to London," and that they will re-register.
    We should be clear about the first principle on parliamentary elections and sort out the law, as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire suggests. However, we should be more careful about the second, because local government elections raise different issues. As a precondition to our conclusions, the Minister will help us all if he can confirm—as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome prompted him to do—what the law is at present. If it is meant to be that one can register only in one place, the sooner that that happens, the better.
    Mr. Grieve: I do not want to take up much time and I endorse the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), in particular those on local government elections and the consequences of the amendments on people's ability to vote in those elections when they have a clear interest in the outcome. Those arguments were also endorsed by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
    The problem goes further, and I shall concentrate on the way in which it concerns parliamentary elections. The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head. He was the first person to introduce into the debate the notion of parliamentary representation and what it is about. That is where the dividing line appears between the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), myself and, I suspect, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.
    To have a first-past-the-post system and, above all, to ensure community representation, we have to tolerate a substantial number of anomalies that derogate from the principle that everyone's vote is equal. It is apparent that constituency sizes vary. One person's vote in a constituency with a small electorate carries proportionately more weight than that of a person in a constituency with a larger electorate. We accept that for two reasons. The first is because we want the first-past-the-post system. I know that views differ, but I think that the majority of hon. Members believe that that is essential. Secondly, we believe that people should be involved in their local communities and should elect their local community

    353
    representative. I know that, in reality, it is often a question of choosing between parties, but the link between the Member of Parliament and his constituency is considered important. The link between the elector and his involvement in the local community is also considered important.
    With those principles in mind, I do not find the idea of someone being entitled to choose where he casts his vote, because he happens to have an involvement in two locations, at all difficult. I accept that he should not be able to exercise a vote in two places at once, but, provided that he makes his choice, I cannot see the problem. Indeed, there is much to be commended.
    University students often get as involved in their local communities as in studying. They should be encouraged to choose whether they vote where their university is, or at home. Those who have two residences, whether for pleasure or business, are often involved in both communities. They, too, should be entitled to that choice, and I do not follow the arguments of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire that it is in the interests of parliamentary democracy for that choice to be removed.
    Mr. Barnes: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that my proposals would in no way limit the choice to decide where someone should be registered? People with a number of residences can choose which they consider to be their sole or main place of residence. There would be no problem about choice under my proposed system. People would put down one place and, if they decided to move because the influence in their life had changed, they could register elsewhere and have their name deleted.
    Mr. Grieve: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I disagree with him. First, I do not believe that the rolling register would be able to cope with the number of variables that would be introduced if people constantly announced to the electoral registration office that they were changing location.
    Secondly, I do not see why people should not be entitled to make their choice at a by-election and say, "It is my good fortune that I happen to have business interests in another part of the country and I have a residence there. I will be able to contribute to the election of the local candidate, even though at the general election I would prefer to vote at another location where I have another residence."
    Finally, I have never understood residence to be a sole or exclusive concept. It is perfectly possible to reside in two places at once. After all, on the electoral registration day, people may be in one of their homes in the morning and somewhere else in the afternoon, or in a hotel that is outside either place. I see no difficulty in that, but I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments.
    I would leave well alone. The arrangements contribute to the variety of participation. An issue that has been raised time and again in this House recently is the diminution of participation in the electoral process. This
    354
    proposal would be another nail in the coffin of participation. I do not think that what we have causes distortions that should create anxiety for individuals.
    Mr. Linton: The hon. Gentleman asked why students should not have a choice in where they cast their vote. Lord Parkinson, when chairman of the Conservative party, said to the Select Committee on Home Affairs:
    "Students should nominate their principle place of residence in particular because they are birds of passage and they can elect the Member and not be there for more than a few months after he has been elected."
    Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
    Mr. Grieve: No, I do not agree, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. In Kensington and Chelsea, where there has recently been a by-election, I think that some 30 per cent. of the electorate changes annually. It is an enormous percentage, but I cannot remember the precise figure. Is it to be said that people are to be deprived of the vote because it so happens that they will be moving house subsequently?
    Mr. Linton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Grieve: No. I must bring my speech to an end.
    I disagree with the reasoning of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire. I would leave the matter well alone. It helps our democratic process.
    Mr. Greenway: The comment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) provokes me to say that at general elections I vote for myself. I dare say that most right hon. and hon. Members do the same. At the 1992 general election, a good personal friend of mine who is a member of my party confessed to me at the count that he had not voted for me. It was a practical joke. When I went a whiter shade of pale he added, "Because I voted for Mr. Dudley Fishburn in Kensington."
    It has become an accepted part of our electoral arrangements for parliamentary elections that people can be registered to vote in two different places, but that they must vote only in one of those places. If there is an issue for the Committee in tonight's debate, it is whether we should strengthen the Bill or clarify its provisions to ensure that the law that states that one can vote only once in a parliamentary election is more strictly monitored and enforced. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to that.
    If I may be provocative myself, I suggest that it is really time, after almost five hours of debate, for us to get down to debating some of the issues pertaining to what is in the Bill rather than to what right hon. and hon. Members think ought to have been put in the Bill in the first place.
    By way of a preface to the way in which we shall approach this Committee stage, I want to say that all the amendments that have been tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends have the express purpose of improving, clarifying or strengthening the provisions in the Bill on which there is consensus. We had our partisan arguments on Second Reading and I dare say that when we come to Report there may be some further partisan arguments, but our purpose in the Committee is to promote ideas that we believe will clarify, improve or strengthen the Bill.

    355
    There is an important double registration issue for the Committee. We will deal with it chiefly when we consider clause 6, but the structure of the Bill means that we need to consider whether changes are appropriate to clause 1. Five amendments in the group—amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14—deal with the double registration issue. We are pleased to see that the Government have clarified their position, especially on the declaration of local connection.
    The Bill does not make it clear whether a person can have more than one current local connection declaration at any one time, but I see that the Government have tabled amendments Nos. 56 and 57 to clause 6 to clarify the issue and make it abundantly clear that there can be only one local declaration at any one time.
    9 pm
    More important than that, I understand that if a person whose name is included on an electoral register through a local declaration is subsequently registered in the normal way, the Government's intention is that the local declaration registration should be void. In other words, if the person acquires a permanent residence—within that, or another, constituency—the local declaration would fall, as he would now be properly registered because he had a residence and a permanent address. I realise that I am straying somewhat from clause 1 by making that point, but it has an important bearing on the Conservative amendments in the group—amendment No. 14 also relates to clause 6.
    The Government amendments seem to offer only a halfway house. If I have correctly understood the matter, once a person is properly registered, a local declaration registration would fall. However, it is not clear whether someone who is already on a register, by virtue of having a permanent address, can subsequently make a local declaration. That is why we have tabled amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14. They would ensure that people who make a local connection declaration must inform the electoral registration officer if they are already registered elsewhere. In such cases, it would be sensible not only to remove people from one of the registers, but to ensure that there is effective cross-reference between electoral registration officers.
    Although the wording of our amendments might be improved, I ask the Minister to give some thought to the matter in his winding-up speech. We need to clarify the position of a person who is on the electoral register in a part of the country from which he has moved. An example might be a person in his late teens or early 20s who lives at home with his parents and is included on the electoral register because his dad filled in the form. The person might then leave home to go into digs—perhaps as a student. He might fall on hard times, become homeless and live in some local hostel. He could thus take advantage of the local declaration so as to register in the constituency where he is living—albeit as, in effect, a homeless person.
    It would be inappropriate for people to be disfranchised, with no prospect of voting in the area in which they live, simply because their names were on an electoral register somewhere else. However, if people are already registered, they should declare it, so that the earlier registration can be nullified.
    Mr. Linton: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that, under amendment No. 10, people who have to make a
    356
    local declaration of residence because they are homeless—because they sleep in a shop doorway—should be removed from the register in the place where they lived previously, while people who have a flat in town and a house in the country should continue to enjoy the benefit of double registration? I am rather alarmed that he should hold those apparently contradictory views, especially since the Conservative party and Conservative members of the Home Affairs Committee were in favour of an end to dual—
    The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is far too long.
    Mr. Greenway: My views are not contradictory. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—through nods and winks—clearly acknowledges that the Government's intention is that there should be only one declaration of local connection and that, if someone is added to an electoral register, any such declaration would be nullified. I am sure that the House would recognise that that is a realistic and reasonable position.
    The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) asked about people who have more than one residence, but he will see from amendments Nos. 10 and 12 that we also suggest that anyone who makes an application for registration, when he is going on the register in the normal way, should specify and declare whether he is on another register. We agree with the Select Committee on Home Affairs—I have read its views with care—that there is a problem with double registration. We do not want to prohibit the prospect of double registration, but we want electoral registration officers to be aware of those individuals who are on an electoral register in another constituency or who may be—this is unlikely, but technically possible—on the register twice in the same constituency in respect of the same address.
    The Home Affairs Committee concluded that there is no way of checking whether the law is being properly upheld; it is clearly not being enforced. I am registered to vote in Ryedale in north Yorkshire and in Vauxhall by virtue of my home in Kennington. I am a public figure, so I suppose that it is not unreasonable to think that electoral registration officers may have twigged that I may be registered in both places—heaven forfend that any Member of the House would seek to vote twice in a parliamentary election. However, in the case of many thousands of others, it may not be obvious to an electoral registration officer that someone is on another register. Although we cannot in any way accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) that people should be on only one parliamentary register, the Government should consider whether electoral registration officers should be aware of dual registration so that people are more confident that the registers are secure.
    I wish to make two final points. First, we shall have a rolling register and not the annual register that we have been used to until now. We are happy to support the proposal for a rolling register, but it would be utterly chaotic—this prospect has been suggested in the debate—if people with two or three residences because of their work came on and off the register each time they moved from one part of the country to another. I am sure that the Minister would agree that, even with the best will in the

    357
    world, we are a long way from having the information technology in place to enable such procedures to be encouraged or to be secure.
    My second point relates to the introduction of the concept of local declaration. I assume that we shall debate this issue again on the next day the Committee sits, but it is vital that the new declaration procedure be secure and that any potential abuse be closed off. I take it from the fact that the Government have tabled amendments No. 56 and 57 that they recognise that that issue must be dealt with.
    I suggest, however, that the Minister has only half answered the question. The way we read it is that people who are on a register by virtue of a local declaration will automatically have that registration nullified if they then come on to the register by normal means. However, other people will already be on the register by normal means and they should be required to declare that—whether they are on the register or not—when they apply for a declaration of local connection. Our amendments, or something similar, would help to deal with that issue. We hope that the Minister will take that on board.
    Mr. George Howarth: As the Committee would have expected, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who has—I repeat the point—an honourable and long tradition of raising concerns about the electoral system, has again raised an important issue. I am grateful to him for doing so. The issue is, I am sure, close to the hearts of many right hon. and hon. Members because many of us, as has been conceded, appear on the electoral register in our constituencies and in respect of our midweek residences in London.
    The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned several hon. Members who lived in his constituency for a brief period. When I was first elected in 1986, I lived in that constituency, but I assure him that he did not get my support on any of the occasions when I was eligible to vote.
    My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire has led us to have a reasonable debate. However, there are reasons why I cannot, on this occasion, support him.
    Perhaps I should at this stage deal with one query that was raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey: whether, because of the wording of the form, people were allowed to be resident in more than one place.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On a particular day.
    Mr. Howarth: On a particular day. The form asks whether the person is a resident on the relevant date, rather than if that person is physically present. The courts have ruled—the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made the point—that it is possible to have more than one residence at the same time. On the basis of the courts' interpretation, on this occasion we have to accept that that is the case. The point that was raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has thus been covered.
    The hon. Member for Beaconsfield gave a good example. One could wake up in the morning in one residence and go to bed in the evening in another. In my
    358
    case, not that I intend to register there, this morning I woke up in the Belfast, East constituency and will go to bed, I hope at a reasonable hour, in the Cities of London and Westminster constituency. It would not be my intention, come a general election, to vote in either place.
    Mr. Greenway: You will vote for yourself?
    Mr. Howarth: Unfortunately, the Boundary Commission will deprive me of that opportunity, but I will, when the next election comes, God willing, vote for my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara).
    Mr. David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining, but he has confused me still further. What he has described is specifically referred to in the Representation of the People Act 1983, which deals with people who work away from their principal residence. I have to ask him the question that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) raised with me: if he and I are resident in both places, are we committing an offence by not completing the register of electors for a flat in London—which so far I have not completed?
    Mr. Howarth: The courts have made it clear that the hon. Gentleman is entitled, if he so wishes, to register in both places, but it does not necessarily follow that, by not registering in both, he is committing an offence.
    Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Howarth: I will, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will let me finish my point.
    I stand to be corrected, but I am not aware of any case law that supports the point that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is making—that, by not registering in both residences, he would be in breach of the law. The courts have made it clear that he would be eligible to register in both places of residence.
    9.15 pm
    Mr. Hogg: Although it is possible that the Minister's response to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is correct, is it not true that the hon. Gentleman, as occupier, is under an obligation to complete the form that is delivered to him, if only because other people may live in the residence occupied by him and because, if he did not complete the form, those third parties would be deprived of their rights? Although the hon. Gentleman must fill out the form, whether or not he puts himself on it is a more debatable matter.
    Mr. Linton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Howarth: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall let him intervene later, after I have responded to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman tempts me into areas into which I would be unwise to stray. His point that there is an obligation to fill in the form is a good one, but I fear that, if I were to go into the detail of the domestic arrangements enjoyed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome in his constituency and in London,

    359
    the Chairman would say that I was straying from the point. I shall therefore not develop those arguments further.
    Double registration, which the amendment would outlaw, is a sensitive issue. On the one hand, the principle of one person, one vote, which lies at the heart of our democratic system, suggests that no one should appear on the electoral register more than once. Therein lies the strength of the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire in support of his amendment. However, on the other hand, there are many people—notably but not exclusively students—who genuinely divide their time between two places.
    Perhaps because the issue is so sensitive, it has been thoroughly discussed and considered more than once in recent years. In its report "Electoral Law and Administration", published last year and mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), the Home Affairs Committee considered the question of double registration. Although it made one practical suggestion relating to those who have dual registrations, it deliberately did not recommend that the practice of double registration should be prohibited.
    The working party on electoral procedures, which I chaired, went further. After considering the issue, we concluded that
    "it would be unreasonable to deprive people properly registered in two places of the right to have a voice in electing a candidate to represent their interests on each of the local councils where they live.
    So the choice is theirs. Even though I have lived in two local authority areas for 13 years, I have made it my practice to vote only in my own constituency. However, that is my choice. I do not believe that I, as a legislator, should deprive anyone else of the ability to make that choice.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand the Minister's argument. Will he tell the Committee his working party's conclusions in respect of parliamentary elections? That is more clearly an issue, and his working party's guidance would be welcome.
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman draws my attention to an issue on which I intend to comment later.
    The working party restated the principle that nobody should be able to vote twice in the same election. We recommended the retention of the prohibitions on double voting that amendments Nos. 30 and 32 would remove. Both the Home Affairs Committee, whose work my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea prayed in aid, and the working party proceeded on the basis of all-party consensus, and it would be wrong if we were to depart from that important principle.
    It has been argued that legislators—Members of Parliament—should be extremely cautious about changing the basis on which people are eligible to vote, for the simple and proper reason that we might be the beneficiaries of such changes, depending on the way in which we make them. That is why as often as is possible it is important that we proceed on the basis of consensus. I worked hard as chairman of the working party to preserve that consensus and to make it an integral part of the proposals that we brought forward. For that main reason, I cannot invite the Committee to support the amendments.
    360
    I mentioned that the Home Affairs Committee had made one practical recommendation. It suggested that all those who appear on more than one electoral register should be required to specify at the time of registration which their main residence was and, accordingly, where they intended to vote in a general election.
    I should perhaps explain why we have decided on balance not to go down that route. In large part—
    Mr. Linton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Howarth: I promised to give way to my hon. Friend, but I would like to finish my sentence before I do so.
    The working party considered the suggestion carefully. Its conclusion was that a requirement for people to make an advance of declaration as to which constituency they intended to vote in would be
    "complex to administer and could serve to discourage rather than encourage voting unless introduced flexibly to allow for late changes to the declared intended voting location. Such flexibility would of course largely negate any intended restraint on block tactical voting. We do not therefore consider it practical or desirable to introduce such a requirement."
    My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea quoted precisely that passage. Obviously it is incumbent upon me to hear how he wants briefly to develop that argument.
    Mr. Linton: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an issue on which there was cross-party consensus, in that the representatives of all three major parties gave evidence precisely to the same effect to the Home Affairs Committee, and that all members of the Select Committee, of all three parties, came to the conclusion that there should be an end to dual registration? I know that the smaller parties that are represented in the House of Commons concurred with that view. I do not understand why at the last minute of the final hurdle the Opposition should have departed from the consensus. However, the consensus was already established both at the level of chairmen and general secretaries of parties—
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That is far too long an intervention.
    Mr. Howarth: When I gave way to my hon. Friend, for whom I harbour great affection, I said that I would do so briefly. I should have realised that my hon. Friend's definition of brevity is probably different from mine. However, he makes the point that I am arguing in favour of maximum consensus. He says that when the Home Affairs Committee considered this matter there was consensus. He referred to the then chairman of the Conservative party, Lord Parkinson, in that context. Subsequently, there was no such consensus on the working party which I chaired, and there is no such consensus in the Chamber tonight.
    If my hon. Friend accepts the point that I made earlier, it would be wrong of the House of Commons to legislate on that basis. It would call our motives into question. Surely the last thing that we want is for the general public to view the proposed changes, which after all are designed to make voting easier, with suspicion. I know that my hon. Friend and others hold their views in a strong and

    361
    principled way, but I hope that it will be recognised that there is a counter-balancing principle, which is that we should proceed with the maximum possible consensus.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Was the Minister's working party given evidence as to roughly the number of people who are registered in two places for parliamentary elections? What is the procedure for random checking or any other process to ensure that there is no abuse of that system?
    Mr. Howarth: I cannot recall whether the detailed statistics that the hon. Gentleman requests were made available to us, but the principle was considered. As I understand it, no systematic checks are carried out to establish the incidence of double voting. The responsibility lies with each returning officer and electoral registration officer to make such checks as they consider appropriate. In practice, I imagine that such checks are carried out only when there is reason for suspicion. That is probably appropriate.
    I do not believe that there is evidence of widespread systematic abuse. We would not want to suggest that the integrity of our electoral system was such that random checks were warranted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea said, with the introduction of further technology, such checks may become simple to perform, but at present they are not.
    Mrs. Llin Golding: Was the registration of university students considered? I have a university in my constituency. The 6,000 or 7,000 students there do not register individually. There is a mass registration—as they come in, they are registered. That could be another stumbling block to the measure.
    Mr. Howarth: I shall cover that point when I deal with amendments tabled by the Opposition, so if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall deal with her question later.
    If we accepted the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire, it would run counter to the views of the working party on electoral procedures. On the basis of the consensus achieved there, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendments.
    I shall deal now with the amendments to which the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) spoke on behalf of the official Opposition. I am a little surprised by them. I do not mean that in an unhelpful way, but I assumed that the hon. Gentleman and his party, being familiar with electoral procedures, were of the same view as I am—that our procedures were in some ways cumbersome and old-fashioned, and that we should endeavour to make it easier for people to vote. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman said as much.
    However, it is clear, although perhaps unintended, that the Opposition amendments would make it harder for people to put their names on the register. The amendments would place an additional burden on people registering as electors, whether they were registering in the usual way, or by means of a service declaration or a declaration of local connection.
    Amendments Nos. 9 to 12 would create a requirement to provide details of all previous registration in the past 12 months. That would place a particular burden on the
    362
    most mobile members of our society, who are already among those least likely to register. It would also be a particular nuisance for students who, as the House knows, may move several times during a year.
    The electoral registration form would need to be redesigned and made much larger to contain all that information. I remember Opposition Members protesting vigorously about the size of the ballot paper when we discussed the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. I am sure that they would not want an unwieldy document for registration purposes.
    On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) in an intervention, the House would have to consider how large a form would be necessary, for example, to cater for a house shared by six students, let alone an entire student hostel where mass registration takes place. It would be a difficult process.
    9.30 pm
    Although the amendments are well intentioned, they do not serve a useful purpose. The introduction of a rolling electoral register would enable people to change their registration during the course of a year. The form will require people to give details of their previous registration to prevent dual registration. Why is anything more required? Why does a registration officer need details of earlier registrations? What would the electoral registration officer be required to do with that information?
    Mr. Greenway: I do not understand the Minister's point. In one breath, he claims that it is too cumbersome to ask people who apply to go on a register—it could now be a rolling register—to give details of other places where they are registered, yet he accepts that there will have to be a mechanism to enable a registered person to be put on a new register and removed from a previous register. How will that be done other than through a request for details of other current registrations?
    Mr. Howarth: Individuals would simply make a declaration of where they intended to cast their vote in, for example, parliamentary elections. That does not require information about other places where they may be registered. The difference between the amount of information that the Opposition and the Government would require is considerable.
    Mr. Greenway: I am sorry to intervene again, but can we agree on two points? First, does the Minister accept that rolling registration will create a greater prospect of people being on more than one register? We need a mechanism whereby their names are removed from previous registers. Secondly, will he deal with the issue of people who are already registered somewhere, but who seek to make a local declaration registration?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes a theoretical suggestion. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will consider his point. Without prejudging my hon. Friend's consideration, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's fears are unfounded. I am in a good position; as a visiting Minister, I can make commitments on behalf of hon. Friends without

    363
    necessarily having to follow them up. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend has now helpfully handed me a note, which states that he will write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Howarth: I shall give way for the last time; I need to make progress.
    Mr. Hughes: I am prompted to intervene by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), who asks another question to be passed to the Minister's left. Will the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department take evidence from places such as Cornwall, where the second home issue has caused problems over the years and where there is a widespread view that associated abuses have distorted the system? I do not expect the Under-Secretary to reply tonight, but I ask the Home Office to consider the problem and to invite Cornwall electoral registration officers to submit evidence.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend suggested offstage that he would be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that issue. After every general election, the Home Office undertakes a review of any anomalies or difficulties in election procedures. Electoral registration officers in Cornwall and elsewhere can make use of that. I do not know whether they did that after the last general election, but methods of raising problems exist.
    I hope that those who are not yet fully convinced of the force of my arguments will not believe it necessary to divide the Committee. Doubtless my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire, who is a doughty campaigner, will continue to raise registration matters, and, in due course, he may even persuade us of the merits of his argument. I fear, however, that we are not far along that road tonight.
    Mr. Barnes: I had support in the debate for certain amendments, especially for ending double registration for parliamentary elections. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) supported those provisions, but—unfortunately for me—my suggestions for changes to local government elections are part and parcel of the whole package of arguments that I am making. I have yet to convince those hon. Members who gave me partial support that they need to go somewhat further.
    I am a bit disturbed by the response of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) to my arguments. He claimed that I am in some way attempting to restrict electoral registration rights, but I have argued for years in the House about the need to advance electoral registration provisions. In the next debate, he may think that I want to restrict those rights further by eliminating overseas votes. The Bill goes part way to starting to place the missing millions on the electoral registers and I assure him that if he looks at the balance of numbers, the arguments and the evidence—for instance, that which I gave to the Home Affairs Committee when it was producing its report—he will see that there are good, solid arguments for my amendments, which would considerably improve electoral registration in this country. We need a modern, up-to-date rolling register rather than the limited version suggested by the Government.
    364
    The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) claimed that my amendments were in some way improper compared with his own, which he said related to the Bill, but that is obviously not the case. My amendments would not have been selected if they had anything improper about them and they are highly germane to the provisions before the Committee. He is concerned about the problem of double registration of homeless people. I am concerned generally about the problem of double registration, which I referred to in connection with people's residences. He was in danger of supporting double registration for toffs, but objecting to it for down and outs. That position is not viable. My position is that I am against double registration across the board. His amendments would be much more appropriate if they were combined with my package of amendments. I should perhaps have given further thought to the people he is concerned about, but he stands alone on the platform in respect of his position on registration of the homeless.
    Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), are missing the point completely. The argument for making a declaration of local connection is to enable people to vote who otherwise would have no right to do so because they have no permanent residence. It must follow that if they make such a declaration to enable them to vote they should not be on any other register.
    Mr. Barnes: That point is reasonable, especially if it is related generally to the overall problem of double registration. It would have been possible, therefore, to table different amendments that relied on the same principle, but tied my position to the declaration of local connection and the knock-on consequences.
    Many other amendments form part of my argument for getting the missing millions on to the electoral registers and the measure before the Committee is part of that process. It is not appropriate for me to go into the detail of later amendments at this stage. The problem with Committee procedures is that amendments must be considered in relation to specific clauses. My arguments about the issuing of polling cards and the need for publicity tie in with the general structure that I am advocating.
    My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that he used to have a flat in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. It was above my flat. The difference between us was that he placed himself on the electoral register and I did not. I took the attitude that was expressed earlier. Am I legally obliged to put myself on the electoral register, or is it sufficient to fill in a form as the sole occupant pointing out that I am not entitled to registration? Would I face a £1,000 fine for not registering?
    The Under-Secretary claimed that the system was established with all-party consensus. That consensus was broken because the Liberal Democrats were willing to support my amendments Nos. 30 and 33 on parliamentary elections. This is an on-going argument. The Government will introduce legislation later that will establish an electoral commission, which will make recommendations to the House. I am happy that the arguments put in this debate will continue. We may come back to the issue, especially if other Government measures involve greater

    365
    expenditure on electoral registration than those in the Bill. The Bill makes provision for expenditure by local authorities, but does little about the operation of a central roll, which will have to be addressed by an electoral commission. Some of these measures may become more appropriate at that stage.
    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 44, leave out from "elector" to end of line 2 on page 3.
    The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 8, page 10, line 11, leave out ", 2".
    No. 3, in page 10, line 14, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 15.
    No. 4, in schedule 1, page 19, line 28, leave out from "declarations" to end of line 29.
    No. 5, in page 26, leave out lines 28 to 31.
    No. 47, in schedule 2, page 27, line 33, leave out "20" and insert "5".
    No. 48, in page 27, line 33, leave out "20" and insert "10".
    No. 49, in page 27, line 42, leave out "20" and insert "5".
    No. 50, in page 27, line 42, leave out "20" and insert "10".
    No. 82, in page 28, line 2, at end insert—
    "(4A) The third set of conditions is that—

    (a) he was included in a register of parliamentary electors in respect of an address at a place that is situated within the constituency concerned,

    (b) that entry in the register was made on the basis that he was resident, or to be treated for the purposes of registration as resident, at that address, and

    (c) he either, prior to ceasing to be a resident of the United Kingdom, signed a declaration stating an intention to return to the United Kingdom to live within ten years of departure, or, alternatively, he continues to pay income tax annually in the United Kingdom.".

    No. 51, in page 30, line 23, leave out "20" and insert "5".
    No. 52, in page 30, line 23, leave out "20" and insert "10".
    No. 53, in page 30, line 32, leave out "20" and insert"5"
    No. 54, in page 30, line 32, leave out "20" and insert "10".
    Schedule 2 stand part.
    No. 7, in schedule 4, page 34, leave out lines 52 and 53.
    No. 8, in page 35, line 19, leave out from "connection" to end of line 20.
    New clause 1—British citizens overseas—
    "—(1) Sections 1 to 4 and subsections (1) and (2) of section 12 of the Representation of the People Act 1985, as amended by the Representation of the People Act 1989, are hereby repealed.
    366
    (2) In section 3C of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 (as inserted by the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999), in subsection (2), paragraph (b) and the word 'or' at the end of paragraph (a) shall be omitted."
    Mr. Kaufman: Listening to the debate on the previous group of amendments, it occurred to me that if the Opposition's requirement of a declaration of local connection were put into law there would be no need for me to move this amendment. It is an interesting fact that the Conservative party wants to place every obstacle in the way of homeless people being able to vote, whereas people living abroad as tax exiles who vote for a Government who create homelessness are not asked to provide any declaration of local connection.
    The amendment would abolish the overseas vote in its entirety. The aim is to return the position to what it was before the Representation of the People Act 1985. It is an interesting coincidence that the Representation of the People Bill that became the Act of 1985 had its Second Reading on 10 December 1984, almost exactly 15 years ago tonight.
    9.45 pm
    On Second Reading, the Conservative party seemed to believe that those of us who were opposed to the overseas vote were using this provision to launch an attack on Michael Ashcroft. Mr. Ashcroft has simply hitch-hiked on to the provision in order to make donations to the Conservative party, and he can be left to his own devices, whatever they may be. I, however, have opposed the overseas vote since it was first mooted in the House. I argued against it in discussions with Leon Brittan when I was shadow Home Secretary; I opposed it in the debate on the White Paper in June 1984; I opposed it on Second Reading of the Bill in December 1984; and I opposed it in Committee in January 1985.
    I have opposed the overseas vote for the same reasons that Conservative Members have adduced against the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). They say that there must be a local connection, that people must be part of the community, and that if they are part of the community they must have the right to vote. Yet they dragged through the House, opposed by the Labour party, a provision granting the vote to someone who for many years had had no connection with this country or any specific locality. What is more, the child of such a person, who had never even lived in this country, would be entitled to vote as an attainer. I have opposed this measure from the beginning, on the simple basis of no representation without taxation.
    As I have said, my opposition dates back to the time when the overseas vote was first mooted. On 27 June 1984, the House debated the response of the then Conservative Government, in a White Paper, to a report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The Committee—it contained a substantial Conservative majority, because the Conservatives had a majority of 100 in the House—opposed the introduction of an overseas vote outright and unanimously. It said that such a vote could have far-reaching consequences, and ruled it out on practical grounds. It said that it might alter the whole character of British elections. It said:
    "Such an increase in the overseas vote would to some extent alter the traditional relationship between candidates at general or local elections and the voters whose support they are seeking to enlist.

    367
    Hitherto, in the great majority of cases, the candidate has been able both to speak directly to the elector either on the doorstep or in a public place and personally to ensure that his election literature is delivered to every household. Problems of communication could arise both between candidates and overseas voters at election time and, indeed, between Members and their constituents thereafter."
    The Committee—a Conservative-dominated Select Committee—also said, in its unanimous report, that those who would be given this franchise forfeited their claim to participate in the country's affairs.
    When I spoke from the then Opposition Front Bench, I supported the report of that Conservative-dominated Select Committee. I may as well quote from what I said in the House then, because it will save time and because—as I was better at these things then—it will be more eloquent. I said:
    "These people to whom the Home Secretary proposes that the vote shall be given will not be living in the constituency where they will be able to claim the right to vote. They may never have voted in that constituency. While they lived there—they may have lived there for a short time only—they will have been a self-selected electorate. The vote will be exercisable not by a defined and finite group, as happens now, but by people who decide that they feel like having the vote".
    It is an optional franchise. It is a criminal offence for those who live in this country not to fill in the form, but those who do not live in this country and qualify for the overseas vote can choose whether they want it. That is a strange attitude to the franchise.
    I went on:
    "Their use of the right will be a farce. They will not be able to meet their candidate, to question the candidate or be canvassed by someone calling on behalf of the candidate. They may not receive any election literature, and they may therefore know nothing of the candidate except his or her name and party."
    I went on to point out that the proposals
    "could make it possible for tax exiles to decide the taxes that are paid by people living and working in this country. Property speculators living abroad could decide what pension should be paid to people who have worked all their lives in this country."—[0fficial Report, 27 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 1029–31.]
    That was the situation when the Conservative Government proposed an overseas vote for people who had been out of the country for seven years. It applies in spades to the current 20-year limit and would have applied to the 25 years that they wanted to introduce before those on our Front Bench persuaded them to reduce that a little.
    On Second Reading of the 1984 Bill, I advanced further reasons. I said:
    "Under the Government's dotty proposals, not only former electors get the vote but former non-electors too. Children who left Britain at the age of 11 and have had no contact with this country since then will have the right to vote and to help to decide this country's future, which they may never return to share."
    There are people who came on the register this year who have not been living in this country since 1978, yet they are able to participate in deciding who should govern the country.
    I further argued:
    "For citizens who live in the United Kingdom, registration for the franchise is obligatory and failure to register is an offence. For expatriates, registration is optional…. It is quite unacceptable that the votes of people who are sunning themselves in tropical climes should decide the heating allowances of pensioners shivering in Britain in the cold of winter."—[Official Report, 10 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 766–68.]
    368
    Our party's record has been clear from the start. It has assented to the idea only through force majeure and done its best on both Bills—the first introduced the overseas vote and the second expanded it—to limit the provision.
    In Committee, I said that under our constituency system
    "a person votes not for a Government but for a Member of Parliament to represent him or her. An overseas voter who has not lived in the constituency in which he or she has a right to vote will not be in direct contact with the issues and problems of the constituency. As a parent, he will not have experienced the education system or been able to campaign about school closures. As a sick person he will not have used the National Health Service, been in hospital or been able to form an opinion about health provision. As a driver, he will not have used the roads or public transport and, therefore, cannot know about those issues. He will not have been a householder who has paid rates and, therefore cannot have an opinion about local government finance policy".
    Some hon. Members want people to have several votes in local election for those reasons.
    I went on:
    "Such a person will not have been able to play a direct part in the affairs of the constituency, even so limited a part as signing a petition, or the major part of being active in a political party, residents association, ratepayers association, the women's voluntary service, the scouts, ex-service men's associations, or any of the organisations that make up the web of community that exists in Britain and in which those who live outside the country cannot participate."
    I went on further:
    "What makes this franchise fancier than any other fancy franchise that we have had for a long time—certainly since the abolition of the university vote—is that it is based not on residence but on option."—[Official Report, 29 January 1985; Vol. 72, c. 191–93.]
    Every argument that Conservative Members advanced against my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire because of the local connection is totally traduced by the measure they introduced. I concluded that the Opposition were totally opposed to the measure. That is how the Labour party stood 15 years ago and that is what I am advocating that the Labour party should return to now that it is, happily, back in government.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument and I do not want to associate myself with the arguments deployed against it by the previous Conservative Government. However, what would he say to my older brother—this is a real example—who was living in Herefordshire and given a job by Barclays International, for which he worked, which required him to go abroad for an uncertain period? He is married to a woman working for the British services in Cyprus. He always intended to come home and did so as soon as he was able. He retained as many links with, and interests in, the British political process as was possible during his time abroad, which was fewer than 10 years but more than none. Surely he should have been allowed to continue to take part in decisions affecting the country in which he had paid taxes, in which he continued to have a financial interest and to which he has returned to pay taxes and contribute fully.
    Mr. Kaufman: The franchise in this country is based purely and simply on residential qualification. We have debated this in our consideration of amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire. I am sorry about the misfortune that might afflict the hon. Gentleman's brother, but when he

    369
    comes back, he can resume his vote. It is as simple as that. I do not see why anybody living for whatever reason in Kuwait, Nepal or Peru should be able to decide who governs the country in which they are not present at the time of a general election. Before this Bill there were all sorts of problems for those living in this country. There were problems with qualifying for a postal vote or a proxy vote. Hard decisions may be made, but the decision is much harder on a man living in Stanley grove who misses his vote because he falls ill after the closure of the postal vote than it is for the hon. Gentleman's brother, nice though I am sure he is.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Kaufman: I will proceed for a little longer. I am waiting to see how the Government intend to handle the timing. I am an obedient and subservient Back Bencher. If the Government continue the debate, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. If they do not, I will be caught short in my prime and will have to resume on another day.?
    My position on this is unequivocal and of long standing. Moreover, this fancy franchise is a flop. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who has sensibly made himself scarce, fantasised about a possible 3 million overseas voters. When the Conservative Government introduced the legislation in 1984, they forecast 800 overseas voters per constituency. That would have meant more than 500,000 people. The figure for this year is not 3 million or 500,000 but 13,677. That is an average of 21 overseas voters per constituency. The highest number of overseas votes in 1991 was 34,454, or 0.08 per cent. of the electorate. In 1990 it was 1,836. That figure was so small that the statistics counted it as 0.00 per cent. of the electorate.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Kaufman: If I am to give way to my hon. Friend, which I am happy to do, I must give way first to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant).
    Mr. Fabricant: The right hon. Gentleman is ever gracious. I want to refer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Surely, when someone is paying United Kingdom tax, as the hon. Gentleman described, and lives abroad—
    It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
    To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
  That the draft Legal Aid (Prescribed Panels) (Amendment) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Shout
  10.1 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: I wish to present a petition sponsored by Shout, which is an initiative of Big Take, a registered charity raising both awareness and funds to support specific projects aimed at providing education and training for children on the fringes of society. [Interruption.] The petition is signed by 134—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I remind the House that good manners are expected; the hon. Lady is presenting a petition to the House.
  Mrs. Roe: The petition is signed by 134 of my constituents, and states:
  The Petition of the people in Hoddesdon.
  Declares that Her Majesty's Government has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child and therefore has a responsibility to do all it can to help end the exploitation of child labourers in overseas countries.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons should urge the Secretary of State for International Development that all aid to countries such as Indonesia, India, Mali or Pakistan where child labour is known to be an extensive problem should have a reasonable percentage of the aid linked to a programme of education for the child labourers.
  To lie upon the Table.

Farington (Pharmacy)
10.2 pm
Mr. David Borrow: I present this petition on behalf of residents of the village of Farington, in my constituency, who are seeking a pharmacy within the village. The petition, which has more than 1,500 signatures, states:
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to review the regulations governing Health Authorities on the provision of pharmacies to allow South Lancashire Health Authority to allow a pharmacy to be established in Farington.
To lie upon the Table.

Child Sex Attacks
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
10.3 pm
Mr. Alan Simpson: The Minister will know that, on 28 October 1999, I tabled a written question to the Home Secretary asking him if he would list by police authority area the number of women medical examiners available for examinations involving child victims of sex attacks, and whether, in all areas, child victims or their families are able to choose whether the child is examined by a female doctor.
The background to tabling the question was not simply a passing interest, but one of the most disturbing experiences that I have had as a Member of Parliament. A young mother came to see me at one of my advice surgeries and described the horrific circumstances in which it became apparent that her daughter had been the victim of rape and sexual attack since the age of six. The abuse had continued for more than five years before it became known and part of a police investigation and subsequent prosecution.
The details of the case are not really relevant to this Adjournment debate, but what troubled me was that, in the course of explaining what had happened, the mother took me through the exchanges with police; the very constructive and supportive help provided in the early stages of working through the traumas; and the explanation that, in a prosecution, it would be easier if her daughter could undergo a forensic medical examination, so that the evidence of the sexual attack could stand as the principal basis of the trial.
The mother talked the matter through with her daughter, who agreed to go through the process to minimise the inevitable trauma of having to give evidence in the trial. The real shock came when they discovered that the forensic medical examiner was a man, despite the fact that they had both asked for—and expected—a woman. Their shock was compounded by the fact that, when they asked whether they could have a female forensic medical examiner, they were told, "No." They were given that answer because there were no female examiners in Nottinghamshire.
I confess that I was shocked by the case. I do not consider myself to be particularly naive or sheltered, but I was unprepared for those statements, which showed how limited are the rights of the child in our judicial system as we approach the end of the 20th century. I was also unprepared as a father, brother, and partner—as close as a man can get to understanding how traumatic it is for a girl to be sexually attacked and abused—for the realisation that we still require girls to be medically examined by someone of the same gender as the person responsible for the attack.
I was slightly surprised at the response to my parliamentary question. The Minister will recall that, in his reply of 3 November, he said:
"Comprehensive information about numbers of female medical examiners is not held centrally. It is accepted as good practice that child victims of sexual assaults, or their families on their behalf, should be given the choice of being examined by a female doctor. Unfortunately, this cannot always be guaranteed as there are some police forces which do not have female medical examiners."—[Official Report, 3 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 194W.]
372
I was as surprised by the answer as by the statements that the Nottinghamshire police gave the family.
I could not understand why the Home Secretary was not in a position to provide me with that information on a national basis. I could not understand why Parliament cannot say how many areas of the country leave parents and child victims of sex assaults in a similar position, with no right to exercise a choice about the gender of the person who conducts the forensic medical examination. I also could not understand why it was not a priority for the Home Secretary to say not only that he did not know, but that it was unacceptable for him not to know and that he would find out.
In the absence of such an answer, the only way to proceed was to follow up the matter myself. I wrote to chief constables to ask about the provision in each police authority area. I asked them to detail the number of forensic medical examiners available to female or child victims of sex attacks and how many national health service general practitioners or paediatricians were in training with the police to provide the targeted examination service for women and children where they request it.
The replies that I received to my letter have also given me cause for concern. Some of the chief constables and their police forces have been extremely helpful, and I praise those who came back to me with full replies. Replies have been received from police forces in west Yorkshire, Cheshire, Kent, Cleveland, Surrey, Derbyshire, Merseyside, Avon and Somerset, Staffordshire, south Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. All gave full replies to my questions, but I suspect that one reason they were willing to do so was that, in each of those areas, positive and specific provision was available to women and children who were the victims of sex attacks. In those areas, anyone who requested to be examined by a female forensic medical examiner would have the right to be so examined.
A number of the other police forces that replied simply said that that was a matter into which the Association of Chief Police Officers was looking. Their response would not come to me direct but would go through ACPO. I pay tribute to ACPO's responsiveness and to those involved in the compilation of the inquiry. However, the information that has come back to me is somewhat patchy.
The national picture is as follows: some 18 per cent. of forensic medical examiners—sometimes referred to as police surgeons—are women. That is, by any standards, a fairly poor measure of the important role that must be fulfilled for child and women victims of sex attacks. However, the replies that came directly to me showed the better part of the picture. In many of the police authorities that replied, more than 18 per cent. of medical examiners were women.
Forces that did not have specific female provision did not bother to reply to me. Sadly, my own police authority in Nottinghamshire is included among that number—to date, it has provided me with no explanation about the absence of female forensic examiners in my county.
I am also uncertain whether, as a result of the ACPO survey, the Minister can come up with the more detailed information that I still do not have. I am appalled that the House and the Government do not regard the need to do something about the situation—and, at the very least, to know what is happening—as being of paramount importance.

373
I had helpful, if saddening, discussions with members of the women's centre in Nottingham, who provided phenomenal support for the family. The saddening aspect of those conversations was that they considered this problem almost a matter of course, and had had to live with and struggle against the problem for many years, with little or no public attention given to the plight of victims of sex attacks. They said that they regard this as the second of three rapes: the first rape is committed by the assailant; the second happens during the medical examination within the police investigation system; and the third is committed by the court.
I pay tribute to the Government for taking considerable steps to improve and protect victims of sex attacks in the way in which court proceedings are conducted. I understand that that has to be balanced against the conflicting rights of the accused, but I cannot for the life of me see what we have to balance in the medical investigation process within the police investigation against the demand that we recognise and respect the rights of the child. There are no contradictory pulls. It is simply a matter that baffles me as much as it offends me.
When I asked for explanations of why this should be so, the first and almost absurd reason given was that women did not like that sort of work. I am sure that there is not a single hon. Member who is not aware that a large number of women work in the health service as GPs or paediatricians in hospitals. There cannot be a shortage of qualified women doctors capable of doing forensic examinations.
On further inquiry, the position became a little clearer. The reply that I received from ACPO about the shortage of female doctors available was:
"This is a constant problem, since many women Doctors who are willing to undertake this task are reluctant to become involved in other forensic medical work and it is essential that their level of expertise is sufficient to ensure the effectiveness both of the investigation and any subsequent prosecution."
I understand the importance of the fact that competence extends through to the prosecution process, but the real obstacle seems to be that women GPs who offer their services specifically for women and child victims of sex attacks are asked whether they are willing to undertake all other aspects of forensic examinations, such as those on bodies pulled out of ditches, found in canals or dragged out of car accidents, or in cases relating to the full range of responsibilities of the police.
It does not surprise me that those who specialise in paediatric care say that that is not what they are offering. They are offering their expertise in relation to children, their vulnerability and their right to be examined by someone who understands their plight, not necessarily someone who has competence across the board. The reason why we are in the current national predicament is partly of our own making. There is a dispute between the Home Office and the police forces about how forensic medical examiners are to be paid retainer fees. There is also a conflict in police culture about whether it is appropriate to allow women to offer a specific service rather than sign up to the full range of services that the police require.
At the end of the 20th century, a civilised society that has signed up to the European convention on the rights of the child and stands at the edge of a decade in which it is
374
supposed to be a signatory to the international decade for the culture of peace for children, ought to have a different benchmark for the adequacy of our policies and procedures.
I have three specific requests to make to the Minister. First, will he complete and publish the national database of police returns on the number of female medical examiners in each police authority who are made available to respond to requests from women and children victims of sex attacks? Secondly, will he go back and look at the current ministerial guidelines, not to add a further recommendation about best practice but to define a non-negotiable statutory obligation for every police force in the land? It must be every child's right to request and to expect examination by a female doctor, should that be the child's choice.
Finally, during the Minister's negotiations with police forces, will he consider the introduction of measures to guarantee flexibility and training? We need to ensure that there is no distinction between those GPs who are retained and those who are not, and to acknowledge the importance of defining the obligation to provide special services to meet the needs of women and children victims of sex attacks.
We can never turn the clock back on the sex attacks that have taken place, but we ask the House and the Government to take this small step: to guarantee that we will listen to children's pleas not to repeat or compound the nightmare that they have lived through by requiring them to undergo medical examination by a doctor who is not of the gender of their choosing.
10.21 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on securing the debate. I appreciate the way in which he made his points. As he acknowledged, and would expect me to point out, it is not appropriate or right for me to comment on a specific case which is before the courts. However, he raised an important and interesting question—as he did in the written question that I answered on 3 November—upon which he has elaborated in the debate.
The investigation of sexual attacks on children is an extremely important part of police activity, and it must be handled with the greatest care and sensitivity. The Government are determined to ensure that the criminal justice system is effective in protecting children from those who might harm them—that includes improving the way in which child witnesses are treated.
A key principle in dealing with children as victims or witnesses is to ensure effective partnership between the police and social services. Area child protection committees provide a framework in which that participation and partnership can take place. Parents and victims should themselves also be fully involved in the process wherever possible; their views and choices must be respected.
The partnership approach, which we established and formalised in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, is fully endorsed by the Government and is reflected in the work of police forces throughout England and Wales. It is on that basis that I deal with the issues raised by my hon. Friend.

375
My hon. Friend is correct to say—I confirm it—that it is certainly good practice for child victims, or their parents on their behalf, to be offered a realistic choice of examination by a female police surgeon. In the second of his concluding points, he asked that ministerial guidelines be issued, which would require a statutory obligation to request and expect that children have that choice.
I understand, and appreciate, the legitimacy of my hon. Friend's demand, but he will realise that we can implement such a principle only when we are sure that it can be fulfilled. I shall refer later to the statistics and surveys that he mentioned. I am prepared to confirm that it is good practice for that choice to be offered, but I am not able to commit the Government to the introduction of ministerial guidelines that would require that to be the case. The demand is important, and I shall set out some of the ways in which we might deal with it effectively.
That good practice should be possible in the majority of cases, but some forces have no—or few—female police surgeons, as my hon. Friend pointed out. I shall refer to the data in a moment. In many cases, victims and their parents will feel happier about examination by a male police surgeon once they have had the opportunity to talk the issues through. In a sense, the most important factor is to ensure that the input from the police surgeon is high quality and sympathetic. Many examinations can be carried out by, or in partnership with, a paediatrician, who will often be female. However, none of those important qualifications invalidate the thrust of the point made by my hon. Friend. We shall consider that matter.
What is the national picture? The truth is that there have been difficulties in recruiting and retaining female police surgeons and there are a wide variety of reasons for that. Some relate to the unsocial hours, some to the working environment and some to the issue of breadth of experience that my hon. Friend mentioned. His third point on the guarantee of flexibility in training for different disciplines is important. As he said, many forces believe that all police surgeons should cover the whole range of issues that may arise. Establishing more flexibility may be worth considering in that regard, but it would require a significant change in practice in the police service across the country. The fact that my hon. Friend has raised the issue has put it sharply on the agenda.
I come to the figures to which my hon. Friend referred. The survey of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which was reinforced by his own research, revealed that many police forces have a high proportion of female police surgeons. For example, more than a third of the police surgeons in Bedfordshire, Surrey and Leicestershire are women. Some police forces have no female surgeons. The survey suggested that three forces had none; and 41 out of the 43 forces responded to it. However, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it showed that, across England and Wales, more than 17 per cent. of police surgeons are female. Therefore, it reveals a wide variety between police forces; some have a significant proportion of female police surgeons while others have very few or none. That was a fair point for him to make.
The first of my hon. Friend's final three questions was about the completion and publication of a national database. I shall consider his request in discussion with ACPO and others to see to what extent we can have a
376
wider and more informed debate on the issue, which has been given greater profile by this debate. I understand why he wants more data, but he will understand that I am not able to answer yes or no to his question from the Dispatch Box. However, I assure him that I shall discuss with ACPO and the inspectorate whether it will be possible to publicise the data more fully and provide a comprehensive assessment.
As my hon. Friend said, each police force is operationally independent. Therefore, we as central Government do not have data that is universal across the whole country on a variety of issues about which there is general concern. For very good reason, we have been loth to publish partial data. That is why I have been qualified in response to my hon. Friend's question tonight and why I was qualified in my written answer on 3 November. However, I shall certainly consider with ACPO and the inspectorate whether we can provide more data in the way that he requests.
The central facts, however they are published, are as my hon. Friend set out. The general proportion of female surgeons in police forces across the country is 17 to 18 per cent. and that figure ranges from more than a third in some forces to zero in others. That is the picture and all that greater data will reveal is a clearer mapping of the proportion in each force.
My hon. Friend also referred to some broader issues. It is a fact that retaining female doctors has been very difficult for forces at a time when some of them have been struggling to maintain an effective overall police surgeon service. In some parts of the country, the right way to deal with that problem has been a major issue. There have been problems in achieving full geographical coverage and 24-hour availability, both of which are real demands; in providing the breadth of expertise that my hon. Friend mentioned; and with the total cost of the service. A small number of forces have gone as far as to contract out the service to the private sector.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Does my hon. Friend feel that it might be helpful if the questions that he goes away with after the debate include looking at those police authorities that have been able to ensure that over 30 per cent. of their police surgeons are women, how they have gone about doing that, how they have managed both to recruit and to retain those people, and whether there are models of good practice that other areas with no women police surgeons should be directed to follow?
Mr. Clarke: With the exception of one word in my hon. Friend's intervention, I completely agree. It is right to say that there is good practice to be learned, and to understand how recruitment procedures should operate. The one word is "directed" because, at the moment, the Home Secretary does not have the power to direct police forces on this and many other matters. We can offer guidelines, to which my hon. Friend has referred, but direction is not one of the powers.
I am probably alone in the House in watching "Dangerfield" from time to time, but we are talking about many of the issues that are raised on television evenings and weekends: flexibility, the difficulty of 24-hour availability and geographical cover. Those are the things that we see on our screens—the theatrical elements, each of which have important implications.

377
The need to review at national level key issues of the type that have been raised by my hon. Friend was recognised by the establishment of the Home Office working group on police surgeons. That has proceeded relatively slowly over recent years, but I believe that it should report in the early part of next year. I give him the assurance that the substance of what he said not only in the question that I answered on 3 November, but in the debate, will be taken fully into account by the working group in its report, which we will then be able to discuss. Among the issues to be addressed are training, organisation and the arrangements for providing a service at force level. The issue that my hon. Friend has raised is, of course, important and substantial and needs to be addressed.
My hon. Friend mentioned pay. The establishment of new national arrangements to negotiate police surgeons' remuneration is a positive development.
378
There is a wide range of other issues, including how child witnesses should be treated, how examination should be conducted, how videos should be used, how the steering group can move matters forward and how victims of child abuse can be dealt with, but the central issue that my hon. Friend has raised—the availability of female police surgeons in forces throughout the country—is important.
Mr. Simpson rose—
Mr. Clarke: I give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

"Sharing the Nation's Prosperity"
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Clelland.]
9.30 am
Mr. Jim Cousins: We are here this morning to discuss the Cabinet Office report "Sharing the Nation's Prosperity". The report is a landmark in the discussion of regional needs and problems, and the Government programmes and spending that attempt to deal with them. We all know that society is extremely divided. We are now in a city where people are jamming switchboards to buy internet stocks, yet it is also a city where there is a low rate of investment in new technology. We are now in a city with sharp divisions between neighbourhoods. For instance, Hackney has some of the worst deprivation in Britain, yet it is only a short bus ride away from some of the greatest explosions of wealth on the continent.
I am conscious that many of my hon. Friends are here today to discuss the north-east of England, because the situation there is different. Not one family in the northeast is untouched by the brutal facts set out in the report. That is not the result of a temporary swing in economic activity. It is not the result of the closure of a single factory or of an industry. It cannot be addressed by a task force or a sprinkle of worthy Government initiatives.
The problems for the north-east that are highlighted in the report have very deep roots. They affect the way of life and the thinking of the people of the north-east. Nobody in the north-east ever feels confident of job or income, and it will be so for years to come. That affects planning for the future; it affects the start-up of businesses; and it affects people's thinking about their own and their families' future.
People in the north-east have made huge efforts to adapt and to come to terms with the facts that are set out in the document. There are many disappointments, despite the efforts that ordinary people have made. Some of the problems are well known to us. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) has had to grapple with the problems caused by the closure of Siemens. Others are grappling with the difficulties of the offshore oil industry, which the report claims to be a growing industry. The pattern of problems feeds on itself, and it will require years of calculated, determined and systematic action to deal with it.
I do not intend to spend much time speaking about statistics, but, for those who represent the north-east, the indicators in the report are part of the ordinary week-by-week experience for us and our constituents. Among English regions, the north-east of England has the lowest economic activity, the lowest gross domestic product per head, the lowest earnings, the lowest household incomes and the lowest rate of registration for VAT for new businesses. It has the second lowest
48WH
number of income support claimants and the second lowest rating for educational achievement and attainment—a crucial indicator. It is the region in the United Kingdom with the lowest take-up of vocational qualifications, the lowest business-base formation, the greatest unemployment and the lowest employment rates. The difference between the north-east and the south-east, means that one in six people of working age are not in the labour market. That capacity and potential are not available to serve our community and our people.
With that goes the ridiculous social stress of London and the south-east—the overcrowding, the poor quality of life and the other difficult and intractable problems that require so much Government action. Only yesterday, I was present at a parliamentary Committee, and heard the Chancellor say that it would cost between £14 billion and £16 billion to solve the problems of the London Underground. The cost of relieving stress in London and the south-east is paid twice over by the north-east. First, we help to pay for it. Secondly, if that economic activity were taking place in our region, not only would we benefit directly, but the cost to the south-east would be so much lower. Sharing the nation's prosperity is fundamental to maintaining the broader welfare of life, not only in the north-east but in London and the south-east. That will require sustained longterm action. We cannot leave it to market forces. Nor can we leave it to the tweaking of market forces. That simply will not work.
I ask the Government to bear in mind the following points. First, we need to set regional spending and performance targets, so that we can measure regional progress towards a benchmark to which all regions can aspire. Secondly, a needs assessment should be made of the English regions, and of the other nations that form the United Kingdom, that puts consideration of regional problems, needs and spending on a common base. We could thus ensure that the regions and nations of Britain achieved the common objectives set out in the report.
The north-east obviously needs a substantial increase in health spending. It has the worst health experience in the United Kingdom, except for Scotland. We need a substantial increase in health spending, and I look to the Cabinet Office to work with the Department of Health to ensure that those needs are met on a regional basis. However, we must bear in mind the fact that the health regions are not the same as the regional areas used in the report.
The north-east has the lowest educational achievement anywhere in Britain, but there is no regional element in the work of the Department for Education and Employment; it has no regionally based programmes or assessments. If we are to have joined-up government, and if we are to tackle the deep-rooted patterns of low educational achievement of which our communities are the victims, we need a regional element in the work of the Department for Education and Employment.
Mr. A. J. Beith: On that point, surely if there were some proper regional assessment within the Department for Education and Employment, action would have to be taken to deal with low educational funding in the counties of

49WH
Northumerland and Durham. Both counties have a very low level of educational take-up compared to the nation as a whole.
Mr. Cousins: I suspect that every part of the northeast would benefit from such an assessment. I would not care to single out the counties of Durham or Northumberland, although I am well aware of some of the difficulties that Northumberland faces because of the low density of its population and the large geographical area that has to be covered.
We must consider another point. The Government, in the White Paper on regional development, describe our region as "peripheral". I look to the Government to ensure that we have at least one motorway connection to the south, which we do not have now, and one dual carriageway connection to the north, which we do not have now. We would then be rather less peripheral.
Above all, the regional development agency needs a substantial amount of money to regenerate the communities of the north-east and to take advantage of the Government's programme for setting up new enterprise. To have one law for the lion and for the ox is oppressive. To treat every region equally in the promotion of new enterprise will be to the advantage of those regions that already have a stronger business base than we have in the north-east. Strong and special measures must be taken if the north-east is to achieve equality in the creation of new businesses.
The Government have created a huge agenda for themselves. It is set out in the White Paper "Building Partnerships for Prosperity", in which the Deputy Prime Minister said:
"Throughout my political career I have argued that the English regions are crucial to this inclusive approach."
That approach is intended to tackle the environment and our quality of life, and to modernise and achieve sustainable development. He continued:
"Our vision is for the English regions to grow and prosper, alongside Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, within the United Kingdom and within the European Union."
We need the right information so that we can measure whether that agenda is being achieved.
In the preface to that White Paper, the Prime Minister, who represents a constituency in the northeast, said:
"I want the people of each of England's regions to have better opportunities to contribute to the prosperity of their own communities".
That is absolutely right. We in the north-east of England do not want permanent welfare dependency. We want a platform and programme of Government action that will permanently lift us out of structural welfare dependence and enable our people to play a full part in British society, as they want and need to do. That will contribute to the well-being of national society.
Our people must believe that they can prosper and shape the destiny of their region without constantly depending on decisions, including those on Government budgets down to fine-grain detail, taken in Westminster and Whitehall. It is time to support regions such as the north-east more strongly and to enable our people to be
50WH
free to take part in British society, which they want to do. That will relieve many of the difficulties in other regions, which suffer the opposite end of the problems that our people suffer. That is a great agenda, and we ask the Government to take steps to put it into practice.
9.43 am
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I shall not take too much time, because I made a speech on the north-south divide in the debate on the Queen's Speech not so long ago and I do not want to repeat myself.
The report, entitled "Sharing the Nation's Prosperity" was produced in five days. I was sceptical about that because I thought that it would be a whitewash—just a push-off that had been dreamt up and put on paper. We thought that the report was intended to soften us up, but we have now read it and its findngs are worse than we thought; they reinforce our case.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) has said, we are dealing with the north-south divide, and we have seen the problem before. I shall not knock the Scots today, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you are in the Chair. I shall take it easy. The Barnett formula was devised many years ago to help Wales and especially Scotland, which was going through a bad patch. It helped Scotland and got it going, especially in terms of education, health, jobs and prosperity.
There are big differences between the regions. People have said that the gap is closing, but not according to the figures that I have seen, which show enormous regional differences. In The Journal, the local Newcastle paper, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) compared education in Berwick with that in a little town just over the border in Scotland. The Scottish school received much more money than the one in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency did. Any Government who allow such unfair differences to continue are not doing their job.
I do not want to take money from the Scots. Geordies never want to take money from anyone. I am sure that you have a lot of money, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not want to take it from you. All that we in the northeast are saying is that the formula was good enough for Scotland when it was on its knees, so we should receive similar help. We never said that we wanted what the Scots were getting. We were all right in those days; we had pits and shipyards, and the north-east was not a bad place to be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central said, at least we knew that we had a job. We thought that jobs in the pits were for life, until Margaret Thatcher decided otherwise.
What does the report mean for us? What will it do for the north-east? When will the proposals be implemented? The report is very good; it goes a long way to help our case, but how will the Government help us? I hear rumours that the Government will look at the north-east and say, "Well, there are some good pockets in the north-east and some bad ones." I have the funniest feeling that they will throw a little money here and there and say, "Get on with it. That's all you are going to get", yet the Barnett formula will not be touched. The formula will stay in place because the Prime Minister does not have the bottle to change it given the Scottish situation. The Scottish nationalists are breathing down the Government's neck.

51WH
Unfortunately for us, there is no fourth party in the north-east; we have only the Liberals. Only one Tory Member is here in the Chamber. The Liberals are on our backs. If people in the north-east become disillusioned with the Government, they will go to the Liberals. Fine; the Prime Minister might love to see a Liberal in my seat rather than me. He works with them now, so he might work with one better than with me.
The problem is that we need extra cash in the northeast. The Barnett formula must be changed. I am not knocking people in Scotland, but we should get the same as them. We are on our knees. Our shipbuilding, mining and other industries have gone. Elleton pit is on the brink and may close in the new year. We want something to replace those industries. We need help not only in industry but in education, and the Government's five-day wonder report proves our point.
9.48 am
Mr. Peter Atkinson: The longer I spend in the House, the more I begin to agree with the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell). I agree with him that the Prime Minister would not have the bottle to revise the Barnett formula. In recent weeks, people have concentrated on the Barnett formula, but doing so is a waste of time. The Government's response at yesterday's Scottish questions shows that they are more concerned with keeping the Scottish National party at bay than with anything else. That is why the Barnett formula will not be reformed.
Ms Dari Taylor: Did the previous Administration ever consider changing the Barnett formula?
Mr. Atkinson: I shall answer that point later, and I hope that the hon. Lady will be patient.
The only way to increase funding for the north-east is to take money away from the south. However, the Government will not do that, given Labour's marginal seats in the south. I am afraid that the five-day wonder report, "Sharing the Nation's Prosperity", is more Downing street spin that anything else. As has been said, the report took five days to produce and it is only a mishmash of old statistics pulled together in a binder.
The statistics on the north-east given in the report are out of date. It talks about unemployment going down—in fact, it is going up. The Prime Minister's press secretary, whose name we cannot mention, talked about hysteria in the local media over the north-south divide. The north-south divide is as old as the hills, but has been made worse in recent years with the decline of the heavy manufacturing industries, while the south has boomed under the growth of high-tech and financial services. We are continually seen to be knocking the north, which is a great pity. One of our problems is convincing people who live south of Watford that we have some good things going for us in the north. As long as we appear a begging-bowl economy, it is harder to attract inward investment and people into the region.
The north has a great deal going for it. It has spectacular landscapes and coastline, in many respects a high quality of life, relatively traffic-free roads, an industrious, hard-working and innovative population, some splendid cities—such as Newcastle upon Tyne, which is one of the most spectacular cities in the country—and wonderful growth in its higher education
52WH
sector: more than 70,000 students go to the north-east to learn, and that would be a wonderful resource for the region if only it were properly capitalised on. The fastest-growing industry is tourism and there is much to do to build that up.
The blame, if I may put it that way, for the growing north-south divide can be put on the policies introduced by the Government since the last election. It is worth considering what they have done. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) laughs, but one has to remember—he probably does not know the north-east—that it is a big, rural, peripheral area, as it has been described. So what do the Government do? They hike petrol tax up to one of the highest levels ever—the highest level in Europe. How does that help an area that depends on cars and on tourism?
Mr. Derek Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman not recall that the only time in recent years that the north-south divide reduced was during the disastrous recession of 1990–92 when the south, for almost the first time in the past 100 years, suffered as much as, or perhaps even more than, the north? That was under the hon. Gentleman's Government, and they did not want it to happen.
Mr. Atkinson: There was a recession at that time and the south suffered, but I do not understand what bearing that has on what I am saying. Government policies, such as the increase in petrol duty in an area that depends on the motor car, are strangling local enterprise. The hotel and tourism industry is already having to deal with a strong pound; why be handicapped by making our petrol the most expensive fuel in Europe?
The countryside depends on agriculture—look what the Government have done to it. Agricultural incomes are the lowest that they have ever been. The beauty and prosperity of rural Britain depend on the prosperity of farming. More smoke and mirrors emerged from the Select Committee on Agriculture only yesterday, when it was announced that the Government's aid package to farmers would amount not to £500 million, as was trailed, but to £1 million.
We also have some of the highest council taxes in the country. Is it not idiocy that a person living in an average, three-bedroomed semi-detached house in Newcastle upon Tyne pays more council tax than someone who owns a £35 million house in Kensington? That situation has arisen because we have inefficient local authorities, which have been responsible for so much of the trouble in towns in the north-east. Local councillors in the north-east prefer to spend their time squabbling with one another and stabbing one another in the back, rather than getting on with cleaning up the cities and dealing with the sink schools and low educational expectation that we have in Newcastle.
Dr. David Clark: The hon. Gentleman is not being fair to the councillors in the north-east. Does he not concede that for two years running the best unitary authority anywhere in England has been in the north-east, in South Tyneside? In spite of the highest unemployment in the UK and worse than average deprivation, the north-east has some well-run local authorities, of which South Tyneside is a good example.
Mr. Atkinson: One has only to look at the evidence of one's own eyes and of the reports to see the low

53WH
educational achievements—the local authority is responsible for the schools—and one has only to walk around Newcastle, which is one of the most spectacular cities in England, to see the litter blowing around and the dereliction in part of the west end, which was once one of the finest residential areas in the city. Local authorities have considerable responsibility for some of the conditions in the north-east.
I also wish to mention the health tax that has now been imposed on us. As we see in the report, the northeast has some of the worst health problems in the country. Health action zones have recently been set up, which we hope will improve that situation. However, with sleight of hand, the Treasury has changed the way that health authorities are funded; they now have to carry all the burden of their drug costs. That will cost my local authority perhaps £2 million a year from its budget and that will be reproduced throughout the north-east, which will mean that we will not be able to develop the health action zones, which have already been set up, unless they receive extra funding.
Mr. Cousins: It is a pity that you are using this occasion to make a lot of rather unfortunate local party political points. Would you not accept that the 20 years of Conservative government, which underpins so much of the information in the report, so much of the dereliction of Newcastle's west end, for example, and so much of the social stress that constitutes the poor health experience of the region, might also have something to do with the problems that we are discussing?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I just say before we proceed that the hon. Gentleman's use of "you" implies that he is speaking to the Chair? Even his hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) did not involve the Chair in his arguments about the Scots.
Mr. Cousins: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The atmosphere is so much like an urban district council that I am reverting to type.
Mr. Atkinson: I agree. It has been called the Westminster parish council; I do not know whether that is a little unfair.
I agree in part with what the hon. Gentleman says, but many of the conditions of the city have been made substantially worse by the housing policies operated over the years by Newcastle city council. I think that that is self-evident. The north-east has also not been helped by the planning system and by ministerial delays on planning. One of the things that developers and entrepreneurs in the region complain about is how hard it is to get planning applications through. The classic example is the one in my constituency with the plan to build a virtual reality centre at Stannington in Northumberland, which was lost because of the Minister's refusal to make a decision on the planning application. By the time that the Minister had decided to go against the decision of the inspector who had recommended approval for the plan, the funding for the project, which could ultimately have created 2,000 jobs, had gone and the scheme was dropped.
54WH
How do the Government's abolition of the Northumberland and Tyneside training and enterprise councils and their creation of something called skills and learning councils help the region? The Northumberland TEC has been at the forefront of introducing new skills in its area, but it has been abolished and replaced with a body on a sub-regional basis. How does that help? The creation of the regional development agencies was also damaging for the region. Before them, we had the development councils, which were specialist bodies in areas such as the north-east that needed special treatment and special development. The whole country now has regional development agencies and it is obvious that the chairman of the regional development agency in the south-east is saying, "We have problems down here and we want to keep more of our money at home and not spread it around the country." The regional development agency will ultimately do more to harm than to help the region. I imply by that no criticism of Dr. John Bridge, for whom I have the highest admiration, who is the chairman of the regional development agency in the north-east, but I would have preferred him to stay at the Northern Development Company, which did a first-class job for the north-east.
The north-east also has poor road infrastructure. We have had no news about taking the MI up to Newcastle, and we still have the threat in the countryside of a pesticides tax and an aggregates tax, which will damage quarrying, opencast mining and farming.
I urge on the Minister some solutions to the problems. First, I urge him not to increase the price of petrol, because that would be extremely damaging in a region such as the north-east of England. Secondly, I ask him to introduce a scheme to provide some relief for hauliers on the duty that they pay. In rural areas, transport is everything, and increasing diesel costs increases all costs. He should also follow the advice of the Leader of the Opposition to abolish RDAs and replace them with a new development company, returning to the idea of the Tyne and Wear and the Teesside development corporations. Hon. Members have interrupted me to refer to the Government's record. The creation and funding of those two development corporations—I realise that local councillors did not approve of them—by the Conservative Government, by short-circuiting local government in the north-east, did more than any other measure to improve the environment of the north-east.
Proper funding should be provided to deal with sparsity. Time and again—I accept that when we were in government it was the same—we have not succeeded in making the case that sparsity, especially in education, roads and social services, should be properly funded. That would help. We should also have more enterprise zones—another successful Conservative innovation which continues to prove extremely successful—and less regulation which strangles the farming industry and new enterprise. We do not have enough local businesses. The north-east of England needs more service industries. Every time that the Government introduce a measure such as the working time directive, the national minimum wage or the social chapter, they increase the burden on business and make it increasingly hard to develop the necessary new industries.
We need some commitment from the Government, who have produced six Cabinet Ministers who represent the north-east—the three Bs: Brown, Blair and Byers;

55WH
and the three Ms: Mandelson, Mowlam and Milburn. When the Conservatives were in power, we did not have even one, but the Conservative Government were more committed to the north-east than are the current Labour Government with their six Cabinet Ministers.
10.2 am
Dr. Ashok Kumar: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on securing the debate. Debate on the north-south divide has been going on for as long as I can remember.
I shall say a few words about the definition of poverty and the appropriate political instrument for tackling poverty, which have a bearing on the broader issue of regional disparities. I shall also outline the structural nature of some of those disparities and how they affect my constituents.
The Cabinet Office report released last week was timely, foreshadowing a detailed study conducted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on patterns of poverty in this country that are linked to social and geographical circumstances. I hope that we shall have an opportunity some time in future, perhaps in this new innovative debating Chamber, to discuss the Rowntree report and its implications for tackling social exclusion and powerlessness.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was correct in adducing that pockets of poverty exist in the southeast and that problems are experienced in parts of London. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central said, estates and communities just a few miles from this place have levels of unemployment equivalent to some of the worst in the areas that we represent in the north-east.
Unemployment and poverty must be tackled and eradicated wherever they occur, and I support any initiative to breathe new life into such communities in areas such as north Kent or the estates of Southwark, Newham and Hackney which suffer from joblessness. However, the problem is that we are not comparing like with like. I accept that there is high unemployment in the Medway towns, for example, but Kent has benefited as a centre for logistics following the opening of the Channel tunnel. Similarly, there is high unemployment in some of east and south London's inner-city estates, but they are located a short bus or tube journey from two of the greatest generators of jobs and investment in the United Kingdom—the cities of London and Westminster. Government programmes for those areas should therefore be geared to job connect schemes and employability projects—to fitting the unemployed to jobs that match their aspirations, to heightening people's competence to fit those jobs and to creating intensive, intermediate labour-market projects, schemes that will flower and help people achieve employed status, and schemes that contract with private companies based in the heart of the city.
For our region it is different. Although pockets of prosperity exist, they are small pockets in a very large overcoat. Quite simply, for our unemployed people, jobs remain unavailable in any real quantity. Indeed, the jobs that are available are, as often as not, poorly paid, and too often of low quality.
56WH
Over the years, job-hunting agencies have achieved much. New plants in the region, such as those created by firms such as Samsung, Nissan and LG, are welcome, but must be set against an employment topography that has been affected by the death of the coal mining industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) mentioned, and vast job losses in the steel, shipbuilding and heavy engineering industries. Indeed, some of the newer industries in our region have yet to achieve critical mass. Although Nissan is probably the UK's leading-edge car manufacturer, firms such as Samsung have yet to achieve the full employment potential that was promised.
On the Tyne and the Tees, many former shipyard workers found work with the arrival of new orders for the offshore industry, which needed their skills and talents. However, that industry, too, is no longer in good shape. Years of low oil prices and the gradual depletion of the North sea oil fields have left many yards without orders. Many yards have been mothballed, and the men have been laid off.
Throughout the north-east, and especially in my region of Teesside, we still bear the scars of our past. Those scars are deep, and were formed under a previous Government. They affect entire communities. In many—indeed, most—communities we may have lower unemployment figures than two or three years ago. However, the figures for people deemed "economically inactive"—people who are unemployed, ill or drawing incapacity benefit—show that, in many communities, such people constitute the largest minority. Such communities co-exist with other communities in which joblessness is lower and other social factors are better, but even those communities fare far worse than many of their southern equivalents. Areas such as the north-east need a regional strategy to create jobs and train people for those jobs. The south needs a regional strategy to overcome unsustainable overheating and help jobless people adapt to a vigorous labour market. Those are two different approaches for two distinct areas. They are not in competition, but complementary.
There is a lot of loose talk about the north-south divide. It does exist, and anyone who tries to pretend otherwise is flying in the face of bitter reality. I refer to two recently published sets of indicators. First, the Government map of areas for which industries can benefit from assisted area status shows a swathe of red across the entire country except the vast majority of the south-east. Secondly, the new map of areas that benefit from European structural funds mirrors almost exactly the assisted areas map.
Overheating in the south helps no one: indeed, it does the economy of the south a disservice. It distorts the national labour market and leads to public spending to relieve congestion and the other effects of growth that is urgently needed elsewhere. Again, that problem highlights the need for balanced regional policy throughout the UK.
We must congratulate the Government on having done more for the English regions in a little more than two years than the previous Administration did in 18. I take immense pride in the fact that fully fledged regional development agencies have been created for all the regions. However, to be effective, they need to be properly resourced. Their funding formula needs to be reassessed after their first year of operation to enable

57WH
them to operate according to the scale of the problems that they face. The Government have already made a start by granting a more generous allocation than anticipated, and for that they must be congratulated.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's words on regional development agency funding, but is it not the case that the RDA, for what it plans, will have a smaller sum than it would have once had, even with the extra money?
Dr. Kumar: The Government have corrected that. We made representations to the Government, and they listened, unlike the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported. That is the difference between this Government and the previous Government.
Mr. Atkinson: Time will tell.
Dr. Kumar: Okay. It must be recognised that our RDA in the north-east should receive additional assistance. Given the historically low land values and a large land bank inherited from English Partnerships which involves remediation problems, we cannot assume that capital receipts will be easily obtained in the early years.
RDA resources need to be partnered by other regional boosts. Unlike the south, we do not have our fair share of innovative sunrise industries. Indeed, a correspondent in The Sunday Times noted that 66 per cent. of the companies featured in its list of the 100 top innovators came from below the historic line from the Wash to the Exe.
In my own area of Teesside, we are anxious that that technological imbalance be corrected. An example is ICI's long retreat from bulk chemicals, which means that its large manufacturing site at Wilton is now home to a range of spun-out or disposed former ICI concerns. Wilton is the site of some of the biggest names in the world chemical industry, yet without research and development there is a danger that the complex could become what we in the north-east call a screwdriver plant. That means a place where manufacturing processes occur without the added value of research and development or technological advance. For that reason, we are backing a project to transform the Wilton research and development centre into a new form of innovation park where applied research and development can be carried out for site operators by a trust working in collaboration with prestige universities.
Regional policy for the north-east simply must recognise the strengths of our region and grasp the opportunities that are present. However, it must be honest enough to recognise the structural weaknesses of the region and flexible enough to allow the RDA and other agencies to apply innovative new progammes to correct those weaknesses. That is the mirror image of the policies that have to be designed for the south-east. The problems that we face must be recognised. If we are serious about devolution, the Government must be adult enough to accept that we must have programmes devised and carried by the region for the region.
Thank you for allowing me the privilege of speaking in this new, innovative Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope to exercise that privilege again.
10.13 am
Mr. Alan Campbell: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) not only for securing the debate, but for the measured way in which he made his case. That stands in some contrast to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). I am sure that he did not want to give the impression, but he nevertheless did, that he was not in the House when his Government presided over the BSE crisis or when they introduced the automatic fuel escalator that our Government have abolished.
I welcome the report and the opportunity to debate it. In many ways, the report and the debate grew out of what is happening in the north-east. I want to refer to those concerns and to the impact of Government policy on my region.
The report describes in graphic detail the differences between regions, and goes a long way to confirm what many of us already believe. The differences did not begin on 1 May 1997; indeed, some of the statistics in the report describe what happened in the later stages of the previous Government. I hope that the report does not add to any stereotype about the north-east or to any sense of fatalism, because both would be entirely misplaced. The north-east has enormous potential that we can achieve, provided we tackle the fundamental issues faced by the region.
Solutions will not be found by encouraging or promoting inequality between or within regions. The future of the north-east does not lie in a low-pay, low-skill, low-investment economy, nor is it entirely within the grasp of central Government.
I almost find myself agreeing with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Hexham, although I shall try to steer clear of doing so if possible. The north-east, like many other parts of the north, has suffered over the past two decades by being opened up to a global economy that exposed the weaknesses of the traditional industries on which it so heavily depended. That global economy continues to set the pace and is defining new regions. It is redefining the nature of national economies and is casting new doubt on the effectiveness of national economic policy.
The global economy cruelly exposed the weaknesses that we suffer in education and skills not only in the north-east, but across the regions. I am one of the last people whom anyone would find being critical of the excellent teachers in the north-east. However, we have a long way to go if we are attain the standards needed. As has already been said and is confirmed by the report, the north-east has the lowest level of attainment at GCSE and the highest proportion of the work force without qualifications outside Northern Ireland.
We have not created or sustained sufficient small businesses in the past because, like the rest of the UK, we have been too slow to invest and to see the potential of markets. As a Government, we inherited a generation of people in the north-east, too many of whom never knew about work. Some families have been out of work not only in one generation, but in two. Alongside that is a level of poverty in the north-east that helps to explain why we have such unacceptable levels of ill health and crime.

59WH
The report is therefore welcome because it is a stark reminder of how far we have to go, but I have one regret about the way in which it was put together and published. It is not to do with the speed with which the exercise was carried out, but to do with the fact that we have its results now. I wish that the study in the report had been carried out two years ago. If we had audited the region then, we would have had a clear view of what was going on in the north-east and we could have given a more measured response as to the success of the Government's policies in the regions.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: LG is an example of what you are talking about. It came to the north east for a site in my constituency.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. The practice is for remarks to be addressed to the Deputy Speaker, not to those in the Chamber.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There were 1,000 jobs in the factory at £2,000 a job. However. LG went to Scotland, which offered £27,000 a job. That is the sort of competition that we had in those days, simply because of the Barnett formula.
Mr. Alan Campbell: My recollection is that LG went to Wales, but my hon. Friend is right to say that the region has not been able to compete at that level, and obviously that important issue needs to be addressed. He is right to draw attention to inward investment as well, as I want to do in a moment.
Central to achieving the needed prosperity, before we can share it out, is the concept of getting people into work. We must face facts. Unemployment in the northeast is too high. It is too high as long as anyone in any family who wants work is deprived the opportunity of it. To put that into context, it is sometimes overlooked that in the two years since the election we have created more jobs than have been lost. There has been a net gain in jobs in the north-east. The new deal has been crucial in tackling long-term unemployment. In my constituency, 130 young people are now in work as a result of it. Longterm youth unemployment has halved.
Between 1981 and 1997, 110,000 jobs were lost, most of them in primary industries or in manufacturing. The economy of the north-east continues to change. Inward investment has had an important part to play in that. In the past three years, 128 projects have created or safeguarded 50,000 jobs. We now have micro-electronic and automotive sectors. We also have a growing service sector in business services, call centres and retail services. If we are to move towards a high-technology economy in the north-east, we must continue to attract inward investment. If inward investors are to come to the UK and, hopefully, to the north-east, they must have a stable economic framework in which to invest, which means having the lowest possible interest rates that can be achieved, and low inflation.
I am pleased that the north-east has attracted a higher than average amount of regional selective assistance. We need more small businesses. There are signs that the situation is improving. Figures suggest that more new small businesses are being created and that they are
60WH
surviving longer. Unlike new small businesses in many regions, they are putting more resources into research and development.
I said earlier that the north-east had the lowest attainment rate at GCSE. However, there are signs of improvement. Education is probably one of those areas in which it is hard to see quick improvement. However, the north-east has more under-fives in education than any other region; we also have the fewest under-eights in classes of more than 30. That is a direct result of the Government's policy. But we need to go further. As well as promoting a knowledge-based enconomy and entrepreneurship, we must ensure that that prosperity is shared.
It is important that 1,600 people in my constituency of Tynemouth benefit from the minimum wage. I am pleased in one way, but not surprised, that the hon. Member for Hexham has again confirmed that his party would abolish it. It is important to my constituency that 2,000 families now find that work pays because of the working families tax credit. It is important that 3,000 pensioners benefit from the minimum income guarantee. Such policies are based on need and, as a result, they not only redistribute within a region, but redistribute between regions.
Mr. Peter Atkinson rose—
Mr. Campbell: I think that the hon. Member for Hexham is about to confirm his remarks. I will give way to him in a moment.
All the beneficiaries will find it incredible at the next general election that a sensible Opposition would remove each of those policies.
Mr. Atkinson: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to give way. He referred to 1,600 families in his constituency. What would he say to my constituents who lost their jobs in the catering and hotel industry because of the national minimum wage?
Mr. Campbell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman can provide evidence of that—or is it simply one of the scare stories that were put about by the Opposition when the minimum wage was debated? They talked about the devastating effect that it would have on the economy, but they have produced no evidence of that. If the hon. Gentleman is willing to provide me with some, I shall be happy to receive it. My constituency has a tourism, hotel and catering industry and I have not received one letter, phone call or complaint about the effect on it of the national minimum wage. In fact, the good employers in my constituency welcome it.
Although unemployment may be falling in the region, I am not complacent, because it is still too high. I shall finish my speech by referring to three courses of action that fall within the Government's remit. First, they can be a purchaser and bring extra spending to a region over and above the normal public expenditure that is allocated to areas. Shipyards on the River Tyne are facing a lack of orders, yet some companies are showing extraordinary faith in the region, because they are investing in new resources and taking on apprentices. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will show such faith, too. I want it to put work into the shipyards of the

61WH
north-east. Shipbuilding is not a sunset industry. We shall continue to need warships, and the best ones are built on Tyneside. There is also a growing market for ferries, and Tyneside could become a world centre of excellence for that.
The second course of action that I want the Government to consider is the dualling of the Al. It would open up a huge area for investment and create jobs. I cannot understand the reluctance of successive Governments in tackling that issue. Whoever wrote the report and said that the north-east has "relatively limited traffic congestion" has not travelled north of Newcastle on the Al.
My final point concerns the regional development agency. I welcome the commitment of additional resources and the continued commitment of more than our fair share of single regeneration budget money. The RDA has a specific role to play in regeneration. We have to complete the schemes that are under way. As a Member of Parliament who represents a declining seaside town, I shall be knocking on the RDA's door because we need regeneration, too. The Opposition will come to rue the day when they proposed to get rid of the regional development agency.
The report demonstrates that we have a long way to go. The north-east may well have further to go than other regions. It illustrates the stark differences between the regions. It also demonstrates differences within regions. Tackling poverty and exclusion wherever they occur is central to the Government's actions, and I have every confidence that they will continue along that path.
10.27 am
Ms Dari Taylor: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on the very measured manner in which he introduced the debate. The document "Sharing the Nation's Prosperity" has produced a focused response to the problems in our regions. It has sharpened our knowledge and it clearly ensures that we must define a direction for Government spending.
The document stated that there are disparities within regions. However, the disparity within my constituency in the north-east is as great as that between regions, north and south. Within my constituency are leafy suburbs and people who benefit significantly from being involved in the new technology industries, whether it be communications or whether they are part of the university of Durham, the biochemical industries or the pre-medicine industries, all of which have developed since the Labour Government came to power. The small engineering companies—the Samsungs—are features of my constituency and of Stockton, North, your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They offer many of our suburbs tremendous opportunities.
There is serious disparity within my constituency, such as in the Thornaby area, where the shipbuilding and ship repair industry used to be. It was a fine heavy engineering concern, which, I remind the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), was flattened by his Government. Mrs. Thatcher proudly stood on Teesdale, waved her handbag and said, "Look at what I have achieved." I can tell her what she achieved: the closure
62WH
of some fine engineering companies and high unemployment, which has translated into unemployability.
I shall be concentrating on those aspects in my comments today because I want the Government to concentrate their thinking. Areas such as the Thornabys and the Parkfields in the north-east are in desperate need of support—significantly more than many of the leafy suburbs.
In conclusion, there are disparities within regions, and there is a serious problem in the north. I hope that people will concentrate their minds and acknowledge that the disparities within constituencies are seriously problematic. That should be the focus of future Government spending.
10.31 am
Mr. Don Foster: It may be of interest to know that although I represent a south-west constituency, I was born in the north and still care passionately about it. Anyone who has read the report will have been flabbergasted by the spin that the Prime Minister put on it. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister accepts that there is a north-south divide, but in all of his utterances when he launched the report in Manchester, he went out of his way to obscure that. I suspect that he did that to try to placate many of the Labour Members in the north-east who are rightly worried about what is happening. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on his excellent speech. It is clear from that and from the speeches of the hon. Members for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) that the Prime Minister has not pulled the wool over their eyes. There is undoubtedly a north-south divide.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—who, sadly, has had to go off to Committee—would no doubt have pointed out more eloquently than I can that the figures make the north-south divide very clear indeed. We know that unemployment in the north-east is almost three times higher than in the south-east. Disposable income per head is almost a third lower in the north-east than in the south-east. The Office for National Statistics makes it clear that the south-east is 7 per cent. wealthier than the European Union average while, by constrast, the northeast is 15 per cent. below the European average. By contrast, the north-east has the highest proportion of low-income families in the country. I could go on, but hon. Members know those statistics only too well.
It is a pity that the Prime Minister, who was quoted earlier by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, made no reference in all his remarks to the buffeting that the north-east suffered as a result of the decline of steel, shipbuilding and coal. The Prime Minister was right to point out that there are variations within regions, but those variations are huge and we ignore them at our peril. Surely our knowledge of those regional variations should influence the many different aspects of policy. The new Labour Government fight shy of the word redistribution, but surely that is the Government's role if we want to ensure that we share the nation's prosperity, as the title of the report says. Regional redistribution must be one way of targeting help on those who are most in need.

63WH
Reference has been made to the Barnett formula. It is perfectly possible to have that type of arrangement to identify the needs of regions and to ensure that we have a target formula against which we can make judgments on whether we are sharing the nation's prosperity fairly.
Mr. Derek Foster: I am grateful to my honourable namesake for giving way. He mentioned the Barnett formula. I know that the Government do not want us to mention it; they would prefer us to keep silent about it. However, by pointing out the complexities of the economics and geography of poverty, the report makes an incontrovertible case for reviewing the Barnett formula. People from every English region are clamouring for such a review. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me?
Mr. Don Foster: Of course. I have made that clear, but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to repeat it. I am sure that all hon. Members will be interested in a written answer that was given by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who seems to be perfectly happy with the Barnett formula with regard to Scotland. He states:
"I have had no discussions with the Treasury about the Barnett formula."—[Official Report. Westminster Hall, 14 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 130W1-1]
Time is brief and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I have just one dimension to add to a debate that has not taken place. The report shows other interesting statistics. In many respects, under the Labour Government, Britain "isn't getting fairer". During the first years of the Labour Government, the number of people on very low incomes—less than 40 per cent. of average earnings—rose by more than 1 million to a record 8.4 million. Information from other sources, such as the growing concern about the problem of coronary heart disease among unskilled workers compared with professionals, or the evidence showing that educational standards of children from middle-income groups are improving faster than those of children from the worst-off homes, tells a similar story.
I do not believe that Government action is helping in those issues. If we want to help children who are doing least well—those from the less well-off families—it is bizarre that the Government have set targets for the most able 80 per cent. of pupils, but have set no targets for the bottom 20 per cent. If we want to target financial aid on those who are less well-off, I cannot understand the Government's bidding formula of funds for education. For example, Cornwall, where 15 per cent. of pupils are eligible for free school meals, receives £308 per head from the bidding process, whereas Rutland, which is considerably wealthier, with only 6 per cent. being eligible for free school meals, receives £1,006 per head. That will hardly help to tackle the problems of the disadvantaged.
There are many other areas in which the Government have not got it right. A client of the Plymouth citizens advice bureau has recently been disentitled to benefit for not taking a job with a weekly wage of only £101 because it would have cost £40 a week to take it.
I welcome the fact that we now have the social exclusion unit and that we have joined-up thinking on the work of different Government Departments to
64WH
tackle some of the problems of poverty. It is a pity that the work of that unit is reported only to the Prime Minister and that there is no opportunity for parliamentary involvement in its activities. I worry about the fact that the staff has increased threefold without any discussions in Parliament. We have no idea whether it will increase still further. However, at least it is the beginning of joined-up thinking.
The debate has clearly illustrated that the Government must look seriously at the real divide that exists between the north and the south, and the variations between regions. There is an urgent need for a new approach to regional funding and support to the regions. The Government are very fond of their phrase "the new deal". The time has now come for a new deal for the regions.
10.39 am
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on securing the debate, which has proved interesting. I want to add a perspective that goes to the heart of the north-east's problems and also focus on wider problems in the country as a whole. The title of the report is "Sharing the Nation's Prosperity", which means not just sharing out, but sharing in that prosperity. Realising the potential in regions will help to solve regional differences and inequalities; it is not just a matter of dealing with areas of deprivation. There are sound arguments for focusing on creating prosperity, rather than addressing inequalities, but I also accept the view of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report that economic growth and rises in employment do not necessarily resolve poverty and inequality. We need economic growth, but we also need separate and different measures to deal with poverty and inequality.
I shall not delay the House by discussing the context of the report, but it would not be unduly cynical to say that the exercise was more about presentation than substance. The analysis is limited, as I will show. Anyone examining the structure of relative disadvantage reflected in the report's figures would see immediately that it is about peripherality, rurality, sparsity, distance from markets and access to markets.
It was argued earlier that market forces were not so important, but market forces are crucial in the long run. It is also a question of whether market forces are given an opportunity to exploit the potential in regions. There is great potential in many regions that are relatively economically disadvantaged at present and it is important for market actors to gain access to regions in order to exploit their potential. That is as true in parts of the south-east and the south as it is in the north.
Referring to differences within regions is partly valid. In the south-east, unemployment is highest in Thanet, and in the eastern region it is highest in Great Yarmouth. Those places are peripheral to their regions. Of course, it remains the case that the generalities of regions involve inequalities, but there is an important theme running through the argument—a theme, as I said, of peripherality, infrastructure, and accessing markets and services.
When one looks at the structure, one sees a pattern, which I would not dispute. There is a north and south

65WH
pattern. However, if one examines local authority districts with more than one third of non-agricultural employment in manufacturing, 12 are in the north-west, 10 in the east midlands, six in Wales and four in the north-east. There are none in London, the east, the south-east or even in Scotland. The Government have neglected manufacturing, and 190,000 jobs have been lost. There is also a pattern of relative disadvantage in regions that are more dependent on manufacturing. That will be exacerbated as a result of the climate change levy, for example. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) provided another example when he referred to the costs to hauliers of taking manufactured goods to markets in more peripheral manufacturing locations.
My key point and contribution to the debate is to stress the importance of dealing with the infrastructure consequences of peripherality. The document "Sharing the Nation's Prosperity" suggests that the picture is highly complex, as differences within regions obscure a more general pattern. In fact, the general pattern is clear, but the statistics in the document are not well compiled to illustrate it. Page 5 of the document states:
"In the North West, GDP per head in 1995 ranged from 119 in Halton and Warrington to 61 in Sefton…where the UK average is 100".
But a more careful study would show that the residence of corporations is the key factor. Warrington is more industrialised, but not much industry is resident in Sefton, which is more of a commuter area. Similarly, in the south-east, the fact that per capita GDP is high in Berkshire but relatively low in East Sussex has much to do with the residence of pensioner populations. The figures do not tell the whole story, even of the extent of genuine relative economic disadvantage in those regions.
It might be said that the flaw in my argument about peripherality is London. Nine local authorities have an unemployment rate of more than 10 per cent.—five are in London and four in the north-east. I do not want to embarrass the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) too much by agreeing with him. We need to examine the particular circumstances of London. The general point is that local authority districts with high unemployment rates in London are none the less subsisting within a travel-towork area with relatively low unemployment rates. Areas such as Hartlepool and Middlesbrough in the north-east have high unemployment rates with respect to both local authority residents and the travel-to-work area. We need to take jobs to those areas.
London's relative deprivation is sometimes the result of ethnicity, discrimination or educational disadvantage, which produces a lack of jobs for people often living in an otherwise strong job market. In the north-east, joblessness leads over time to relative economic disadvantage. The solution in London is to help the people; in the north-east, it is to help the regions—a very big difference. The same economic policy cannot deliver solutions to both areas. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
If the Prime Minister wants to deal with these problems, I would advise him to consider several issues. It is clear from his response to the report that he has not
66WH
done so. First, it is crucial to focus on infrastructure. It has been mentioned several times—not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham—with respect to access to the north-east. Infrastructure is critical for access to markets. Secondly, we must recognise such factors as sparsity, rurality, decline in farm incomes and relative dependence on manufacturing with respect to local government distribution of spending, for example. I know how relatively underfunded Northumberland and Cambridgeshire are in that regard.
I recommend a change in the Government's attitude to manufacturing. They should drop any proposals further to increase fuel duty levels in real terms and they should drop the climate change levy. The spatial impact of policies across the board must be recognised. Reorganising expenditure into a regional development agency will not be the answer, when £330 million has been taken out of the Highways Agency budget in two years. That will not deliver the infrastructure that is required for regions that need to be brought closer to their markets in order to realise their economic potential.
10.48 am
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): May I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on securing the debate? He and other hon. Members made valuable contributions and made a telling case on behalf of their constituents in the north east. It is rather like being invited to a meeting of the North East Labour group—not a pleasure that I have enjoyed before.
I want to make it clear that the Government fully accept that there are regional disparities within this country. One of those disparities is between the north of England and the south-east of England. Some comments in the press have suggested that the Government do not recognise regional disparities, but that is not the case. The report's statistics on the nation's prosperity make that quite clear. I accept some of the points made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) about the incompleteness of working only on the basis of GDP per head. London is much richer than elsewhere; the figures on disposable income also show that London is more prosperous than the north-east.
One of the interesting points in the report is that regional disparities in this country are less substantial than in some other European countries. I did not realise that before reading the report and wonder whether other hon. Members were aware of it. That means that it is not easy to solve the problem on its own, and we must bear that in mind when we discuss it.
There is also the issue of complexity, to which several of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members referred. We are talking not simply about a north-south divide, but about rich and poor and about poverty existing side by side with wealth. That is a complicated issue. Some of the highest unemployment in England is on the south coast, and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire mentioned Great Yarmouth. Towns such as Dover and Southend also have extremely high levels of unemployment. It probably surprises many people that Plymouth has a higher unemployment rate than Greater Manchester.

67WH
Peripheriality is one factor in regional disparities, but it is not the only one. Depending on which measures one uses, Cheshire is between the second and fifth most affluent county in the country. Cornwall is, by most measures, the poorest. The issue is complicated, and the average regional figures often hide more than they reveal. If we concentrate on average figures, we often miss the differences between regions and the pockets of poverty.
To explain that, I want to go back to a debate in which I was fortunate enough to take part with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central about 12 months ago. We both represent northern, urban constituencies that are some considerable distance from London. We talked about the decay in housing and the problems of crime and drugs that are associated with it.
I want to ask my hon. Friend a question to get to grips with the difficulty of the problem that we are discussing. Let us imagine that he could, by magic, increase the prosperity of Newcastle, Manchester or Leeds to the level of that in London. Does he really think that that would deal with the problem that he so graphically described in that earlier debate? What effect would it have on some of the people who live in terraced houses? They are socially excluded and are sometimes associated with crime and sometimes victims of it. Often, they are associated with the drugs culture. Would they be affected by an increase in the general level of prosperity if the Government did not take several of the initiatives that they are currently taking to deal specifically with the problems that I mentioned? I suspect that my hon. Friend would agree that we must recognise that regional disparities exist as well as dealing with problems within, and sometimes without, urban areas.
The contribution by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) was extraordinary—he has obviously been injected with the same drug that has given the rest of the Conservative party amnesia. His contribution was extraordinary, given that we are considering problems in Newcastle and other parts of the country. The Conservative party was in office for 18 years and tripled child poverty, doubled the number of people who were living in poverty, decimated the steel industry, the coal industry and shipbuilding and introduced the fuel duty escalator for good measure. It left us with those problems, but now opposes many of the solutions, such as the creation of regional development agencies or measures to do something directly about poverty by introducing welfare tax benefits and the minimum wage or increasing child allowances.
The hon. Gentleman's contribution was also extraordinary given that several Opposition speakers mentioned what could be done through local initiatives. From my own experience, I know that the Conservative Government largely centralised control and took power
68WH
away from local democracy in the regions while they were decimating the industries that I mentioned. They took power to the centre and stopped local initiatives.
An important comparison can be made with Europe where it has been possible to take initiatives in regional government and in the government of cities. Barcelona and Catalonia are the most obvious examples of that. They were poorer than many cities and regions in northeast England in the early 1970s, but now form one of the most affluent parts of Europe. That happened because of local initiative, which the previous Government stifled. That is precisely why this Government have introduced regional development agencies, which are now setting out their plans to help develop the regions. That is why the new Local Government Bill, which is before Parliament, contains a provision to enable local government to take the lead in the local community. It also gives local government powers to take a direct interest in the economic benefit of an area. That is in stark contrast to what happened previously.
To put it quite simply, the Government's purpose and objective is not only to recognise regional disparities and the north-south divide, but to approach the problems of social exclusion and poverty wherever they exist.
Mr. Cousins: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Earlier, he asked me whether I could solve the problems that I had described by magicking away the difference in GDP per head between London and Newcastle. My answer is that I would rather not rely on magic for anything. The Cabinet Office produced the report, but will it produce others to enable us to measure regional needs and problems and examine regional spending, or is the present report just a one-off?
Mr. Stringer: None of us must rely on magic, but my hon. Friend's question is an interesting analytical tool for getting at the heart of the problem. The Cabinet Office's responsibility and purpose is to produce reports that will help the Government and Parliament to tackle the problems of poverty and social exclusion. That is why we have a social exclusion unit. I look forward to many more debates on this issue and to being supported by many more facts, which will set out the statistics and the causes of problems.
We are coming to the end of an interesting debate. We aim to create an environment in which business can thrive. We want business to thrive and regions to survive. To answer one of the first questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central asked, doing something about regional disparities is bound to help the prosperity of the whole country. We are wasting resources while regional disparities exist. Tackling that problem is the Government's policy.

Caribbean Banana Industry
11 am
Mr. Bowen Wells: I remind the House that the Caribbean islands entered the banana trade after the second world war under a Labour Government. At that time there was little money to invest in Britain, let alone its colonies. So, in 1947, the Labour Government decided to allocate the banana trade to the eastern Caribbean nations, including Surinam and, later, Belize. Europe—and Britain especially—had begun to indulge in a highly subsidised beet sugar industry, which competed with sugar cane grown in the Caribbean islands, so the allocation of the banana trade was a compensation for the loss of the Caribbean sugar trade to the European beet sugar trade, helping the islands to diversify into bananas.
The Caribbean islands are not ideally suited to the production of bananas, as they are largely mountainous and consequently have shallow soils. There are also problems with the amount of rainfall: bananas need a great deal of rain to produce a heavy tonnage per acre. Britain and Europe knew in the 1940s that Caribbean bananas would cost a great deal more to produce. The current cost of production per tonne is about double that generally achieved on the African coast and in central and Latin America.
That problem is fundamental in relation to the World Trade Organisation-compatible regime desired by the Government. It would be delightful to solve that problem, which the European Union has recently tackled on three occasions. I made a bet with the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), whose officials and Deputy Minister—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—proclaimed in European Standing Commitee B—that their proposals were WTO-compatible. When the WTO found that they were not, the Minister handed me £5.
It is impossible to make the regime—or, indeed, any regime—produce a WTO-compatible result in the eastern Caribbean. I contend that we must go for a WTO waiver, which can be achieved only if we conduct proper negotiations with all parties concerned and work out an agreeable solution. There is an agreeable solution on the table, with which the United States would go along. Evidence from central and Latin American countries shows that they are sympathetic to it, and the eastern Caribbean would very much like to achieve it. However, ministerial determination, enthusiasm and persistence will be required if such a solution is to be successful.
I remind the House that we are dealing with the traditional African, Caribbean and Pacific countries: the Cote d'Ivoire, Cameroon, Surinam, Somalia, Jamaica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Dominica, Belize, Cape Verde, Grenada and Madagascar. Their total production or allocation is 857,000 tonnes. The European Union consumes 4 million tonnes of bananas per annum; in that context, 857,000 tonnes does not seem that much.
Twenty per cent. of the bananas supplied to Europe come from its own production in the French overseas departments of Martinique and Guadeloupe; the Spanish Canary islands; and Somalian supplies to Italy.
70WH
Eighty per cent. is imported from other countries, 21 per cent. of those imports coming from the traditional ACP countries that I listed and 3 per cent. from other ACP countries. The remaining 76 per cent. comes from central and Latin America. That region gets the lion's share of the trade, so one might ask—as I think we should—what is it complaining about?
I am especially interested in, and know well, Jamaica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Dominica, Belize, Grenada and Surinam, whose total production is 477,000 tonnes, or just over half the 857,000 tonnes that ACP countries supply to the European Union. It is not too difficult to create a regime permitting free access to the European market. However, price is another matter. As I said, costs of production in eastern Caribbean countries are roughly double those in central America. We must therefore produce a tariff that protects those countries from Latin American production: that will involve a tariff and quota regime. The United States, however, is proposing a tariff-only regime. Were such a regime be entered into—especially on the basis of the European Community's current proposals—banana growing in the eastern Caribbean would soon come to an end.
The Commission proposes that the regime takes a two-stage approach: a transitional regime allowing time for adaptation in the Caribbean and other ACP countries followed by a tariff-only regime. Unfortunately, the regime proposed for the transitional period would not allow the Caribbean industry to survive. The Caribbean Banana Exporters Association has advised me that an effective transitional regime and a much longer transitional period are essential if devastating damage to the Caribbean is to be avoided.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. I support everything that he has said; I am sure that I shall be in complete agreement with the rest of his argument. I was in St. Lucia this summer, and had the privilege of visiting Ellis Rupert Gajadhar's banana plantation. Mr. Gajadhar sent me a letter which confirms my hon. Friend's argument. He said:
"there will be serious social, economic and political dislocation in these islands if we were to lose the banana industry."
Does my hon. Friend agree with that? Will he comment specifically on the position in St. Lucia, as I know he is familiar with the island?
Mr. Wells: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as I was about to discuss the devastation that will be caused if the banana industry goes out of production. I fear that it will do so within five years under the proposals.
St. Lucia has 126,000 inhabitants, of whom more than 50 per cent. rely on the banana industry for their income. If those people cannot grow bananas, what can they grow? There is certainly no other tropical agricultural product that can compete on the international market. The banana trade has had the advantage of preferential quota and tariff arrangements and all other tropical agricultural products are produced at much lower cost in many countries producing them. The St. Lucians would not be able to produce and distribute a sufficient quantity of such products to bear marketing and shipping costs, and cannot diversify into other crops.

71WH
Unfortunately, one crop is being grown: marijuana. It grows extremely well as it has no known pests or diseases. It is being destroyed by the US Drug Enforcement Administration in and around the volcano of St. Vincent and in remoter areas of Dominica and St. Lucia. It is a very profitable product. If people are denied any other crop to sell to the export markets, they will undoubtedly grow more marijuana and we will be pushing them into it.
Mrs. Gillan: I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. Will he also comment on the fact that the islands lend themselves to smuggling? Unfortunately, it is likely that drugs will pass from south America through the islands and on to the American mainland. Therefore, if you remove the livelihood from the islanders, the opportunities to move into illegal activity are so much greater by virtue of the islands' geography and their location between major drug-producing areas and a major drug-consuming area. That is highly dangerous.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. The Chair has no intention of removing anyone's livelihood. Remarks must be addressed through the Chair.
Mrs. Gillan: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Wells: My hon. Friend is right. Not only can the islands grow marijuana, but they lie on the line between Colombia, Europe and America. Many islanders are being tempted into drug trafficking. They are aiding the import and export of drugs and assisting their passage to Europe and America. Such corruption can lead not just to illegal activity, but probably to the downfall of democracy in those islands and their capacity to enforce the rule of law. We are dealing with serious problems. It could be said that it is not important, that they are tiny islands and that we can live with it, but I do not think that we can. They will become nests of serious corruption and serious human rights problems throughout the Caribbean.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Before he leaves the subject, does he not also think that it would be ironic if the actions of the big banana producers, working through the USA Government and the World Trade Organisation, brought a dangerous drug culture much nearer the mainland of the United States, as that is exactly what it is trying to fight at the moment?
Mr. Wells: I very much agree. The United States is misleading itself in fighting the regime so strongly and will pay a high price. Given the determination and enthusiasm of Ministers, the Government and indeed our Parliament, there is a possibility of persuading the United States that there is a reason to make a sensible agreement under WTO rules. I believe in free trade and I know that it enhances the development of the third world and developing countries, but because of its history, we must be flexible enough to make exceptions. However, one exception that we propose to make via the European Union will lead not to the continued prosperity of the banana regime, but to its closure.
72WH
For the benefit of hon. Members, let me set out exactly what is proposed. It is a two-stage process. First, the Commission proposes to maintain a tariff-quota regime for the transitional period. However, the quota would not be allocated on past performance. That is a major problem. There will be three quotas. The first is for 2.2 million tonnes and the second is for 353,000 tonnes, both at a tariff of €75. The third tariff quota would be for 850,000 tonnes. The method of allocation for the first and second tariff quotas remains open, but it is likely to be on a first-come, first-served, or boat race method. The third tariff would be allocated by strike price auction, the auction being for the level of tariff payable. It is intended to meet the needs of these countries, the ACP traditional suppliers, because it provides a tariff preference of up to €275. It is designed to produce the price necessary to keep the Caribbean banana growers in business.
The Caribbean Banana Exporters Association concludes that it is difficult to think of an allocation system more likely to drive the Caribbean out of the market. The auction system places smaller operators at an immense disadvantage. It removes the certainty of access that is essential to economic shipping arrangements and to contracting for sales of bananas. The ability to contract for at least a year in advance, both for quality, reliable shipping and banana sales lies at the heart of a successful banana business. The strike price system would deny that essential need to the Caribbean and other ACP countries.
I remember why Jamaica and Trinidad went out of bananas. Trinidad was finally driven out by sikatoka disease, but the main reason was that their ships were only half filled with bananas. Sending a half-full refrigerated ship hugely increases the shipping costs and the cost per tonne landed in Britain. It would drive any banana producer out of the market. A viable industry is not possible, unless at even higher costs than now, with such a system. Ships must be full and that requires planning.
I agree with the CBEA. The present EU proposals are likely to produce the end of the Caribbean banana industry more quickly than any I have seen so far. The system will last only until 2006. If you put yourself in the position of a banana farmer who is faced with the possibility of replanting his farm, which he must do from time to time, reorganising his drainage because drainage is essential and has to be constantly cleared if bananas are to thrive, you will not put that kind of effort—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House once more that the Chair is not going to put himself in any position at the present time.
Mr. Wells: I was not putting—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must be careful with the forms of expression we use for the purposes of the Official Report. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that.
Mr. Wells: I will certainly try to adhere to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to put us in the position of a banana farmer. When I used "you", I

73WH
meant the banana farmer. If you were a banana farmer, you would not invest in a field of bananas if you knew that in 2006 the tariff arrangements would end and you would have to compete with a banana farmer in, shall we say, Ecuador which also has a series of small farms as opposed to the plantations where bananas are grown in Costa Rica, Honduras and Guatemala and other central American countries.
The farmer must make the decision to invest in the banana industry. If it is to go out of existence in 2006, he must find something else to do before that hits him in the face. Because these proposals create severe instability, and because banana farmers do not know how the market will develop, but that it will end in 2006, they will begin to move out of bananas straight away. If the Caribbean banana is to survive, it must become more productive. Becoming more productive means investing more in the banana fields. More roads will be needed to carry the bananas gently from the farms so that they do not become bruised or damaged. More irrigation will be needed: there must be a certainty of water supply and bananas must be given more water to counter the drought periods which occur in the Caribbean each year. That will require more money. It also means better shipping and putting the bananas in containers and so on, all of which involves capital investment. If the market is uncertain because the European Union proposals lack certainty—perhaps because the EU has not thought the position through—there will be no assurance for the banana producer to make the investment necessary to make himself productive and competitive.
Mrs. Gillan: Does my hon. Friend also agree that the EU has shown a complete lack of common sense by recently giving large grants to install and build the sheds for stacking and packing the bananas in St. Lucia? Large sums have gone into creating the right environment so that the bananas can reach their destinations in good condition. Was it not just a waste of money to have provided grants that effectively mean the death of the industry?
Mr. Wells: I could not agree more. Much effort has gone into increasing the quality of bananas from the east Caribbean, which is affected climatically by periods of drought. Bananas need special handling if they are not to become bruised and damaged and regarded as sub-quality when they reach the markets in the United Kingdom. They must compete with products from Latin American and central American countries on quality as well as price. The EU promised a great deal of aid of the type described by my hon. Friend. Supermarkets in this country—certainly Tesco, Sainsbury's, Safeway and Waitrose—have set up a scheme to adopt certain farmers to specify how they want bananas produced, wrapped and boxed and so on, to increase quality.
Banana farmers have reacted extremely well. When I went to Southampton to see some of the banana production, I found that quality has increased hugely as a result of investment in St. Lucia and other places in boxing plants, port terminals and elsewhere. More money is required. The Prime Minister of St. Lucia told me when I visited the island after the Commonwealth
74WH
Parliamentary Association conference, which both of us attended, that the EU, as usual, had promised a great deal of money, but had not delivered it. He said that some of the banana farms—some of the smallest on the worst land and on the steepest slopes—must go out of production because they cannot produce the necessary quality and their prices are too high. The EU had promised investment in those villages to provide the farmers with alternative means of earning their living. None of that money, which was promised two years ago, has been delivered. It is all very well for the EU to promise huge aid in replacement of banana production but, given its current appalling record of delivering aid properly and on time, many St. Lucians and St. Vincentians, if they are foolish enough to depend on it, will find themselves poverty stricken. All that must lead to an essential discussion on the politics of the banana industry.
I should like the Minister to take special note of what I am about to say because I have checked this argument with several sources. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the House we have to live in a world of mirrors and smoke to discover exactly what is happening in Government. The Prime Minister of St. Lucia put it most directly. He said that the British Prime Minister had abandoned the Caribbean, that he had decided that there should be no further support for the Caribbean position if that support would result in further disruption of trade between the United States and the EU, and he had given instructions accordingly. That is what the St. Lucian Prime Minister believes. I have checked that with members of delegations who have been to see Baroness Scotland, who is Dominican by origin, having been born in that country. She has the most tremendous sympathy for the Caribbean and knows a little about the banana industry and other matters. However, she also gave the impression that the Government were not prepared to do much more to support the Caribbean, especially if it would disrupt other trading arrangements which the UK considered to be more important.
The only reason we got a banana agreement in 1995 was that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, took up the matter with persistence and enthusiasm and a feeling that we owed those small islands a great deal and that there was a moral position for us to take to protect them from central American competition in the banana industry. Only by that action from my right hon. Friend did we win through, and win over the European nations—not all of them, because the EU is divided on the issue, but we got a majority. I believe that that is possible again.
Having had indications that the US recognises the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) pointed out, I believe that the US has an interest in the stability and democratic credibility of the islands and is prepared to consider a solution that at least will enable east Caribbean banana producers to survive. A tiny proportion of the trade in bananas is involved and most central and Latin American countries will not be greatly affected. Banana production and consumption in the UK and the EU is increasing, so the preservation of a small preferred area, however we do it, would be acceptable.

75WH
I have also had indications from people who negotiate on behalf of the Ecuadorian Government. Ecuador's banana industry is interesting in that, like the east Caribbean industry, it is based on small farmers. It does not have the great plantations that I described earlier. The Ecuadorians are very sympathetic to the islands' position. They objected to the previous regime which gave preferential arrangements to distributors of bananas, but did not directly benefit the banana farmers. But, removing that from the equation, they believe that a sensible arrangement can be reached. Therefore, in my view, if this country goes after an agreement, there is every chance of getting it. I urge the Minister to do that. What a triumph it would be.
Finally, I wish to raise the matter of the WTO waiver. The Lomé convention is under WTO waiver, which lifts in February 2000. The Lomé succesor agreement was largely agreed in Brussels last week. I read that an application has been made to renew it. Strangely enough, the banana protocol never came under that waiver. I always thought that it should have done because we would therefore have avoided many problems.
We know that the WTO has to move by consensus. This reinforces what I said about trying to get an agreement. If we cannot, we shall fail to get a WTO waiver because it will be blocked by the dissenting party or parties. That in turn reinforces what I said about the need to reach an agreement between the parties, which I believe is possible. Despite all the legal advice given to the Minister or given in Europe, no regime could establish a banana protocol to preserve the east Caribbean banana industry unless there were a WTO waiver. Even if such a regime could be established, it would almost certainly drive the Caribbean out of production.
A WTO waiver is therefore the only way forward. A WTO waiver will be required for the Lomé convention anyway. If the banana industry were included, however, we would not obtain a waiver for the newly negotiated convention. Therefore, if we are determined to achieve a good result for the east Caribbean, we must reach a consensual agreement.
I beg the Minister to pursue the matter with determination and thoroughness, for which she is well known in Europe and in this country. She must persist, pursue, harry and hassle to get an agreement. That is the only way to prevent these countries from descending into poverty and drugs-related enterprises; otherwise, they will fall into a sorry, despicable and criminalised state.
This debate is not just about bananas; it is about human beings, their employment and their welfare. We have been associated with the countries concerned for 450 years—intermarriages and deep friendships have been established—and we owe them nothing less than our persistence and our insistence.
10.32 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on bringing this issue to this Chamber. He took an interest in this matter as Chairman of the International Development Committee, of which I was a member. I was inspired by his interest to focus on this issue,
76WH
which is difficult and complicated—perhaps that is why no Labour Member, with the exception of the Minister, is speaking on it this morning. That is a tragedy, as many thousands of people in this country have relatives in the Caribbean who depend on the banana industry. I appeal to Labour Members to take more interest in this issue, which is important to many constituents.
One of my earliest memories—if not the earliest—is eating my first banana. My mother came back from the greengrocer and said, "Hey, look, I've got some bananas." We had read about bananas in geography books, and seen photographs of them, but it was our first experience of this extraordinary fruit. If I may go off on a medical tack, I shall explain why it is such an excellent food.
Bananas contain a great deal of fibre, which is very good for the bowels, and lots of carbohydrate, which provides energy. They contain potassium in great measure, which is good for the heart and counteracts all the salt in our diet. They even contain an anti-depressant substance, which affects the brain and makes the eater feel good. The banana is nature's own comfort food. Furthermore, it comes in its own hygienic, pre-packed container, which is biodegradable. It is a dream of a food for doctors and environmentalists.
However, the dollar banana—the big, pale, yellow sort sold in supermarkets—is a different matter. It is a cheap banana grown in huge plantations by, in particular, Chiquita, Dole and Del Monte, which use near slave labour in Latin America. The big producers also use poisonous pesticides and herbicides, which are becoming less effective as the banana plant acquires immunity. I checked my facts with Kew Gardens in my constituency, and I was told that dollar banana plants are examples of monoculture, which will lead to the eventual extinction of the plant. Alternatively, the producers might use genetic engineering to produce a different sort of plant. Genetic modification is not a popular option at the moment.
Consumers are becoming increasingly worried about their food. They will soon learn that the dollar banana from the big plantations in central and Latin America is not decent food, and they will stop buying it. The Caribbean banana, however, is often smaller—it comes in child-size portions, which I have found useful for my children because there is less waste—and it is sweeter and tastier. It is grown on small farms in the Caribbean and Africa. Some are grown organically, and must be a healthier option and product.
Sales of the dollar banana have fallen in recent years, which might be why big companies such as Chiquita have become scared and aggressively protective of their business. I would argue that that is why Chiquita funds both political parties in the USA, and last year put pressure on the US Government to go to the World Trade Organisation and cry foul. It claims that the EU's protection of Caribbean and ACP bananas through the Lomé convention—which enables small farmers in those countries to export their crops—is not fair.
This is a timely debate, as the Caribbean banana industry currently faces a lethal threat from the European Commission's latest proposals. I did not previously believe that those proposals were intended to destroy the Caribbean industry, although the speech by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford has made

77WH
me rethink my view on that—perhaps they are intended to destroy it. Whatever the intention, however, that will be the effect. The Caribbean growers would no longer have guaranteed access to the market, and would have to compete at auction for import licences for every tonne of bananas that they export.
The banana trade depends on the ability to contract a year ahead in shipping and sales. That requires certainty of access. Although the Commission proposes to give a substantial tariff preference to Caribbean countries, that will not suffice to ensure access for the Caribbean. The auction system would greatly favour the dominant traders in Latin America, which will have continued access, under a different allocation system, to the 2.5 million tonnes quota, at €75 tariff. They would also be free to compete in the auction for the 850,000 tonnes quota, which is intended primarily to meet Caribbean and ACP needs. They would be able to bid very competitively against the smaller banana countries for the quotas. That is partly because the main dollar quota is likely to be allocated on a first come, first served basis, which—as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford said—is otherwise known as the boat race. Traders bringing full ships over from Latin America will have every incentive to bid high for licences, which will enable them to dispose of bananas that they have failed to get in on the first come, first served basis.
The Government stated that they were willing to proceed on the basis of the Commission proposal, provided that Caribbean interests were safeguarded. However, it is not clear how that proviso can be met without radical changes to the proposal. Small-scale growers in the Caribbean need to know that there will be a market for their bananas. They cannot know that under the auction system, even with the proposed tariff preference. How can that system be reconciled with the repeated assurances to the Caribbean that its interests will be safeguarded? It does not add up. As has already been explained, an alternative system would be the allocation of quota on the basis of past performance. That is the preferred option of the Caribbean countries and the Commission, but it has not been proposed because the Commission has yet to secure agreement among interested parties on the details of such a system, particularly the reference period. The Commission really must try harder.
Another disturbing element in the Commission's proposals is the commitment to switch to a tariff-only system from 2006. The Caribbean must be granted sufficient time to restructure its industry and reduce the near total dependence of some states on a single product. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford has already told us about that, but I should say that it will prove an extremely difficult and time-consuming task. In three of the Windward Islands, bananas account for more than half of all export earnings and one third of all employment. They are equally vital to important regions of other Caribbean states. A massive economic adjustment will be necessary, and that cannot be made in only six years. The ACP states have asked for at least 10 years, and some European Union member states—but not the UK—have supported the granting of that longer period. I urge the Government to offer
78WH
their support; otherwise, there will be disruption in the Caribbean and, as has been said, people will resort to growing drugs. Does the world really want that?
Mrs. Gillan: Has the hon. Lady read the Caribbean Banana Exporters Association report, which was written by Henry Gill and Anthony Gonzales? It forecasts that the loss of the banana industry would lead to significant unemployment and considerable social unrest, particularly in the Windward Islands, where 50 per cent. of the 30,000 people who farm bananas would quickly lose their jobs.
Dr. Tonge: I have read the report, and I thank the hon. Lady for bringing it to our attention. It makes it clear why we should show much greater interest in this issue, and I am saddened that so few hon. Members have attended this morning's debate. Although it may seem like a technical debate on trade, we are in fact discussing the future of the Caribbean: its direction, stability, democracy and economy. It is vital that the islands' economies remain stable, and that they have a product to export.
Mr. Wells: With regard to the disruption of social mores, some of the islands—particularly St. Lucia, but also Grenada and, to a lesser extent, St. Vincent and Dominica—could divesify into tourism. However, if the disorder, burglary and criminal activity to which the loss of the banana industry is likely to lead actually occur, tourism will simply switch off, and the islands will lose that industry as well.
Dr. Tonge: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman—it is a serious problem. I speak to various groups in my constituency and throughout the country about how to prevent international unrest, instability and civil war, which always lead to the abuse of human rights. This is an extremely important issue for Caribbean countries. We must nip in the bud the destruction of a trade that supports those islands; its loss would lead to untold damage.
Mrs. Gillan: Does the hon. Lady also agree that the Government are sending out the wrong signals about offshore financial services industries, which are a potential source of employment? It appears that the Government will not support those industries in any form, even though they could eventually offer alternative employment for some of the smaller islands.
Dr. Tonge: I was about to deal with that matter in relation to diversification. Clearly, the Caribbean islands should not depend entirely on bananas for ever and ever, amen. We must urge the Government to consider all options, and the one that the hon. Lady mentions is very important.
The Commission has threatened to apply the tariff-only option immediately if the Council fails to agree on alternatives. To paraphrase a famous tennis player, I would like to think that it cannot be serious, given the devastating impact that such a step would have. If a tariff-only system were adopted now, the Caribbean banana industry would rapidly be destroyed. That could be averted only if the European Union extended to it a deficiency payment system comparable to that currently

79WH
extended to EU banana growers, but the Commission insists that that would be politically and financially unacceptable. However, the destruction of the Caribbean economies is no less unacceptable.
Another option which is often discussed is aid for diversification. That is a welcome measure, but it is not a solution in itself. Payments to Governments for diversification will not keep Caribbean banana growers in business. Such payments will not ensure access to the market while diversification takes place, nor will they feed, clothe and educate the growers' children. The Caribbean needs aid, but with trade.
I realise that the Department for International Development stood up valiantly for the ACP during last week's discussion in Brussels on the successor to the present Lomé convention. The Lomé commitments are being ruthlessly whittled away, but there remains the EU commitment to take all necessary steps to ensure the continuing viability of the banana industries. That commitment is vital, and must not be further weakened.
Finally, I invite the Minister to confirm that the Government will oppose an auction system that cannot provide the assured duty-free access that is essential to the survival of the Caribbean. The Government must argue the historical basis for quota allocation, at least in respect of the 850,000 tonne quota that is proposed to meet the needs of the ACP. They must insist on a much longer transitional period before the introduction of a tariff-only system. As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford said, they must consider including the Caribbean banana trade in the WTO waiver. Unless those measures are adopted, there will be dire unrest in the Caribbean and we shall lose a superior product, the Caribbean banana, and the knowledge and expertise required to grow it. The dollar banana will eventually become extinct, and we shall then be able sincerely to say, "Yes, we have no bananas!"
11.49 am
Mr. James Paice: That should not be too difficult to follow. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on securing this debate, and on the manner in which he conducted it. It is well known that he is the House's expert on such matters, and has many years' experience in Caribbean issues, particularly bananas. It is a pity that the Government have not initiated a debate on this issue. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said, it is a shame that more people have not shown an interest. As recently as a year ago, a number of people attended a Commitee debate on Commission proposals, which suggests that there was some interest then. During that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford challenged the former Minister about the WTO compatibility of those proposals. The then Government appeared to be convinced—albeit wrongly—that they were compatible.
My hon. Friend gave an introduction to the background of the problem, and to the sugar industry. We are approaching a reform of the sugar regime in the Community, but I do not believe that anyone connected with agricultural politics expects any opportunity for regeneration of the sugar cane industry in the Caribbean. Sugar cane is now grown in many parts of the world, using highly efficient industrialised processes. We should not be lulled into the belief that the sugar industry would provide an alternative to bananas.
80WH
I shall not waste the House's time by going through the employment issues involved, as both my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford and the hon. Member for Richmond Park have made those points admirably. The banana industry is the major part of the economy for most of the eastern Caribbean.
I endorse the comments made about the drug risk. We cannot underestimate the potential damage to those islands in terms of their culture and the effects of criminality on their tourism industry, and also to the United States and other countries in which the drug criminals seek to market their goods. In this country, we must stop at nothing to prevent such developments. It is all very well running anti-drug campaigns here, but if we are complicit in encouraging the development of a drug industry in the Caribbean, we shall do much to undermine all that good work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford said, no real alternative agricultural products are available to the islands. The banana industry is, and must remain, at least for the foreseeable future, a major part of their economy.
I turn to the World Trade Organisation, and, in particular, the role of the United States within it. Conservative Members recognise the importance and value of the WTO, and, as my hon. Friend said, we support the principles of a move towards free trade. I am less convinced that the European Union and the United Kingdom Government understand the implications for the Caribbean of accepting, almost without debate, some of the arguments put forward by the United States through the WTO.
We need to challenge the United States over several aspects of its approach to this debate, such as its hypocrisy over its overall levels of support for agriculture, which we know are far greater than it would have us believe. There is no banana industry in the United States. The hon. Member for Richmond Park reminded us of the financial support that the major American companies involved in the banana industry give to political parties, even though there is no indigenous industry for them to worry about. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford said, those companies already have 76 per cent. of the import trade into the European Union. They are not exactly hard done by.
That brings me to the Commission's proposals. I preface my comments about them by saying that I am astonished that they have been put forward in their present form. That is because of what I have read in the document entitled "The Commission reports to the Council on consultations with a view to settlement of the banana disputes", dated 10 September 1999, issued by the Directorate-General for Trade. It is a recent document, which follows the WTO panel's dismissal of the previous system, but predates the proposals that we are discussing now. It makes a couple of statements that are remarkable given the present proposals. In reference to auctioning, it states:
"Auctioning continues to be questioned as to its WTO-compatibility. No operators were in favour of this system. Other conventional systems appear unlikely to provide a resolution of this issue."

81WH
Given that no one was in favour of auctioning, and that there are questions about its WTO compatibility, it is remarkable that the Commission should introduce the measure as an integral part of its proposals to settle the dispute.
My hon. Friend mentioned waivers, and this same document refers to the fact that the Community regarded access under the tariff quota system as
"a volume limited tariff preference and hence covered the existing article 1 waiver. However, the WTO concluded that a tariff preference, which is limited in size, is by definition a tariff quota."
One does not need to be an Einstein to work that out. It is patently obvious, and I do not understand how the European Union could have been foolish enough to believe that that was covered. The document goes on to say:
"Unless such a quota respects article XIII GATT rules in terms in particular of erga omnes access and distribution, it requires a derogation (waiver) from that article. In GATT history, a waiver based on article XIII has only been granted once. Our numerous contacts have made it clear that complainants and parties involved are either not ready to grant such a waiver or only at a very high price."
I say that not directly to caution against my hon. Friend's proposition for a waiver, because he put forward a sound argument for it. However, there are obviously some doubts. Having said that, I quoted earlier the Commission's remarks about auctions, and it seems to have taken little heed of its own views on that subject. One might, therefore, have to counter the comments about waivers.
My hon. Friend has outlined the present proposals to the House, and I shall not repeat them. However, I want to mention the matter of the auction with a tariff preference of €275 for the third element of the quota, not only because of the remarks that I read out earlier on the unacceptability of auctioning to all the operators who were asked, but because of the huge disadvantage to the Carribbean operators of an auction-based system. The hon. Member for Richmond Park also referred to that.
Access to the European market is an essential part of the core business of the Caribbean banana producers. We are talking not about marginal tonnages, but about the producers' core business, yet the auctions would place the small operators at a significant disadvantage. However, the dollar banana producers, operating on a much greater international scale, could use their marginal costings basis to make higher bids and secure that extra tonnage to ensure that the boats were full. The marginal costings that they could use to supply existing markets would be better for them than seeking to open up new markets in, for example, central or eastern Europe. The Caribbean producers would, therefore, have no certainty of access and, given what I have said about the auction-based system, I am amazed that the Commission is proposing it. I look forward to the Minister's response on that subject.
A further aspect is the transitional period to the tariff-only regime. The banana industry in the Caribbean would have to carry out a huge amount of restructuring. Considerable structural change would be necessary, and it is highly unlikely that that could be achieved in the five years allowed under the proposals. The Caribbean banana producers have said clearly that they want at least a 10-year proposal.
82WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), our Front-Bench spokesman, is unable to make a speech on the subject, but her interventions showed the considerable knowledge and personal experience that she gained by visiting some of the producers. The questions that she raised bear repetition and I shall add to what she said.
I hope that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will accept the Government's major responsibility to the Caribbean producers, for moral and historical reasons—the hon. Member for Richmond Park referred to the countless citizens of this country who can trace their roots back to that part of the world—for Commonwealth reasons and also for the selfish reason that we discussed: the potential of drugs to damage our country and our culture.
I hope that the Government will tell us what they are doing to get involved in discussions. Although negotiations with the WTO have ultimately to be conducted by the Commission, we cannot get away from the fact that Britain still enjoys a special relationship with the United States, which is the major spokesman for the three big companies involved. I hope that the Government are being proactive in arguing the case with the United States for the position that we have described and are not adopting the complacent attitude that the Commission will sort it out and that it will all be WTO-compatible. As we have already seen, that is not the case.
The Government have a duty of responsibility to be proactive in trying to pursuade the United States Government that it is in their interests, as well as in ours, that the Caribbean banana industry continues to have realistic access to the European market.
Will the Government tell us their stance on the third tranche of quota TRQ3 and the length of the transition period that would follow it? Do the Government support a strike auction-based system or, if the process is to be adopted, another way of allocating that element of the quota?
What are the Government doing about the action taken early this year by the United States to impose retaliatory duties on several products, and their withholding liquidation for many others in retribution for the European Union's stance on the arrangements?
This is a serious issue; it is a great shame that more Members from both sides of the House are not present to participate in the debate. It gets to the root of our international and historical responsibilities to parts of the world with which this country has been associated for many centuries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford reminded us, its fulfilment is the Lomé arrangement, which we hope will shortly be concluded. It would be absurd if, on one hand, we paid lip service to Lomé and the need to support the ACP countries through the European Union, and at the same time allowed an arrangement under which the key industry in the eastern Caribbean would eventually disappear. The European Union could set a tariff-only system at a high level which would protect the industry, but, as has been said, it would be subject to compensation under article XXVIII of the general agreement on tariffs and trade; therefore, it would cost a lot of money. We must accept that possibility.

83WH
We do not necessarily have clear solutions to the proposition, not least because we are not in a position to do anything about it. However, I hope that, when the Minister responds to the debate, she will give us a clear assurance about the Government's position and their involvement in the matter. We want to know that the Government are not simply allowing the Commission to make all the running, because this country has a key role. It has more experience than virtually any other country in Europe in dealing with Caribbean issues and trade. I hope that that experience is being put to good use for the advantage of those islands, to which we owe a great duty. I hope that the Minister will give us the assurance that we seek.
I conclude by repeating my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford on introducing the debate and on being a stalwart champion in the House of the banana industry in the eastern Caribbean. I hope that the rest of us will stand beside him in championing that cause.
12.6 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): This has been an interesting and worthwhile debate. It is the first time that I have spoken in this Chamber, although, like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have spoken in the European Parliament. We should be more familiar than most with semi-circular Chambers.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on choosing the topic for debate and on being fortunate enough to raise it in this Chamber. The hon. Gentleman showed his interest in and knowledge of the Caribbean banana industry by giving us background information on the present situation, and he brought that knowledge to bear in his ideas on how we could proceed.
Other hon. Members spoke in the debate and voiced their concerns about safeguarding the interests of Caribbean suppliers. I shall try to respond to as many of the points raised as I can. Every hon. Member who spoke expressed regret at the poor attendance by both sides of the Committee—all three of the main parties were represented by Front-Bench spokespeople or by the hon. Member who introduced the debate—yet we all know that there is a wider interest in the issue in the House, as past debates and cross-party consensus on the matter have shown. If I have any complaint about this morning's contributions it is that they under-estimated the degree of consensus among all parties in the House on the importance of the Caribbean producers' position. We have their interests very much at heart and Members from all parties have been active in pursuing those interests. I hope to say more about how the Government have been active and, to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), proactive in trying to find satisfactory ways to safeguard the interests of Caribbean banana producers.
The United Kingdom has a long-standing commitment to maintaining such a major place in our market for the Caribbean producers. We are fully apprised of the importance of the banana industry, which is a significant world industry. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) spoke amusingly about her first taste of a banana; over the years, the banana has
84WH
become the most popular fruit in the United Kingdom. Its consumption has doubled in this country in the past 10 years and there is significant consumption all over the world. Given that it is such a popular fruit, most of us feel that it is reasonable for traditional suppliers in the Caribbean to continue to supply an important share of that market.
The Caribbean producers, particularly Jamaica, Belize and the four Windward Islands—Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia and St. Vincent—are heavily dependent on sales to the United Kingdom. They depend on preferential access arrangements, which are defined in the EU banana regime. The need for that trading preference, which has been illustrated in the comments of hon. Members this morning, is at the heart of the problem now facing us.
I come to this debate as a Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I have come across the issue in other ministerial roles, particularly in the Foreign Office where the matter was mentioned many times in the General Affairs Council. I emphasise that the Departments concerned—MAFF, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development—have worked closely together because the issue tends to be raised in the councils of which they are members. We need to liaise closely and have done so to ensure that our concerns about the matter are properly raised at every opportunity.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford referred to the recent ACP-EU discussions. I am pleased that the draft declaration that was issued at the conclusion of those discussions includes a strong commitment to the ACP banana suppliers. The opening lines of the declaration state:
"The ACP and the EU recognise the overwhelming economic importance to the ACP banana suppliers of their exports to the EU market. In view of the vulnerability of the economies of these countries, the EU agrees to take all necessary measures to ensure the continued viability of their banana export industries."
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development who was very active in proposing ideas at that meeting.
The EU banana regime is complicated. It tries to reconcile international trade rules with differing interests and concerns within the EU and among our overseas suppliers. Not only does the regime give preference to Caribbean and African suppliers, but it provides support for EU producers in the island countries that are designated part of the EU and are particularly closely associated with France and Spain. To support and protect EU and ACP suppliers, the regime limits imports from other sources in Latin America by means of a system of quotas and licences, which has created a series of problems.
The WTO ruling in April requires the EU's regime to be changed. It does not require the removal of tariff preferences for ACP bananas—that is important—nor does it preclude a quota system. Nevertheless, the EU's response could have severe political and economic implications for our historic trading partners in the Caribbean. The Government have made it clear that, in seeking a solution to the dispute, the vulnerable position of the Caribbean states must be fully taken into account.
The WTO ruling has caused difficulties for United Kingdom and other EU exporters that are affected by

85WH
WTO-authorised American sanctions. That is another reason why we need a satisfactory outcome to end the dispute once and for all. There have been some high-profile cases in which sanctions have had a dramatic effect, but some companies in the United Kingdom and other countries, which have been badly affected financially by sanctions, are also victims.
The European Commission's task is not easy. It is seeking a solution that will not be challenged by the WTO but respects the concerns of EU producers, budgetary constraints, the commitment to ACP suppliers, and ensures availability of supplies for consumers.
The Commission has made a proposal that it believes offers the best chance of resolving the dispute and meeting those concerns. As hon. Members have said, it consists of a transitional tariff-rate quota system, followed by a tariff-only regime by January 2006 at the latest. The level of the tariff and the tariff preference for the ACP would be subject to negotiation under procedures laid down by the WTO.
That is important, because the Caribbean countries will need a continuing trade preference to enable them to continue to send their bananas to our market. In turn, they need the agreement of other countries to a waiver from the normal WTO rules, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford emphasised. Those other countries include rival banana producers in Latin America, which are also developing countries. The task facing the Commission is to persuade them to agree to the new waiver. That is a matter for negotiation and cannot be imposed unilaterally.
A tariff-only regime would be the simplest WTO-compatible regime, but the Caribbean industry would need time to adapt and to restructure. The Commission's proposal could provide that if it were adjusted to reflect their needs. That is the message that the Government and the Caribbean states are making clear.
Dr. Tonge: Does the Minister believe that six years is sufficient time for diversification to take place?
Ms Quin: We would have preferred a longer period. Six years is a compromise and we continue to work for a transitional period and accompanying measures to allow the necessary changes to take place.
The hon. Lady made some important points, but she also suggested differences between her perspective and that of the Government, which do not exist. There is much common ground in the approach of everyone in the House who has taken an interest in the matter.
Mr. Paice: The Minister said that the Government would have preferred a longer transitional period. Is she saying that, because the transitional period is a compromise, there is no possibility of the EU increasing that period and that it will be six years, take it or leave it?
Ms Quin: No, I am not saying that. Discussions are continuing in the EU among the Commission and member states, and the European Parliament must also give its opinion. The length of time and the support for
86WH
Caribbean countries will be the subject of discussion among the European institutions. In response to the concerns that were expressed at the recent ACP-EU meeting, the Commission must take such matters into account.
Mrs. Gillan: I urge the Minister to reinforce that message with her colleagues. The men who work on the banana farms in, for example, St. Lucia—I have met many of them—face an end to their working life and to the means by which they support their family. This period is of great significance to them—they have to find the funds to re-skill themselves and an educator who can offer them the appropriate opportunities. If the industry comes to an end, they may no longer be able to support their family financially, and their family's honour and integrity may be threatened.
Ms Quin: I appreciate and sympathise with the hon. Lady's points. When we pursue arguments in the European Union, we need to stress the effects of the loss of the banana market on different countries. The ACPEU debates in the Council mean that many more issues have been aired, but it is still important to consider examples.
Several hon. Members said this morning that few alternatives are available to Caribbean producers and that it may be difficult for them to find an obvious area of diversification. There is also the threat that countries may diversify into the dangerous drug trade. The last thing that we want to do is to add to the problems that have already been caused by the drug trade in that part of the world and elsewhere—with the drugs trade, problems anywhere in the world become our problems.
I was interested in the comments on offshore financial development. We must consider all the possibilities, but we do not want to encourage countries to go down a route that will not be productive in the long term. There may be some room for manoeuvre in the financial services sector, but that would involve the well-trailed discussions in the European Union about finance havens. That issue also needs to be considered on a wider scale, in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and other organisations. We need to consider all the possibilities that are open to Caribbean countries, but we also need to be alert to the dangers of encouraging developments that might bring problems in the long term.
Almost all the interested parties have expressed a preference for a tariff-rate quota system at least for a transitional period, which offers the possibility of reaching an agreement. However, it is in the detail of the management of the quotas that views differ. Most could accept a system of licensing that is based on historical reference periods, although there are differences about which periods should be used. The WTO ruling requires agreement on the reference periods. Without that, an aggrieved party could again challenge the WTO's regime. All sides wish to avoid returning to the WTO. The Commission needs to embark on further discussions with third parties to establish whether common ground can be found, and it needs to do so with persistence and determination.
The UK Government are fully committed to helping the Caribbean countries to restructure their banana

87WH
industries in a manner that ensures that those countries become less dependent on banana production and that their banana production becomes more competitive. Virtually all the aid that is available for restructuring and diversification of the banana industry comes from the EU. The UK takes an active role in shaping and monitoring EU assistance through its participation in the donor group. From next year, the main source of funding will be the new special framework of assistance. Under that framework, it is expected that each of the main banana-growing Windward Islands will receive between €6 million and €9 million per year and that Jamaica will receive about €5.3 million. We recognise the importance of providing effective aid.
Several hon. Members discussed the difficulties with EU aid schemes and the effectiveness—or lack of effectiveness—with which aid has been given. The UK Government seek to ensure that aid goes where it is most needed and that it is delivered effectively. There is much frustration with the way in which aid programmes are administered. However, if such programmes can be made effective, the amount of money that is available means that they can make a real difference.
Mr. Wells: The problem with such aid is that it goes not to banana farmers, but to the Governments of those countries, who can use it as they think fit. One does not necessarily target the banana farmer with such aid. We also need to be aware of difficulties with the European Community's aid programme, which is too slow, bureaucratic and unfocused. The Secretary of State for International Development is doing her best to correct that, but it is a serious problem in this context.
Ms Quin: I accept the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I am glad that he recognises that the Government
88WH
are focusing on the matter. Such aid can be used for restructuring and diversification and for establishing social support programmes for displaced banana growers. We must ensure that the money that is in theory available is used for such purposes. We are seeking to ensure that aid programmes are as effective as possible by using our influence in the European Union and our contacts with Commission officials and the banana-growing countries.
Several hon. Members referred to the meeting of EU and ACP Ministers in Brussels on 7 and 8 December. At that meeting, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development actively advanced the UK's concerns. We achieved several of our objectives for defining across-the-board trading arrangements with the ACP. Following a preparatory period to 2008, new WTO compatible trade arrangements will be introduced. They will comprise regional economic partnership agreements and a safety net for those who are unable to join them. I appreciate that this matter goes slightly wider than the terms of this morning's debate, but I am sure that the Select Committee on International Development will want to examine the agreement between EU Ministers and ACP Ministers to establish how to make progress.
We are encouraged by the fact that the European Commission is speaking to all parties in an effort to find a common way forward. We all want to end this dispute, but much depends on the detail. The Government therefore have to remain on their guard.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford urged me to persist, harry and hassle, and to use every method—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

Financial Services (Rural Areas)
12.30 pm
Mr. Colin Breed: Even after decades of cheques and years of credit cards, debit cards and cheque cards, and now even internet settlements, more than 85 per cent. of financial transactions are conducted in cash. Access to real cash—notes and coins—remains essential to our everyday life. Those who live in towns and cities have a variety of ways of obtaining cash; they can go to their banks or building society offices, to post offices, to automatic cash machines and even to supermarkets, which are now willing to provide cash.
It must be acknowledged, however, that access to such financial services in rural areas has become progressively difficult. The general trend of declining rural services and the predominance of commuters and holiday-home owners in many rural areas have devastated the local customer base that is vital to sustain banks and post offices. For instance, in Common Moor in my constituency, the post office closed a year or so ago, and pensioners are now forced once a week to await the arrival of a mobile post office—sometimes in the wind and rain. We wonder how long even that will continue.
I shall highlight the problems experienced by many people in rural areas when attempting to gain access to all sorts of financial services, particularly cash. This is a pertinent time to discuss the matter, as the Government are proposing to alter the way in which benefits are paid. They want to use the automatic credit transfer system to transfer money to bank accounts rather than using the more traditional post office counter transactions. However, many bank branches in towns and rural areas are closing, partly due to mergers but mainly because they are now considered inviable.
Hon. Members are well aware of the problems, and the Government have given us assurances, but the Post Office estimates that nearly half the sub-post offices gain 40 per cent. or more of their custom through making benefit payments. Many sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses are naturally extremely worried that they will be unable to continue in business if they can no longer pay benefits. If the Government go ahead with their proposals, those people will surely see their businesses close. Historically, post offices have been at the heart of rural communities. We must seriously consider the complete picture before we put them under threat, especially because they provide benefits to some of the poorest people.
The Government assure us that they are committed to maintaining a national network of post offices. They say that they intend to negotiate with the banks to allow people to gain access to bank accounts over the post office counter. I assume that nothing has so far been agreed, yet the Government seem committed to going ahead with the proposal. How does the Economic Secretary to the Treasury expect such a system to work? When will post offices find out whether they will be supported? That is particularly important to those who, even now, are contemplating selling up and retiring; they are unlikely to find many buyers until that matter is clearly settled.
90WH
If we can take more business to rural post offices, perhaps allowing them to provide banking services to their communities, so much the better; but what are those services, and how financially beneficial are they likely to be? People in rural communities who so desperately need their post offices do not want sophisticated access to largely irrelevant financial services; they want payment of their benefits in cash. The people of Common Moor would be little impressed by a row of automatic telling machines miles away if they could not be paid their pensions when they needed them.
Access to banks is a great problem to many people in rural areas, and I applaud the efforts of some banks, including the Bank of Scotland, which have tried hard to improve accessibility. They have set up community-based banking schemes, installed ATMs in public areas and made bank officials available on certain days to dispense advice. Those schemes are good, but others, such as the Horizon project, have already cost a considerable sum and need further development. Nevertheless, such projects are essential to providing rural communities with better banking facilities.
Those who have a reasonable income and who maintain a healthy bank balance are usually able to look after themselves if banking services are provided. However, the Government-formed policy action team 14 report "Access to Financial Services" reveals some interesting figures. Apparently, 1.5 million households do not use any financial service. In one household in 10, no one has a bank account. Most interestingly the majority of those with no bank account are from low-income households, often on means-tested benefits and living in social housing. Many are over retirement age.
The Government are right to be concerned that such people do not have bank accounts. Access is one barrier, but other major barriers include the banks not wishing to give people accounts and people simply not wanting to have one. Studies show that the unbanked choose not to have an account for a variety of reasons. Some are women who have chosen to let their husbands hold the account. One of the major advantages of the current system of administering child benefit is that it is paid to the mother. How can that continue if the mother does not have a bank account? Would child benefit have to be paid to the husband or partner? The Government may jeopardise the right to choose. Furthermore, many poorer people have to watch every penny and budget in cash, not by bank statement. Many do not have a bank account, either because they do not trust themselves to stay out of debt or because the banks do not provide adequate local services. What can the banks offer them?
Even if choice accounts for some, we cannot ignore the fact that at least 1 per cent. of people are without accounts because they have been refused them. How does the Economic Secretary intend to change the banks' minds? Obtaining a bank account is by no means an automatic process. It is hardly an attractive business proposition to a bank to take on a customer whose account registers £40.70 at the beginning of the week and only a few pence the next day. That proposition will become even less attractive if the account starts to register unauthorised overdrafts or becomes an economic nuisance. Can such people's requirements be met by commercial banks? Banks are private companies, and surely cannot be forced to accept customers.

91WH
"Access to Financial Services" notes some key principles. One is non-compulsion. The report states:
"People who do not want bank accounts should not be compelled to have them; and banks' selection of which sections of the market to serve should be left to their commercial judgement."
With that principle in mind, how will the Government achieve the sort of accessibility to benefits payments that is necessary to reach the most disadvantaged parts of rural communities? The Government have promised to talk with the banks, but do they expect to have widened bank account holding and improved access to banking facilities sufficiently by 2005, when the automatic credit transfer scheme should be fully in place? If not, what do they propose?
A further problem with increasing reliance on automatic bank services is that, as proper, manned bank branches continually close, access to other financial services will become much more difficult. An ATM may be able to do a great deal for an account holder in the day-to-day running of a bank account, but it cannot advise on mortgages or home insurance. The policy action team suggests that credit unions might be a way forward. However, even community credit unions may not be viable in sparsely populated rural areas. They are voluntary groups, at present in an embryonic state, and to function properly they require critical mass. That, too, is difficult to achieve in sparsely populated areas.
It seems clear to me that, in their headlong rush to reduce the social security costs of distribution, the Government have failed to consider the wider implications of their decision. Do they seriously expect the banks not to increase their charges when they enjoy a monopoly? Do they think that the possibility of new account holders is likely to stem the closure of rural bank branches? Do they not realise that the bank branches of those vulnerable people who rely on weekly benefits will close, probably because they are not viable, followed shortly by their post offices and perhaps the village shop? What will be the cost of access then—a bus ride into town, perhaps a charge to use a cash machine and greater inconvenience? A few pounds on a social security budget will be saved, but that saving may prove to be only temporary. Transferring the costs of distributing benefit from the Government to those who receive it is simply unacceptable.
Surely it is crystal clear that post offices should become the providers of financial services and continue to pay benefits; it is the banks that are likely to close. The rise of telephone banking services and the installation of automatic cash machines have dramatically reduced bank customers' need to go into their branches. Many of us might not have been inside our bank branch for many weeks or even months. Banks want to pull out of many places, and they will ultimately do so, but post offices want to stay in them. Post offices have a loyal customer base and can provide the low-level cash services that people need daily.
If the Government had any sense, they would use the commercial freedom of post offices and allow them to take over such bank functions. Post offices would start to generate alternative income from providing the banking services that the banks are regularly ceasing to provide. That might ultimately secure a reduced benefit bill to the Department of Social Security. If post offices had a wider range of income, and if they could maintain village stores and provide other services, their reliance
92WH
on the income derived from benefit payments would be reduced. Vital rural post office stores would be maintained and banks could withdraw a little sooner, while providing their customers with an alternative. Surely that is the sensible way forward.
12.43 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I am delighted to be able to respond to this debate. I understand that the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) used to be a bank manager, so he speaks with considerable authority. I am somewhat distressed to hear that he may not have been inside a bank for some time. That may be part of the problem that the banks face.
As the hon. Gentleman said, better access to financial services is a vital element of rural development and is essential in achieving the Government's wider aims of eliminating social exclusion, which will remain at the top of the Government's agenda. Many people are not able to share the growing prosperity and all the life chances available in our society. Many of them live in deprived urban neighbourhoods, although we know that the problem of access to financial services affects rural as well as urban areas, and not only the poor.
Following the social exclusion unit report on deprived neighbourhoods, "Bringing Britain Together", which was published in 1998, the Treasury established policy action team 14—whose report the hon. Gentleman has referred to—to consider financial services. That report makes it clear that many of the problems of access to financial services are generic, but that they can be solved.
The way forward lies in developing new and alternative means of providing access to financial services, as well as ensuring that existing services can reach all rural and urban communities. The policy action team's report contains more than 40 recommendations, some of which I shall outline. The sheer number of recommendations shows that the problem has no single solution. "One size fits all" cannot be the right approach to the design of products or service outlets, because people's circumstances and preferences vary. Diversity and choice are the watchwords. The banks in particular have a major task ahead of them in extending services to low-income households and developing delivery channels that are accessible to people in areas away from major commercial centres or individual branches.
The Government's full response to the recommendations of all 18 policy action teams will be announced next year as part of the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. However, I shall highlight the recommendations on this matter on which we are making progress.
First, as the hon. Gentleman said, we want to encourage the growth of credit unions, which are much less well developed in Britain then in other countries. Indeed, they are less developed in rural areas than in urban ones.
Mr. Breed: I applaud such encouragement. Will the Economic Secretary consider changing the name "credit

93WH
unions"? It is a terrible misnomer, because they deal with savings rather than credit. Perhaps "community banks" would be better.
Miss Johnson: I am sure that that is a matter for the credit unions themselves, and that they will hear what the hon. Gentleman says.
One of the report's recommendations is the establishment of a new central services organisation to assist the growth of the credit union movement. That organisation will support new and existing credit unions and produce a bigger, stronger credit union movement, which will be assisted by the new supervisory framework and deregulation measures that were announced in November.
Ways will be found to improve the coverage of insurance with rent schemes. We shall work with the industry to develop challenging targets. We want to improve access to affordable credit—perhaps through the Department of Social Security social fund—as well as promoting wider access to debt counselling and refinancing for those who have problems. All those developments could benefit people in rural areas as much as those in towns and cities.
I shall now specifically deal with banking. We have heard about the difficulties faced by people in rural communities that have no bank branches nearby and the issues facing the Post Office. The banks can do much to remove unnecessary barriers, develop the right products, open new delivery channels and provide their customers with better information.
More informed and educated consumers will make better choices about financial services. That is why we have made promoting consumer awareness a statutory objective of the Financial Services Authority under the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Alternatives to conventional bank branches have existed for some time in this country. There is a huge and increasing range of alternatives, such as telephone, Internet, supermarket or post office banking, cash machines away from bank branches and banking via digital television.
The Post Office is particularly important in rural areas. In many communities, it is the only retail business and a focal point of village life. The Post Office has 19,000 branches—about 10 times as many as the largest high street bank. The development of banking at the post office is already providing benefits to untold numbers of people in rural communities and has the potential to serve many more in future. Customers of several banks now have the opportunity to carry out bank branch business—transactions that cannot be done over the telephone, such as paying in a cheque or drawing out cash—at the post office. Other banks and building societies could enter into similar partnerships. The decision to computerise the Post Office network, announced at the end of May by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, will enable the Post Office to provide an even broader range of services.
I shall now deal in more detail with some of the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised. It is important to point out that ACT will not be compulsory. I was not sure whether he was implying
94WH
that it would be, but there is no Government proposal for anything other than a voluntary extension of existing arrangements through computerisation. That will enable people who want ACT to be paid benefits and pensions through a more modern, secure method, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree can be only an advantage to the customer and to the Post Office. The Post Office will continue to pay benefits in cash.
There is a danger that the possible solution is construed—the hon. Gentleman in danger of so construing it—as the problem. We can extend access to banking. The hon. Gentleman referred to the problems of access to banking in rural areas, but the Post Office is part of the solution to that—via a closer relationship between Post Office Counters Ltd. and the banks and building societies, which will build on work being done in that regard. The upshot will be a better service to consumers and to those receiving benefit payments, while cash will still be available. We will ensure that the Post Office develops in a way that leaves it at the heart of rural communities.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about the future of the Post Office network, we said in our White Paper that we would publish access criteria, which the new regulator will have a duty to monitor, that aim to ensure that everyone in the UK has reasonable access to Post Office counter services. That is an appropriate method of dealing with the issue. In addition, the Prime Minister, who has taken a keen interest in the matter, has asked the performance and innovation unit to carry out an urgent study on the Post Office network. That will aim to identify the contribution made by post offices to the wider vitality of our rural and urban communities, consider how the Post Office network can best contribute to the Government's objectives for the future and, in the process, formulate objectives for the future of the network. Much work is therefore in hand and many answers lie in the changes that we face. The new technology can be a means of solving rather than creating problems. We believe that a better service will emerge out of all of this. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is important to look at the complete picture.
On the banks, which was another issue that the hon. Gentleman raised, we are, as he knows, looking at the development of basic accounts by all the main banks. We wish them all to offer basic accounts to all their customers and to ensure that the forms of identity demanded for opening accounts are appropriate and sensitive, so that passports or driving licences are not required if people do not have them. Because of anti-moneylaundering requirements, the banks much check people who are applying for accounts. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that some people who do not have bank accounts may not want them.
Mr. Breed: Does the Minister agree that banks sometimes use the demand for particular forms of identity as a means of discouraging potentially uneconomic account holders?
Miss Johnson: The banks have worked closely together, through the British Bankers Association, in drawing up a leaflet of advice about the forms of identity that banks will and can accept that do not in any way conflict with anti-moneylaundering legislation to which we are committed and are keen to see operating. That

95WH
will enable people to open accounts with lesser forms of identity. The banks are making every effort to ensure that staff at branch level are aware of and operate those lesser requirements. If there has been a problem in the past, it may have been partly a question of identity documentation, to which we and the BBA have sought to find a solution.
It is also open to local authorities to make arrangements with banks to have cash machines on public premises, visits by mobile bank vehicles or premises for part-time use by service providers. There is considerable scope for initiative and for banks to come up with creative responses. The hon. Gentleman asked how we might change the minds of the banks. The banks are, as they are very well aware, under considerable public pressure on a number of fronts. We do not want to have to legislate, as some have urged, to compel the banks, or financial services, to serve all sections of the community, but if voluntary action and partnership do not lead to the kind of changes and development of options that we think necessary, we may, as we have said, have to consider other options.
Our policies on access to financial services will help people in rural areas as well as tackling the wider questions of financial exclusion in a number of our communities, but there are many other ways in which the Government's policies for rural areas are already making a difference. If I mention a few of them, it will help provide a more complete picture.
The Countryside Agency, which was created in April 1999, provides for an integrated approach to rural issues. We have set up a new Cabinet Committee to coordinate policies affecting rural areas, which will help to achieve a fully cross-departmental policy for the countryside. We have also provided an additional £1 million for the Countryside Agency to focus on rural needs, allowing it to do more to help mainstream programmes reflect such needs.
We have also provided for increased public expenditure on rural programmes, from £128 million last year to £146 million in 1999–2000 and £162 million in 2000–01, with a projected £174 million for the following year. We have introduced rate relief for village shops and post offices so that the sole shop or post office in a settlement of fewer than 3,000 people is eligible for 50 per cent. rate relief. We have provided an additional £170 million over three years for rural transport, including new support for rural bus services and encouragement for community transport initiatives.
The combined effect of that funding and of the other measures that I have mentioned is to promote the prosperity and enhance the life of our rural communities. We know that they play an important role and we need to look after those who live in them and meet their needs. We are confident that better access to financial services will be a part of that process.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. Since the Minister is present, we can go on to the next debate.

Driving Instruction Appeals
12.58 pm
Mr. Eric Illsley: I welcome the opportunity of raising the issue of the Driving Standards Agency appeals system, which arises from the case of one of my constituents, Ms Donna Kemp, who was indecently assaulted by her driving instructor.
The driving instructor, a Mr. Kevin Hanson, eventually admitted the offence, after being charged by the police. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service eventually saw fit to deal with the matter by administering a caution. Two conditions were attached to the offer of that caution to Mr. Hanson: first, that he admit the offence and, secondly, that the instructor's name be added to the sex offenders register. It was clear that Mr. Hanson's acceptance of the caution constituted an admission of guilt of the offence for which he had been charged.
The DSA informed the driving instructor that he was to be removed from the register of approved driving instructors. He was no longer considered fit and proper to be included in that register—a decision taken by the chief executive of the DSA. The driving instructor appealed against that decision. It was then considered by an appeal board, which recommended that the instructor should be reinstated in the register. In fact, his name was never removed. Even after he had been charged, while the case was being dealt with by South Yorkshire police and the Crown Prosecution Service and throughout the entire appeal process, Mr. Hanson's name remained on the register of approved driving instructors.
The chief executive of the DSA, with whom I raised the issue, told me in his earlier letter that the DSA had tried to remove the instructor, but
"As the Board's findings were not contrary to law or illogical … there was no alternative but to allow the appeal."
The law that applies in such circumstances should be changed. The appeal board's findings could have been classed as illogical. The Minister and the chief executive of the DSA need more powers to review appeal board findings.
The case has raised several issues that relate to the appeal board's findings and need urgent consideration by the Government, such as whether instructors should be allowed to continue to instruct after they have been charged with an offence or during an appeal against being removed from the register. The conduct of appeals boards needs to be examined, as does the evidence that they consider, in view of the paucity of the evidence presented to the appeals board in this case, to which I shall return in a moment. The conduct of the members of an appeal body should be reviewed, in view of the attitude of members of the appeal board in this case. The lack of a mechanism to review decisions made by an appeal body is a cause for concern.
The acting chief executive of the DSA, Laraine Manley, seems to support that view. She informed me in a letter of 15 November:
"There are various aspects about the way the ADI appeals system operates which also give rise for concern",
referring in particular to an instructor's being allowed to continue instruction during an appeal. I hasten to add that Ms Manley has only recently assumed the position

97WH
of acting chief executive. The bulk of my correspondence on the case was with the former chief executive, a Mr. Bernard Herdan, who, I understand, now runs the Passport Office.
When I originally raised the issue with the DSA, I received a letter from Mr. Herdan, which stated that the appeal board had been influenced by the decision to administer a caution in relation to the charge and withdraw the case. However, the case was withdrawn on the basis that the instructor had accepted his guilt for the offence and the caution. Nevertheless, the chief executive said that the decision to withdraw the case had had some relevance.
Mr. Herdan went on to say that
"there was no alternative but to allow the appeal."
He continued:
"I have asked the Registrar to monitor the situation closely and should the Agency receive notice of any further complaints against Mr. Hanson or become aware of any subsequent offences, serious consideration would once again be given to his position on the Register."
In other words, the instructor seemed to have got away with it this time, but if he did it again, the process would start again with attempts to remove him from the register.
At that stage, I asked the chief executive for a copy of the appeal board's report. In his reply of 9 June, Mr. Herdan wrote:
"Because of the Data Protection implications and the confidentiality of the Appeal Board's report, I regret that it is not possible to provide you with a copy."
That was clearly not true, as I now have a copy that was faxed to me on Friday, offered by the acting chief executive, Laraine Manley, when she took over responsibility for the case. Why was I initially denied that report, when no data protection implications or confidentiality issues seem to surround the matter?
The chief executive continued, in the same letter:
"The Agency takes very seriously any offence committed by an instructor, particularly those which are of a sexual nature and you can be assured that prompt removal action will continue to be initiated by the Registrar where substantiated reports are received."
What caught my attention in that paragraph was the phrase
"where substantiated reports are received".
That paragraph gives the impression that the charges against Mr. Hanson were unsubstantiated—despite the fact that Mr. Hanson had already accepted the caution, admitted guilt for the offence and been placed on the sex offenders register. At that stage, I began to wonder exactly what the appeal board had been told when it considered the case and whether it was aware of the admission of guilt and the inclusion of the instructor's name on the sex offenders register. I began to question whether the appeal board had been aware that he had admitted the offence and the consequences of that.
I was also rather worried by the belief of my constituent, Ms Kemp, arrived at after she received a letter from the CPS, that the appeal board may have acted in the belief that a caution was administered to deal with the case because of a lack of evidence—in
98WH
other words, because of the fear that a prosecution brought against the instructor might fail. However, the letter to my constituent from the chief Crown prosecutor in South Yorkshire is clear:
"An experienced Crown Prosecutor carefully considered the evidence. After confirming via the police that you"—
Ms Kemp—
"were willing to give evidence against him"—
the instructor—
"she was satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and that it was in the public interest to continue the prosecution."
Clearly, therefore, a substantial case existed against the driving instructor.
In fact, the possibility of dealing with the matter by way of a caution was raised by the driving instructor's own solicitors, who contacted South Yorkshire police and the CPS to ask whether that might be possible. At that point, the police, Ms Kemp and the CPS agreed that that would be a fair way of dealing with the matter. Again, however, I began to worry about whether the appeal board had missed that.
Ms Kemp clearly believes that she should not have agreed to the case being disposed of by a caution. Because the appeal board dismissed the offence as unimportant, she now feels that the admission of the caution diminished the offence and somewhat called her integrity into question.
I wrote again to Mr. Bernard Herdan, the chief executive, to ask whether he believed that the case was substantiated, in view of his reference to substantiated cases. On 28 June, he replied:
"The Registrar's initial decision to remove Mr. Hanson's name from the Register was based on the substantiated evidence against him.
However, as mentioned in my letter of 12 May, the decision to allow Mr. Hanson's name to remain on the Register was based on the recommendations of the Approval Board who heard his case against the Registrar's original decision, not on any re-examination of the evidence by myself or the Registrar."
In other words, the appeal board actually allowed the instructor to deny at the appeal an offence which he had already admitted. The appeal board went on to try a case that the instructor had refused to allow to come to court and he had sought to be dealt with by means of a caution.
By that stage, I had become increasingly concerned at the conduct of the appeal and the appeal body. I raised the issue again with the Driving Standards Agency and also sought this debate. On 15 November, the acting chief executive, Laraine Manley, wrote and offered to let me see the appeal board report, while also expressing her concern about the appeals procedure, as I have mentioned. The report was not enclosed with the letter and I received it on Friday.
The appeal board report makes interesting reading. Paragraph 2 refers to all charges against the driving instructor being withdrawn. The charges were withdrawn after Mr. Hanson had admitted the offence and accepted the caution.
Perhaps the most damning paragraph is the third, which states:
"We have not seen a copy of the charge, or the evidence put together by the Police and Crown Prosecution Service. We only have seen a press report of an interview given by the pupil after the charge had been dropped. We have heard evidence from Mr. Hanson."

99WH
The appeal body does not even mention the papers prepared for it by the DSA that were referred to in correspondence to me. All it had seen was a press report—nothing from the Crown Prosecution Service and nothing from the police. I consider that evidence to be one-sided. Throughout the appeal, the body was influenced by a press report. Why did the appeal board not seek to interview or take a statement from Ms Kemp? Why did it not ask to see police documents or a report from the Crown Prosecution Service on the incident?
The fourth paragraph of the report begins:
"We are prepared to accept the following facts".
It goes on to say that the indecent assault was sufficiently minor, despite the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service believed that it had a case against the driving instructor that it was prepared to pursue. In paragraph 4(c), the appeal board accepts as fact a statement that the police interviewed more than 20 female pupils of Mr. Hanson. There is no way in which the appeal board could know that, let alone accept it as fact, but to ask Mr. Hanson itself, because it had no documentation from the police whatever. The paragraph states that
"Mr. Hanson's chance of maintaining his innocence must be rated as high",
despite the fact that he had accepted the caution and admitted guilt of the offence.
Paragraphs 4(c), (d), (e) and (f) of the report are all about evidence given by Mr. Hanson to the appeal body during the hearing; he was the only person before it apart from his partner. Paragraph 4(f) refers to Ms Kemp contacting the newspaper having discovered that the instructor was to be cautioned. The idea of the newspaper article runs throughout the appeal.
Paragraph 5 begins:
"Mr. Hanson maintained his innocence to us, denying most vehemently that he had even attempted to indecently assault Ms Kemp".
It would appear that the appeal board accepted that denial and that it tried Mr. Hanson's case, basically accepting that he was not guilty. If Mr. Hanson had been so sure of his innocence, why did he not let the case come to trial?
Paragraph 7 states that, where impropriety with a pupil is alleged, careful consideration must be made about removing an instructor's name. Impropriety was not alleged in this case: the driving instructor had admitted it. The allegation had gone from a charge to an acceptance of a caution. Paragraph 8 finally states that the board believed that not removing
"Mr. Hanson's name from the Register will not bring…the Agency into disrepute".
I wonder how wrong the board thinks that it was.
The appeal board's report was accepted by the chief executive, despite its one-sided nature. The appeal body did not take evidence other than that from the instructor, which it believed and referred to as fact. It obviously did not believe anything that my constituent said or did in relation to the incident. It believed that a caution lessened the offence of indecent assault, ignored the instructor's admission of guilt and allowed him to deny the offence and basically try the case in the appeal hearing. The appeal board members were obviously
100WH
influenced by a newspaper article rather than official documentation that could have been made available to them.
I believe that the case highlights major deficiencies in the running of the Driving Standards Agency, in which there appears to be no clear policy in relation to such incidents. It also highlights deficiencies in the appeal system. The registrar and the Minister should have clear guidelines with regard to the removal of an instructor's name from the register of approved driving instructors. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider those issues.
1.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) for raising this important matter, which affects wider issues than the case to which he referred. I entirely share his concern about the way in which the case, which has not appeared previously before Ministers, has been handled, and I understand why he and Ms Kemp are extremely unhappy.
My hon. Friend asked why he was originally told that he could not have a copy of the appeal board judgment. That was based on a misunderstanding of data protection legislation, and has been rectified by the fact that he has now received it.
Before I deal with the case raised by my hon. Friend, I should explain the background to the regulation of driving instructors. For road safety and consumer protection reasons, anyone offering paid car-driving instruction must have his or her name entered on the register of approved driving instructors, as has been the case since 1970.
The registrar, an official of the Secretary of State, administers the register on behalf of my Department. The function is now part of the Driving Standards Agency, which is an executive agency of the Department.
To be accepted as registered instructors, applicants must satisfy the registrar that they are of good character and must pass a three-part qualifying exam. That consists of a theory test and practical tests of driving and instruction ability. On payment of a £200 registration fee, a successful applicant is accepted on to the register for four years. At the end of the four-year period, instructors can apply to renew the registration. Standards supervision is an important part of maintaining public confidence in the register. Instructors are required to take regular check-tests every two to four years depending on the standard shown at the previous test.
Failing a check-test does not lead automatically to exclusion. The system is intended to help instructors identify and overcome weaknesses. Following an unsatisfactory test, the examiner who conducted it offers the instructor a briefing and the opportunity to take remedial training to rectify the faults identified. A second check-test is conducted after an interval, usually of three to six months. If that second test proves unsatisfactory, a more senior examiner, who is given no details about why the instructor failed the two preceding tests, conducts a third test. Only if the instructor's performance on the third test in unsatisfactory are removal proceedings started.

101WH
Some 48,000 check-tests have been conducted over the past four years and only 254 of the instructors who failed the initial test were subsequently unsuccessful in their efforts to raise standards and were removed from the register. The failure rate for check-tests is about 8 per cent. on the first attempt, but falls to about 1 per cent. on the third attempt. Currently, 29,000 instructors are on the register, with a further 18,500 people in the process of qualifying.
The conduct regime applies as long as an instructor is registered. The registrar needs to ensure that behaviour that would bring the register into disrepute is not tolerated. Obviously motoring offences are relevant, but so are matters of personal conduct of the type to which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central referred today. We should not forget that driving tuition occurs in relatively isolated circumstances in a car and often involves vulnerable young people. Any system of supervision and enforcement needs to strike a balance.
Driving instructors have a right to expect that their supervision arrangements are fair and proportionate. They have a right to expect an independent appeals handling process when their livelihood is threatened. Equally, the public have a legitimate expectation that driving instructors should deliver a reliable and satisfactory standard of tuition. They also expect swift and decisive action in cases of personal misconduct by instructors.
The registrar's decision to deregister an instructor is subject to an independent appeals procedure. Instructors can ask for their case to be reviewed by an appeal board, which is chaired by a person with a legal background who is approved by the Lord Chancellor's Department. The board makes recommendations to the Secretary of State. Once an appeal has been made, an instructor can continue to offer tuition until the Secretary of State issues his decision. Since 1992, the chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency has had delegated authority to determine appeal cases without reference to Ministers when there is no intention to depart from the appeal board's recommendations. We are conscious that different interests have expressed several concerns about the supervision and appeal arrangements. As I said at the outset, I share those concerns, given the experience of my hon. Friend's constituent.
Some instructors have complained that it is difficult for an instructor who fails a check-test to challenge the examiner's assessment and the appeals systems does not command confidence. However, the instructor's position is protected by the triple check-test procedure, which I have just outlined. Even if the instructor's standards are found wanting on three successive occasions, the instructor can still appeal to an independent appeal board. There are also public concerns that the current arrangements are not tough enough when dealing with instructors whose performance is unsatisfactory, either in the quality of the instruction or in their conduct. There has also been criticism that current arrangements allow instructors to continue operating while they drag out the appeals procedure, a point referred to by my hon. Friend.
102WH
In the case to which my hon. Friend referred, the driving instructor was charged with indecent assault on a pupil during a lesson and he accepted a formal caution from the police. When the registrar became aware of the case, he wrote to the instructor advising him that, in view of the offence, his removal from the register was proposed. The instructor appealed. At the appeal board, the instructor pleaded that he had accepted a caution only to avoid the cost, publicity and anxiety of fighting the case. That, together with testimonials from other female pupils and his employer, persuaded the board to recommend that the instructor should not be removed from the register. The board's view was that allowing the appeal would not bring the register into disrepute.
The recommendation was accepted. The then chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency accepted the board's recommendation and the instructor was notified that his name would be allowed to remain on the register. In accordance with agreed procedures, the case was not referred to Ministers. I recognise that my hon. Friend has been expressing his concern to the Driving Standards Agency since that decision was issued earlier this year and I deeply regret the distress that has been caused to his constituent. The outcome of the case is no reflection on her integrity. However, as due process has been followed and the decision has been taken and issued—however unsatisfactorily—I regret to say that the case cannot be re-opened.
I reassure hon. Members that the Government are not complacent about the matter. We are working to avoid the risk of instructors concealing their misconduct. The registrar now requires them to provide references when applying for registration, but the system is still too reliance on self-declaration. The registrar can check records for motoring offences at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, but he has no access to the police national computer to check for other types of conviction. That will be remedied when the Criminal Records Bureau becomes operational. At that point, the registrar can require applicants to supply certificates showing an absence of relevant convictions.
Most of the complaints that the registrar receives from members of the public about instructors relate to relatively minor matters, and may be misunderstandings. The registrar seeks to act as honest broker in such cases. To avoid problems, the registrar has worked in partnership with the national Driving Instructors Association to develop a code of practice and has invited all instructors to sign up to its principles. About 4,000 instructors have done that so far. The Government also want the appeals process modernised.
All parties have an interest in the prompt resolution of cases. Obviously, an instructor facing loss of livelihood should be able to expect his or her appeal to be resolved speedily and effectively. Equally, the appeals system should not leave the public at risk by enabling failing or undesirable instructors to ply their trade for longer than necessary. Others in the profession must also be able to expect that the registrar will act promptly, and thus help maintain public confidence in the system.
To ensure swift action, the Driving Standards Agency has adopted active case management for appeals, with an internal target for issuing the decision within 13 weeks from the date of receipt of the appeal. The Government are also considering whether an instructor convicted of serious offences, but who wishes to appeal

103WH
against deregistration, should be able to offer driving lessons while the appeal is being considered—a matter that my hon. Friend raised. However, perhaps conviction for some offences should constitute an absolute bar to registration.
We are considering whether it would be better for appeal boards to decide appeals cases, instead of just making recommendations with recourse to the courts on any point of law. Many of the ideas that I have floated in this debate would require legislation and that must depend on the competing pressures for legislative time. The details will need to be carefully thought through. They will need to fit in with our broader plans to modernise driving training for different sectors.
I am sorry to say that I cannot offer my hon. Friend further reassurance about the case that he has raised, beyond saying that I share his dissatisfaction. He has, however, highlighted some issues that will be addressed. If they require legislation—some of them will—that will depend on legislative time. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue and I repeat that I share his dissatisfaction about the way in which this particular case was handled.

Special Educational Needs
1.29 pm
Mr. David Prior: It is one of the great privileges of being a Member of Parliament that, every now and again, one comes across an issue of profound importance that one would not have come across had one pursued a more conventional career.
There is such an issue in my constituency. I am referring to the Edinburgh Road special school in Holt. It is special in a number of ways—because of the children, parents, teachers and staff. There are about 35 children at the school, the youngest of whom is three and the oldest 19. They all have statements of special educational need. The majority have severe learning difficulties and approximately one third have profound and multiple learning difficulties. A further 34 children attend special schools in Norwich because there is no room at Edinburgh Road, although they live closer to Holt.
These children are among the most vulnerable and fragile in our society. Many of them will be wholly dependent on others throughout their life, and will never enjoy a quality of independent life that most of us take for granted. They deserve the best that we can give them. Society has an obligation to provide the best possible education and surroundings, to give them the best possible chance in life.
We are letting down these children at the Edinburgh Road school, and have been doing so for a number of years. We are also letting down the staff, who have a record of commitment and dedication second to none; they have worked wonders with generations of children in very difficult circumstances. We are also letting ourselves down because it is in our power to make a difference and to make the school better.
The 1996 Office for Standards in Education report summarises the problem when it states:
"The quality of education provided is affected by the inadequate accommodation. The school building is too small for the number and range of pupils on roll. There is a lack of specialist teaching areas and very little space for storage. There are too few toilets and changing rooms. The school does not have suitable outdoor areas for play, sport or recreation. As a result, education decisions are often driven by accommodation problems, rather than by the needs of pupils."
Those words are inevitably rather dry and impersonal, so I shall give the Minister more of a flavour of the problems at the school.
There is only one toilet area, within which there is no privacy. Many of the children have to be helped extensively, often using a hoist, and many are incontinent. No privacy means no dignity. There is no playground worth the name, nowhere for the children who can walk to let off steam and play, and certainly no room for those in wheelchairs, of whom there are many. The confined space may lead to more behavioural problems. Jill Measures, the head of the school, who is one of the unsung heros of Norfolk, describes the position as sometimes akin to a pressure cooker.
The age range of the children—between three and 19—makes them difficult to teach, and would do so even if they did not have special needs. The conditions would not be tolerated in a mainstream school. There is no medical room for when a child feels ill. There is no quiet

105WH
room in which a child may calm down. There is no music room, or a room for indoor drama. There is no staff room. There is no communal dining area, so the older children have to eat in a caravan, which is parked outside the school, and which is also used for speech therapy.
The corridors are narrow and virtually impassable, with wheelchairs parked along both sides. The staff talk openly of the school breaching health and safety regulations and posing a fire hazard. The children have to travel to off-site facilities for swimming or physical education. The nearest high school is five miles away, which makes any meaningful inclusion with a mainstream school impractical. The building was never designed to be a school, let alone one for children with special needs. Originally, it was a junior training centre.
The children, their parents and teachers are getting a raw deal, which is starting to tell on their morale. The teachers do a wonderful job in Dickensian surroundings, but it is not fair and it is not right to expect them to do so. It would not be acceptable in a mainstream school, so why should it be acceptable for a special school?
At the end of 1997, the Government produced a Green Paper, "Excellence for All Children". It was followed in November 1998 by a programme for action. This year's Queen's Speech promised legislation to improve the education of children with special educational needs. I applaud those initiatives, and the commitment, which I hope is real, that the Minister has made to backing them up with financial support. I especially support the Government's commitment to inclusion and shall quote from the section in the Green Paper entitled "Increasing Inclusion". It states:
"The ultimate purpose of SEN provision is to enable young people to flourish in adult life. There are therefore strong educational, as well as social and moral, grounds for educating children with SEN with their peers. We aim to increase the level and quality of inclusion within mainstream schools, while protecting and enhancing specialist provision for those who need it. We will redefine the role of special schools to bring out their contribution in working with mainstream schools to support greater inclusion."
The Green Paper's vision for the future of special schools and the encouragement of greater co-operation with mainstream schools is one that I hope we all share. It has inspired the Norfolk education authority, the Edinburgh Road school, the local schools at Sheringham and many others to develop a new future for Edinburgh Road special school. The matter has been in the melting pot for five years, which has meant five years of disappointment, frustration and false starts.
However, a firm proposal is with the Minister today, which envisages a new, purpose-built special school for five to 16-year-olds on the same campus as Sheringham primary school and high school. There will be room for 70 children, who will share many facilities with the primary and the high school. If feasible, children from the special school will be included in mainstream lessons and activities. Staff in the special and mainstream schools will be trained so that they can all help each other.
The benefits of co-location will be a two-way process. The special school will seek to become a centre of excellence, used by all the local schools. There will be
106WH
provision for 10 nursery-age children with SEN. They will be taught on a fully inclusive basis in the nursery in the primary school. Staff from the specialist school and the primary school will work together in the nursery. There will also be provision in the sixth form for 10 post16-year-old students with SEN, using independent accommodation attached to the high school, but there will be full inclusion when possible.
I hope that I have given the Minister a flavour of the vision of the future of Edinburgh Road school. It is a flagship project for Norfolk, representing a great commitment to these special children. "Excellence for All Children" is the title of the Green Paper, but it is our vision too. We want inclusion when possible, and specialist separate accommodation when it is not.
In my letter to the Minister on 7 December, I concluded as follows:
"This is one of those opportunities which dwarfs the normal cut and thrust of politics. It is an opportunity to give a better chance in life for thousands of severely disabled children, and by bringing them into mainstream schools, where possible, to enrich the education and increase the understanding of other children. In the long run, this is the best possible way to establish the rights of disabled people as equal partners in our society."
That is an objective that we all share.
The status quo at Edinburgh Road school is unsustainable, unfair and unacceptable. A firm proposal has now been framed and it is in tune with the Government's philosophy of excellence in education for all. I hope that the Minister will support it.
1.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) on securing the debate and raising an issue that is so important to his constituency. I agree with him that the Government have inherited much work that will be necessary to provide the requisite standards of education for children with special educational needs.
One of the first issues tackled by the Government after the election was the education of children with special educational needs. As the hon. Member for North Norfolk mentioned, within months of October 1997 we published the Green Paper "Excellence for All Children" and followed that in November 1998 with "Meeting Special Educational Needs: A Programme of Action". We have continued to work hard to put in place a system for children with special educational needs that will enable them to receive the education that they deserve, as part of the Government's overall drive to improve standards for all children. I am pleased to note the hon. Gentleman's broad welcome of what we are trying to achieve in our broader programme of action.
The hon. Gentleman made clear his concern about the future of Edinburgh Road special school and, in particular, his strong support for the recent proposal by Norfolk local education authority to relocate the school to a new site in Sheringham. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for spelling out that proposal. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the head teacher, the staff, parents and children for the work that is going on in that school when the circumstances of the accommodation are so difficult.

107WH
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the general position on formal proposals to open, alter or close a special school is that, with effect from 1 September, responsibility for considering such proposals transferred from the Secretary of State to local school organisation committees, provided the local education authority had an agreed schools organisation plan in place. Norfolk LEA had not agreed a school organisation plan by early November: hence the proposals for the Edinburgh Road special school will be decided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
It might help if I explained the timetable of consideration for such proposals—
Mr. Laurence Robertson rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): I assume that the hon. Gentleman has permission to speak from the hon. Member for North Norfolk, who proposed the Adjournment.
Mr. Prior indicated assent.
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister, but I may have missed her point about transferring the responsibility for closing special schools. Will mainstream schools remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the transfer apply only to special schools, or am I wrong on that?
Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Under the new arrangements for statutory proposals from 1 September, responsibility for the development of school organisation plans is given to local education authorities and responsibility for decisions about individual proposals and specific plans is given to school organisation committees. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when he intervened in Education questions, I pointed out that school organisation committees will include some special schools representatives when statutory proposals are discussed.
The position in Norfolk is different because the school organisation plan had not been agreed by the time that the particular plan for the school was proposed. The proposal was published on 22 October and a statutory period of two months follows in which objections can be made. The LEA then has a further month for my Department to receive copies of any objections, together with its comments on those objections. If there are objections to the Edinburgh Road school proposal, we would expect to receive the LEA's comments by 22 January.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also receives advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate on all such reorganisation proposals and he will need to consider that advice, the case made by the LEA and the points, if any, made by objectors. He will also need to take account of advice from the Department's professional architects on the capital building proposals.
I have described the standard procedures for dealing with proposals. The hon. Member for North Norfolk will appreciate that the procedure takes time, but helps to ensure that the Department gives thorough consideration to all proposals and enables people or
108WH
organisations to comment. I am afraid that, at this stage, I cannot give any indication of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's view of the Edinburgh Road school proposal, which could be viewed as prejudicing his decision. I can say, however, that he hopes to announce his decision by next spring. I recognise that the hon. Member for North Norfolk not only is anxious for the Secretary of State to approve the Edinburgh Road proposal, but wants to ensure that the Department makes available a capital allocation to Norfolk to cover the costs of the proposed building work.
The position is not completely straightforward, but I shall attempt to explain it. LEAs are required to bid for capital cover in the annual capital guidelines round, as Norfolk LEA has done regarding the Edinburgh Road school proposals. However, an allocation for such a project would be made only if the Secretary of State had approved the statutory proposal that was linked to it.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk will know that capital allocations for 2000–01 were made earlier this week and Norfolk's allocation did not include cover for this project. The Department has nevertheless retained a capital reserve on a national basis, which can be released during the year to LEAs whose proposals are approved later. The hon. Gentleman will understand from all that I have said that I cannot comment specifically on the Edinburgh Road school proposals because I cannot preempt the Secretary of State's decision. I can gladly assure the hon. Gentleman that in reaching his decision, my right hon. Friend will take fully into account his comments today and those set out in his recent letter to my noble Friend the Minister for Education and Employment.
Mr. Prior: How big is the capital reserve set aside for projects that were not framed in time for the earlier allocation?
Jacqui Smith: I shall come to the issue of funding later.
It may be useful to reiterate the Government's general policy on the education of children with special educational needs, which is also relevant to the particular application. We are firmly committed to promoting inclusion by choice—a cornerstone of our strategy for raising standards of achievement and meeting the educational needs of all children. We are determined to maintain the progress to which the hon. Member for North Norfolk alluded, which enables more parents to feel confident that their child's needs can and will be met in a mainstream school. We intend to use the Special Educational Needs Bill announced in the Queen's Speech to strengthen the right to a mainstream place.
Our approach has been practical, not dogmatic, and the key objective must be to safeguard the interests of all children and to ensure that they achieve their full potential. When parents want a mainstream setting for their child, it is our policy to try to provide it. Equally, where more specialist provision is sought, it is important and right that parents' wishes are respected.

109WH
We have emphasised that there is a continuing and vital role for specialist provision, often within special schools. The Government have stressed in the past, and it is worth repeating in this context, that inclusion is not an agenda for the wholesale closure of special schools. We want them to become outward-looking centres of excellence that work hand in hand with their mainstream partners to support pupils who would benefit from a mainstream place. The right of parents to make a positive choice and to express a preference for a special school place will be fully maintained.
We acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk noted, a mainstream place might never be right for some children. For those whose needs cannot be met within the main stream, there must be a range of high-quality provision. There must also be strong links between special schools and neighbouring mainstream schools so that pupils in special schools have ample opportunities to mix with their peers and friends in mainstream schools. We are encouraging local authorities to consider innovative ways of joining up mainstream and specialist schools.
The importance that we attach to promoting inclusion and developing provision for children with special educational needs is underlined by a range of initiatives that are designed to help schools to develop their practice and become more inclusive. Those initiatives are also designed to build the links that I described between special and mainstream schools.
For example, a special mainstream links working group was established in September and draws together a range of special and mainstream head teachers and other interested parties. I am pleased to tell the hon. Member for North Norfolk that one of its members comes from Norfolk. The group is producing an interactive CD-Rom package that is aimed at teachers. The idea is that it will be a starting point, and that it will encourage discussion and then action to develop stronger links between the two sectors and to support inclusion. It will focus on a range of issues, including the new outreach role that we want special schools to develop, dual registration and reintegration. The package will be launched next summer at a series of seminars to be organised jointly by the National Association for Special Educational Needs and my Department.
The SEN regional co-ordination projects, which are being expanded to cover the whole of England by early next year, are also helping to establish better links between mainstream and special schools. The projects bring together groups of local authorities and other local partners. Through collaborative planning and working, they aim to redress variations in access to and quality of provision and services for pupils with special needs. Norfolk is part of the eastern project, which will come on stream fully in April. We are beginning to evaluate the projects, and we aim to publish details of initial good practice towards the end of the summer term 2000.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk rightly raised the importance of funding to support special educational needs provision, and I want to outline the Government's commitment in that respect. I reiterate
110WH
that the Government fully recognise that all the relevant initiatives will require funding. We are supporting expenditure of £35 million in the current financial year under the SEN element of the standards fund. That will increase to £55 million in the financial year 2000–01. We plan a further large increase for the following year.
Part of the standards fund's purpose is to support innovative local inclusion and emotional behavioural difficulties projects. Some £8 million has been made available this year. That will be nearly doubled to £15 million in 2000–01. Many of the projects aim to join up the mainstream and specialist sectors to better meet pupils' needs. The standards fund money is also being used to train staff to support parent partnership schemes and speech and language therapy projects.
Furthermore, I was pleased to be able to announce earlier this week that we are making £30 million available under the schools access initiative in 2000–01. That represents a 50 per cent. increase on the previous year's funding. The money has been allocated to improve access to education for children with special needs, including disabled children and those with sensory impairments. Over the three-year programme to 2002, we expect to allocate £100 million for access projects.
I have also announced increased support for capital projects to improve facilities for pupils with special educational needs. Funding will increase from £16 million in the current year to £21 million in 2000–01. I can tell the hon. Member for North Norfolk that the capital reserve for special educational needs projects stands at £15 million.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the forthcoming Special Educational Needs Bill, which was announced in the Queen's Speech. It will take forward the Government's proposals, which were set out in our programme of action. It is designed to raise the standards of achievement of all children with special needs. It will impove services to parents by establishing better parent partnership arrangements and introduce new conciliation procedures to resolve disputes between parents and local education authorities. It will reinforce the powers of the special educational needs tribunal and promote inclusion by strengthening the right of children with special educational needs to be educated in mainstream schools, where that is in accordance with their parents' wishes. It will also introduce changes to the SEN code of practice.
I hope that I have convinced the hon. Member for North Norfolk that the Government take the education of children with special educational needs seriously. It is something that we have taken seriously, acted on and funded. There are no easy answers, and I am sorry that I have been unable to give a direct response to the specific proposal that has been made. However. I hope that I have shown that the measures that I described will go a long way to ensure that the requirements of children with special educational needs will be met effectively under this Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to One o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what extra measures he proposes in order to achieve reductions in drink driving offences over the Christmas and new year holiday period. [101664]

  Mr. Hill
  My noble Friend Lord Whitty launched the Government's Christmas and new year anti-drink-drive publicity campaign on 1 December. The campaign is designed to reduce the number of deaths and injuries resulting from drink-driving especially during the coming holiday period, and also throughout the year. It has a particular significance this year because of the additional celebrations to mark the Millennium. The campaign emphasises the importance of planning ahead to ensure a safe journey home from festive celebrations. It also reinforces our message that drivers can still be well over the legal blood alcohol limit the following day after consuming alcohol and therefore should exercise particular caution in deciding when to resume driving. Nearly one in 10 of positive breath tests at the scene of an accident results from tests taken between 6am and 1pm.

  Street Works
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the compliance rate of utilities in using permanent reinstatement materials as set out in the statutory code of practice under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. [102119]

  Mr. Hill
  Research carried out for the Department by the Transport Research Laboratory, covering a period up to early 1998, showed that there was room for improvement in utilities' standards of compliance with the statutory code of practice on reinstatement (the reinstatement specification). Street works and the reinstatements after works are subject to inspection by street authorities (normally the local highway authorities), who have powers under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 to ensure compliance with the specification.

  The research is contributing to the revision of the specification, a new edition of which we expect to be published next year.

  Jet-skis
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ban the use of jet-skis in environmentally sensitive areas. [102169]
  188W
  Mr. Meacher
  Some environmentally sensitive areas already have local byelaws imposing strict speed limits, which result in the exclusion of jet-skis. We expect local authorities—who are responsible for making most local byelaws—to continue to judge each case on its merits.

  Last year's report of the Review of Byelaw Powers for the Coast recommended that local authorities should be given more general powers to regulate activities on the coast which affect the wider environment, such as the use of personal watercraft. We have given a long-term commitment to introduce legislation to take forward those recommendations in the Review which require changes to the law. In the meantime, we have published a voluntary code of best and safe practice for leisure craft users, and we are exploring options for a voluntary boat registration and identification scheme, which would include jet-skis.

  Sea Rescues and Emergencies Database
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has given on the collation of data for the Sea Rescues and Emergencies Database. [102561]

  Mr. Hill
  The Sea Rescues and Emergencies Database (SEAREM) is owned, administered and funded by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) who are a registered charity and are independent of Government.

  The only Government contribution towards SEAREM is in the form of data supplied by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), an executive agency of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA), an executive agency of the Ministry of Defence. Guidance for the making of data contributions has, therefore, been issued to these agencies from the RNLI.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the inclusion of rescues by local authority lifeguards within the Sea Rescues and Emergencies Database. [102563]

  Mr. Hill
  Local Authority lifeguards make no direct contribution to the Sea Rescues and Emergencies Database (SEAREM), as they do not have access to the database. If local authority lifeguards wish to provide data to the SEAREM database they do so through either the Royal Life Saving Society (RLSS) of the Surf Life Saving Association (SLSA) who, as direct contributors, are able to access SEAREM database.

  Time Savings
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons(a) time savings to road users are incorporated in net present value calculations of the benefits of road capital schemes and (b) time savings to rail users are excluded from rail investment appraisals. [102597]

  Mr. Hill
  Road and rail investment schemes are appraised against the Government's five over-arching criteria as set out in the Integrated Transport White Paper: "environment, safety, economy, accessibility and integration". Time savings are included under the economy criterion for both road and rail appraisals.

  Air Services
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in which negotiations about new air services between London and the United States(a) he and (b) other Ministers in his Department have been involved since 1997; and what criteria determined the level of ministerial involvement in each case. [102779]

  Mr. Mullin
  Negotiations between the UK and other countries are conducted by officials after consultation with Ministers. The level of ministerial involvement in any instance is determined having regard to the circumstances of the case. In the case of negotiations with the United States, Ministers have taken a close interest.

  Airlines
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he received from British Airways and Virgin Atlantic prior to the granting of a slot to United Airlines to operate an air service between Boston and Heathrow; and if he will make a statement. [102780]

  Mr. Mullin
  Both airlines submitted views on the legal question of whether the application by United Airlines for a permit to operate a service between Boston and London had to be regarded as an entitlement under the terms of Bermuda II. These views were taken into account in reaching the decision to issue a permit.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the decisions by the United States Administration and Her Majesty's Government to allow(a) British Airways to commence a service between Denver and Gatwick and (b) US Airways to commence a service between Charlotte and Gatwick were taken (i) jointly or (ii) separately. [102797]

  Mr. Mullin
  The entitlement to operate these services derives from the Air Services Agreement between the UK and the US, commonly referred to as Bermuda II. The UK issued a permit for the US Airways Charlotte service in April 1998. The US was slow to issue a permit for the BA Denver service, and did not do so until July 1998.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he held with the US Secretary of Transportation before agreeing to grant a slot to United Airlines to operate an air service between Boston and Heathrow; and if he will make a statement.[102782]

  Mr. Mullin
  No discussions were held with the US Department of Transportation before a permit was issued to United Airlines to operate a service between Boston and London. The Government takes no part in the allocation of slots at slot-constrained UK airports; these are allocated by Airport Co-ordination Ltd.

  Road Improvement Schemes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the major road improvement schemes that are now taking place within the Greater London area. [102708]
  190W
  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, to reply to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from David York, to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 15 December 1999:
  The Minister for Transport for London, Keith Hill, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about major road improvement schemes that are now taking place in Greater London. I am replying in the absence of the Chief Executive, Peter Nutt.
  Landscaping work is being carried out on the Al2 Hackney M11 Link Road which opened to traffic on 6th October. The final section of the A13 West of Heathway to Mardyke scheme opened to traffic on 14 December and work continues on the London Primary Route Network Signing project to redesign and replace direction signs on London's primary routes within the M25 corridor. This work is being carried out in three phases because of its complexity and geographical spread. Two of the phases, covering East London and South West London, will be completed shortly, whilst work on the third phase, covering North West London, is expected to be completed in Autumn 2000.
  There are also a number of schemes in the pipeline. We are nearly ready to award a contract for the A 1 3 Thames Gateway DBFO project which includes improvements at Ironbridge-Canning Town, the A13/A117 junction and Movers Lane junction. Subject to the completion of the necessary statutory procedures, it could also include improvements to the A13/A117 Prince Regent Lane junction.
  Detailed design work for the A40 Western Avenue bridge replacement scheme will start next year and we are preparing tender documents for the A23 Coulsdon Inner Relief Road improvement scheme so that it could start in early 2002. There are also four proposals to improve the A406 North Circular Road at Bounds Green, Regents Park and Golders Green and the A205 at Catford Town Centre. These schemes will transfer to the Greater London Authority (GLA) who will study the role of these roads as part of their development of a transport strategy for London. It will be for the GLA to decide whether or not to take the schemes forward.
  One local authority major improvement is also underway, the A240 North South strategy for the London Borough of Kensington.

  Pollution
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the revenue to be derived from implementing the integrated pollution prevention and control regulation. [102582]

  Mr. Hill
  The phased implementation of integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) regulation extends up to 2007. In 2000–01, its first operational year, the revenue from IPPC regulation is estimated to be approximately £4.0 million.

  This information updates the estimate given in the Environment Agency' s corporate plan published in September 1999.

  Benefits
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the levels of capital and income disregards for the benefits for which his Department is responsible. [102511]

  Mr. Mullin
  Benefits are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Coulsdon Inner Relief Road
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when work will commence on the Coulsdon Inner Relief Road. [102501]

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

  Letter from David York, to Mr. Richard Ottaway, dated 15 December 1999:
  The Minister for Transport for London, Keith Hill, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the start of works for the A23 Coulsdon Inner Relief Road. I am replying in the absence of the Chief Executive, Peter Nutt.
  The scheme was included in the Targeted Programme of Improvements announced by the Secretary of State in July 1998. It will transfer to Transport for London in July 2000.
  We have recently appointed Consultant Engineers to prepare tender documents to allow work to start in early 2002.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports have been received by his Department from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate in respect of its investigation into the quality control of plutonium MOX fuel manufactured at Sellafield. [102484]

  Mr. Meacher
  DETR Ministers have received a number of briefings from HSE's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) on its investigation into the falsification of quality assurance data for fuel manufactured in the MOX demonstration facility at BNFL's Sellafield plant. This investigation has concluded that the automated 100 per cent. check on pellet diameters should provide high confidence that all of the MOX fuel which has been delivered from Sellafield to Japan will be safe in use. A copy of the letter that NII sent to the Japanese Embassy advising them of this conclusion has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Central Government grants and redistributed non-domestic rates

  £ million

  Revenue

  Community

  SSA

  Specific grant

  Redistributed

  support grant1

  charge grant

  reduction grant

  inside AEF7

  non-domestic rates

  1990–91

  9,468

  —

  —

  3,459

  10,429

  1992–92

  9,652

  4,805

  —

  4,163

  12,408

  1992–93

  316,605

  —

  —

  4,363

  12,306

  1993–94

  17,033

  —

  —

  4,664

  11,559

  1994–95

  18,479

  —

  280

  4,930

  10,685

  1995–96

  18,296

  —

  261

  4,779

  11,354

  1996–97

  18,001

  —

  220

  4,781

  12,736

  1997–98

  18,650

  —

  123

  5,068

  12,027

  1998–99

  419,480

  —

  102

  5,598

  12,524

  1999–2000

  519,875

  —

  7119

  5,874

  13,612

  2000–01

  619,403

  —

  751

  6,877

  15,400

  1Excluding RSG to Specified Bodies

  2Specific, Special and Supplementary Grants

  3Community Charge Grant was incorporated in Revenue Support Grant in 1992–93

  4Provisional outturn

  5Budget estimates

  6Consultation

  7Includes Central Support Reduction Grant

  192W
  NII is not currently in a position to comment further on its investigations since this could prejudice possible enforcement action.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the projected costs of the Civil Aviation Authority for the financial years(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [102758]

  Mr. Mullin
  The projected operating costs for the Civil Aviation Authority (including National Air Traffic Services Ltd.) are as follows:

  (a) 1999–2000: £588.2 million

  (b) 2000–01: £611.7 million.

  These costs will be recovered through charges levied on users in respect of the services provided by the CE.

  Privatised Ports Police
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what undertakings were given at the time of each privatisation of ports, where ports police forces existed, in relation to their future management and independence by the purchasers; and what scrutiny has been conducted as to the fulfilment of these undertakings since privatisation. [102436]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 14 December 1999]: I am not aware of any undertakings given in such cases.

  Central Government Grant (Local Authorities)
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the money allocated to local authorities from central Government in the form of(a) rate support grant and (b) specific grant in each of the 10 most recent years for which information is available. [102466]

  Ms Armstrong
  English local authorities have reported receiving the following central government grants. Data for community charge grant, SSA reduction grant and redistributed non-domestic rates have been included as these also provide unhypothecated funding for local authorities.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has evaluated on leakage into soil from GM insect-resistant maize of the insecticide made by the plant as a consequence of its genetic modification; if he will instruct his officials to seek to follow up research of this kind; and if he will make a statement. [102722]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 14 December 1999]: The science journal Nature published a report on 2 December 1999 on leakage into the soil from crops genetically modified to express insecticidal peptides from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). I shall be asking the statutory Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) to consider this paper at their next meeting. Their advice, including any recommendations for research, will be published. I will then act to commission further research as appropriate. However, no Bt plants are being grown or trialled in the UK, and we have assurances from industry that they have no plans to introduce such crops in the near future.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many rough sleepers there were in each of the last 30 months for which figures are available in(a) London, (b) Bristol, (c) Cardiff, (d) Glasgow, (e) Leeds, (f) Liverpool and (g) Birmingham. [101524]

  Ms Armstrong
  The following table sets out an estimate of the number of people sleeping rough on any one night in London, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool and Birmingham, as at June 1998 and June 1999.

  June 1998

  June 1999

  Greater London

  621

  635

  Bristol

  42

  32

  Leeds

  8

  17

  Liverpool

  17

  30

  Birmingham

  56

  43

  The figures for 1998 are based on single night street counts and were published as part of my answer of 19 May 1999, Official Report, columns 355–62W, which gave an estimate of the number of people sleeping rough across England. This estimate formed a baseline figure for the Government's target to reduce rough sleeping in England by two thirds by 2002.

  The figures for 1999 are being published today as part of the breakdown of the latest national estimate, showing the position as at June 1999. This shows that the number of people sleeping rough in England, on any one night, fell from 1,850 in June 1998 to 1,633 in June 1999. Copies of the full breakdown are available from the Library. Responsibility for the Rough Sleepers Initiative in Scotland is a devolved matter. I understand, however, that no comparable figures are available for Glasgow. A single night street count in central Glasgow in 1997 found 53 people sleeping rough. No counts have been undertaken since.
  194W
  Responsibility for rough sleeping in Wales is also a devolved matter. I understand, however, that an independent report has recently been prepared for the National Assembly for Wales and local authorities in Wales on the incidence of rough sleeping in Wales and its causes, and to advise on effective strategies for assisting rough sleepers. According to this independent report, single night street counts in September 1997 found 12 people sleeping rough in Cardiff city centre, and in September 1998 found 20 people.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce(a) his plans to meet the Prime Minister's target of reducing rough sleeping by at least two thirds by 2002 and (b) the latest figures for the numbers of rough sleepers in England. [103041]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Government's strategy on rough sleeping will be published later today and copies placed in the Library. We are also publishing today the latest estimate of the number of people sleeping rough in England on any one night. These figures show that the number of people sleeping rough in England fell from 1,850 in June 1998 to 1,633 in June 1999. Copies of the full breakdown are available in the Library.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Montenegro
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid has been given to Montenegro in 1999; and how much is planned for 2000. [101464]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We expect to provide around £92,000 in bilateral development technical assistance to Montenegro in the 1999–2000 financial year. This is mainly in support of privatisation programmes and public administration reform. Work was disrupted by the Kosovo crisis, during which we provided around £650,000 in emergency humanitarian assistance.

  For 2000–01, we are considering renewed activities in economic reform, support to civil society and public administration reform. The level of support has yet to be determined.

  The European Commission has committed about 56 million euro to Montenegro since April 1998 for public administration reform, private sector development, agriculture, budgetary support and humanitarian aid. The UK share of this is some 17 per cent.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Vaccine Damage (Compensation)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure the payment of compensation to those damaged by vaccines. [102167]

  Mr. Bayley
  The existing Vaccine Damage Payment scheme, which has been in place since 1979, provides
  195W
  a one-off payment to people severely disabled by vaccination against certain diseases. The scheme is not intended as compensation but is designed to ease the present and future burdens of those suffering from vaccine damage, and their families.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [102337]

  Angela Eagle
  The utilisation of specific rooms within individual Departmental buildings is a matter for local management. The information is not collated centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Number of DSS permanent staff in the north-east by area and agency

  30 November 1999

  BA

  CA1

  ITSA

  HQ

  CSA

  WPA

  Total

  Northumberland

  430

  0

  0

  0

  9

  0

  439

  Newcastle

  3,359

  0

  561

  204

  710

  0

  4,834

  Washington

  2,550

  0

  87

  7

  0

  0

  2,644

  Wearside

  457

  0

  0

  0

  18

  0

  475

  County Durham

  662

  0

  0

  0

  56

  0

  718

  South Tyneside

  188

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  188

  Gateshead

  218

  0

  0

  0

  66

  0

  284

  Teesside

  807

  0

  0

  0

  30

  2

  839

  Totals

  8,671

  0

  648

  211

  889

  2

  10,421

  Note:

  1With effect from 1 April 1999, all CA staff transferred to Inland Revenue.

  Number of DSS permanent staff in the north-east area and agency

  BA

  CA

  ITSA

  HQ

  CSA

  WPA

  Total

  30 November 1998

  Northumberland

  448

  8

  0

  0

  18

  0

  474

  Newcastle

  3,235

  4,360

  526

  208

  487

  2

  8,818

  Washington

  2,023

  0

  89

  3

  0

  0

  2,115

  Wearside

  450

  0

  0

  0

  21

  0

  471

  County Durham

  679

  21

  0

  0

  65

  0

  765

  South Tyneside

  193

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  193

  Gateshead

  208

  42

  0

  0

  61

  0

  311

  Teesside

  784

  42

  0

  0

  30

  0

  856

  Totals

  8,020

  4,473

  615

  211

  682

  2

  14,003

  30 November 1997

  Northumberland

  470

  7

  0

  0

  24

  0

  501

  Newcastle

  3,097

  4,336

  494

  230

  459

  3

  8,619

  Washington

  1,766

  0

  98

  0

  0

  0

  1,864

  Wearside

  462

  0

  0

  0

  21

  0

  483

  County Durham

  618

  20

  0

  0

  39

  0

  677

  South Tyneside

  197

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  197

  Gateshead

  231

  48

  0

  0

  40

  0

  319

  Teesside

  810

  38

  0

  0

  35

  2

  885

  Totals

  7,651

  4,449

  592

  230

  618

  5

  13,545

  Notes:

  1. As staff details are not held by county or metropolitan areas, we have grouped information from our offices to give approximate coverage by those areas. The following groupings have been used:

  Northumberland—Ashington, Berwick, Blyth, Hexham, North Shields and Wallsend

  Newcastle—Broadway West, Gosforth locations including North-East outstation, Newcastle Central Office and local offices

  Washington—Durham House and Child Benefit Centre

  Wearside—Sunderland and Wearside DIRC

  County Durham—Bishop Auckland, Chester-le-Street, Darlington, Durham, Houghton-le-Spring, Peterlee, Seaham and Stanley South Tyneside—Jarrow and South Shields

  Gateshead—Gateshead Local Office

  Teesside—Eston, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Northallerton, Redcar and Stockton.

  2. "Full-time employees" has been interpreted to mean all permanent staff, including those on non-standard hours; and excluding staff who are casuals or on fixed term contracts.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements(a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department have put in place for the taking and keeping of minutes of meetings between Ministers and people outside his Department. [102369]

  Angela Eagle
  Decisions on the format of minutes of meetings will depend on the nature of the discussion.

  Employment Statistics (North-east)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many full-time employees were employed in each metropolitan, unitary or county area in North-East England by(a) his Department and (b) each of its agencies, in each of the last three years for which information is available. [102432]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the tables.

  Pension Sharing Regulations
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to consult on draft pension sharing regulations. [103126]

  Mr. Rooker
  The consultation document "Pension Sharing on Divorce: Consultation on Draft Regulations" is published today. The consultation period will run until 14 February 2000. Copies have been placed in the Library and the Vote Office. The document is also available on the DSS website.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Employees (Disabled People)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [102039]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Following the devolution of power to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 2 December 1999, the Assembly took on responsibility for all the Northern Ireland Civil Service Departments. The Secretary of State's responsibility is now limited to the Northern Ireland Office, and the following information relates to that Department only.

  The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which came into force in 1996, removed the requirement for individuals with disabilities to register as disabled and, as a result, such information is no longer held on staff in the Northern Ireland Office. Individuals may, however, provide information regarding their disabilities on a voluntary basis. Statistics based on this information indicate that 4.04 per cent. of staff in the Northern Ireland Office have declared that they have a disability under the Act.

  The Northern Ireland Office is an Equal Opportunities employer and has a number of policies in place relating to the recruitment and retention of people with disabilities. Where open recruitment competitions are advertised, disabled people are among those under-represented groups who are encouraged to submit applications. The NIO also sponsors a number of people with disabilities to provide them with work in the Department under the Training and Employment Agency's Employment Support Scheme.

  The NIO has a dedicated Disabled Person's Liaison Officer whose role is to provide assistance and advice to staff and managers on what reasonable adjustments can be made to enable staff with disabilities to do their jobs. Consideration is also being given to joining the Positive about Disabled People "Two Ticks" scheme to indicate the NIO' s commitment to people with disabilities.

  Since 1997 the Northern Ireland Office has funded a bursary for staff with disabilities. This provides the bursary holder with a two year programme of training and mentoring to enable them to develop the competencies needed to gain promotion. Two members of MO staff are currently benefiting from the scheme.

  Parades Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what correspondence he has received from outgoing members of the Parades Commission; and if he will place copies in the Library. [101889]

  Mr. Ingram
  No such correspondence has been received.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reason he is to review the workings of the Parades Commission; what are the terms of reference of this review; what organisations and individuals have been consulted over the terms of reference; and what body has been appointed to conduct the review. [101887]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 8 October the previous Secretary of State announced a review of the workings of the Parades Commission. The terms of reference are:"Within the existing framework of law and structures, and taking account of views received from interested parties and the experience of the marching seasons over the last two years, to consider
  possible ways of achieving even greater acceptance of the approach to handling contentious parades; and, in particular,
  the arrangements for mediation;
  and to report to Ministers by the end of December 1999".

  As part of the announcement the Secretary of State made a general invitation for contributions from any interested parties. Subsequently a wide range of interested parties have been specifically invited to contribute.

  Officials from my Security Policy and Operations Division have been asked to conduct the review.

  Fire Brigade
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what was the composition of the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade by (i) gender and (ii) by perceived community origin(a) in the last month for which figures were available, (b) for the same month five years ago and (c) 10 years ago; [101886]

  when the emblem of the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade was introduced. [101885]

  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.

  Security Policy and Operations Department
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the functions of the Security Policy and Operations Department; how many staff, at what grades, are assigned to this unit; and how many additional staff have been (i) appointed and (ii) seconded in the last six months. [101888]

  Mr. Ingram
  The aim and objectives of the Security Policy and Operations Division were set out on pages 32 and 33 of the Government's Expenditure Plans 1999–2000 to 2001–02 for Northern Ireland (Cm 4217). A copy is available in the Library of the House.
  199W
  The Division has 20.5 staff across the full range of administrative grades from Senior Civil Service to D2. In the last six months an additional 1.5 staff have been appointed—none have been seconded.

  Civil Service Review
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the terms of reference of the review of the composition of the senior grades of the Civil Service; what is the composition of the senior grades of the Civil Service; what is the composition of the review team; when the review began; when it will report; and when its recommendations will be published. [101884]

  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.

  Criminal Justice (Working Group)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the membership of the working group announced on 4 November 1998 to consider the implementation of the recommendations of the Third report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of session 1997–98 (HC337); how many times the group has met; what representations it received from the Northern Ireland Police Federation; and if he will make a statement on its terms of reference and work to date. [101877]

  Mr. Ingram
  The working group on membership of exclusive organisations within the Criminal Justice system comprised representatives of the Northern Ireland Office, the RUC, the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Court Service, the Northern Ireland Prison Service, the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland and the Probation Board for Northern Ireland. The working group met formally on four occasions and received no representations from the Northern Ireland Police Federation. The working group's terms of reference were as announced on 4 November 1998. It submitted its report to the Secretary of State in July 1999. The Report of the Independent Commission on Policing (published on 9 September) proposed that police officers should be obliged to register their interests and associations. The Government are currently considering the responses to consultation on all the Commission's recommendations and awaiting the conclusions of the Criminal Justice Review.

TREASURY

  External Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have spent on external consultants and advisers since May 1997. [102076]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Low Birthweight Babies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the proportion of low birthweight babies in each health authority area of England, in each of the last five years. [102228]

  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 to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 15 December 1999:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on low birthweight babies. I am replying in Dr. Holt's absence.
  The information requested is shown in the attached table.

  Percentage of live births with a stated birthweight less than 2,500g England, regional offices and health authorities1, 1994–1998

  Health Authority

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  England

  7.0

  7.3

  7.3

  7.5

  7.5

  Northern and Yorkshire

  7.3

  7.7

  7.4

  7.9

  7.6

  Bradford

  9.3

  8.8

  8.7

  9.1

  9.8

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  7.7

  8.7

  7.7

  8.4

  8.2

  County Durham

  6.6

  7.3

  7.2

  7.8

  7.0

  East Riding

  7.2

  6.9

  7.5

  8.2

  7.4

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  7.3

  7.9

  7.4

  8.1

  6.8

  Leeds

  8.0

  8.5

  8.1

  8.2

  8.4

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  8.2

  7.7

  7.9

  8.3

  7.5

  North Cumbria

  5.9

  6.6

  7.0

  7.5

  6.6

  Northumberland

  6.7

  7.3

  6.0

  7.1

  6.7

  North Yorkshire

  5.8

  6.5

  5.5

  6.6

  6.0

  Sunderland

  6.3

  7.6

  8.0

  8.1

  8.4

  Tees

  7.3

  7.8

  7.3

  7.6

  7.8

  Wakefield

  7.6

  7.9

  7.6

  7.9

  7.7

  Trent

  7.0

  7.3

  7.3

  7.6

  7.8

  Barnsley

  6.7

  7.6

  6.6

  6.9

  7.8

  Doncaster

  7.0

  7.5

  6.8

  8.8

  7.7

  Leicestershire

  7.5

  8.0

  8.2

  8.2

  8.0

  Lincolnshire

  6.1

  6.4

  6.2

  6.8

  7.3

  North Derbyshire

  6.5

  5.9

  6.1

  6.5

  6.4

  North Nottinghamshire

  7.2

  8.0

  8.0

  8.9

  7.7

  Nottingham

  7.8

  7.5

  7.4

  7.2

  7.8

  Rotherham

  7.3

  8.0

  7.1

  7.3

  7.8

  Sheffield

  7.8

  7.9

  7.9

  7.7

  8.4

  South Derbyshire

  6.2

  6.5

  6.9

  7.0

  7.9

  South Humber

  6.3

  7.1

  7.0

  7.5

  8.2

  Anglia and Oxford

  6.6

  6.8

  6.9

  7.0

  7.0

  Bedfordshire

  6.8

  6.7

  7.3

  7.2

  7.6

  Berkshire

  6.6

  6.9

  6.8

  7.1

  7.6

  Buckinghamshire

  6.6

  6.8

  6.7

  7.2

  6.6

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  6.3

  6.8

  6.5

  6.2

  5.8

  East Norfolk

  6.7

  7.3

  6.7

  6.7

  6.9

  Northamptonshire

  7.9

  7.0

  7.5

  7.7

  7.5

  North West Anglia

  6.4

  7.6

  7.8

  7.4

  8.1

  Oxfordshire

  5.8

  5.7

  6.2

  6.3

  5.9

  Suffolk

  6.4

  6.3

  6.5

  6.9

  7.0

  North Thames

  7.2

  7.5

  7.4

  7.6

  7.6

  Barking and Havering

  6.4

  6.2

  6.8

  7.4

  6.8

  Barnet

  7.0

  7.8

  7.5

  7.9

  7.2

  Brent and Harrow

  8.6

  8.6

  9.0

  8.7

  8.4

  Camden and Islington

  7.8

  7.4

  7.5

  7.8

  7.2

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  7.4

  7.7

  7.7

  7.8

  8.2

  East and North Hertfordshire

  6.7

  6.8

  6.5

  6.6

  6.1

  East London and The City

  9.0

  9.0

  8.9

  9.7

  9.7

  Enfield and Haringey

  7.5

  7.9

  7.7

  8.2

  8.3

  Hillingdon

  6.7

  8.3

  7.2

  7.5

  8.2

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  7.4

  7.8

  7.7

  7.6

  7.5

  North Essex

  6.0

  6.5

  6.3

  6.2

  6.4

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  8.5

  8.3

  7.9

  8.0

  7.7

  South Essex

  5.8

  5.7

  5.9

  6.7

  6.3

  West Hertfordshire

  5.9

  6.5

  6.9

  6.0

  6.8

  201W

  Percentage of live births with a stated birthweight less than 2,500g England, regional offices and health authorities1, 1994–1998

  Health Authority

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  South Thames

  6.8

  7.0

  6.9

  7.0

  7.0

  Bexley and Greenwich

  6.9

  6.9

  7.4

  7.3

  7.6

  Bromley

  7.0

  6.9

  6.9

  6.4

  6.3

  Croydon

  7.4

  8.3

  7.8

  7.9

  8.7

  East Kent

  6.4

  6.7

  6.2

  7.4

  6.3

  East Surrey

  6.9

  6.5

  6.3

  5.8

  5.9

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  6.6

  6.4

  6.7

  7.1

  6.3

  Kingston and Richmond

  5.8

  5.7

  5.9

  6.2

  5.4

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  8.9

  9.1

  8.7

  8.8

  8.8

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  7.1

  7.1

  6.9

  6.7

  6.9

  West Kent

  5.9

  6.7

  6.6

  6.3

  6.9

  West Surrey

  6.3

  6.4

  5.7

  6.2

  6.5

  West Sussex

  6.3

  6.6

  6.4

  6.8

  6.6

  South and West

  6.4

  6.7

  6.8

  6.7

  6.6

  Avon

  6.3

  6.8

  7.0

  7.0

  6.3

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  6.2

  6.8

  6.7

  5.8

  6.2

  Dorset

  6.5

  6.3

  6.5

  6.8

  7.0

  Gloucestershire

  7.3

  6.9

  6.5

  6.8

  6.5

  Isle of Wight

  5.9

  6.5

  7.1

  7.3

  7.3

  North and East Devon

  6.5

  6.7

  6.9

  6.3

  6.7

  North and Mid Hampshire

  5.9

  6.2

  7.2

  6.2

  6.4

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  6.7

  6.9

  6.7

  6.4

  6.6

  Somerset

  6.0

  6.5

  6.7

  6.4

  6.3

  Southampton and South West

  Hampshire

  6.3

  7.1

  6.8

  6.6

  7.0

  South and West Devon

  6.2

  6.6

  6.7

  7.4

  6.7

  Wiltshire

  6.9

  7.0

  6.6

  7.3

  6.5

  West Midlands

  7.6

  8.0

  8.1

  8.1

  8.4

  Birmingham

  8.8

  9.5

  9.2

  9.4

  10.0

  Coventry

  9.0

  8.7

  9.7

  8.7

  8.7

  Dudley

  7.7

  7.9

  8.5

  8.3

  8.8

  Herefordshire

  6.1

  6.4

  6.8

  6.9

  6.7

  North Staffordshire

  6.4

  7.1

  7.4

  7.0

  8.2

  Sandwell

  9.9

  9.7

  9.5

  10.0

  10.4

  Shropshire

  6.0

  7.1

  7.0

  6.7

  7.0

  Solihull

  7.1

  6.6

  8.5

  7.2

  6.6

  South Staffordshire

  6.7

  6.6

  7.0

  6.5

  7.4

  Walsall

  7.6

  8.8

  9.1

  10.1

  10.3

  Warwickshire

  6.8

  6.9

  6.3

  6.7

  6.7

  Wolverhampton

  8.3

  9.2

  9.6

  10.1

  10.0

  Worcestershire

  6.4

  7.1

  6.6

  7.2

  6.6

  North West

  7.0

  7.7

  7.7

  7.8

  8.1

  Bury and Rochdale

  7.8

  8.3

  8.2

  8.6

  9.2

  East Lancashire

  7.8

  8.7

  7.7

  8.3

  9.5

  Liverpool

  7,9

  8.3

  8.5

  7.7

  8.2

  Manchester

  8.3

  9.9

  9.2

  9.2

  9.3

  Morecambe Bay

  7.3

  7.4

  7.3

  6.2

  6.9

  North Cheshire

  5.4

  5.5

  6.6

  6.2

  6.5

  North West Lancashire

  7.1

  7.1

  7.6

  8.1

  8.3

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  6.6

  7.9

  8.0

  8.1

  8.5

  Salford and Trafford

  7.9

  8.0

  7.8

  8.3

  8.3

  Sefton

  6.6

  7.1

  7.2

  7.6

  7.9

  South Cheshire

  5.5

  6.5

  6.4

  6.6

  6.1

  South Lancashire

  6.4

  6.4

  6.9

  7.0

  6.3

  Stockport

  5.4

  6.9

  6.3

  6.1

  7.2

  West Pennine

  7.3

  7.8

  7.6

  8.4

  8.4

  Wigan and Bolton

  6.8

  8.2

  8.3

  8.7

  8.9

  Wirral

  6.3

  6.6

  7.6

  7.0

  8.0

  1 Boundaries as at 1 April 1998

  Endowment Insurance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what statutory provisions restrict the ability of policyholders to make top-up payments to long-term endowment insurance plans; and what plans he has to review these provisions. [102433]
  202W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are no statutory provisions prohibiting top-up payments. The provision of advice on and selling of endowment policies is regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Policyholders are encouraged to seek independent financial advice before deciding on options to meet projected shortfalls in maturity.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Employees (Disabled People)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [102050]

  Mr. Hain
  As at 1 October 1999, 111 staff (2 per cent.) had declared themselves as disabled in a voluntary survey. The FCO is committed to the employment of people with disabilities. In September 1998 the Department qualified for the Employment Service Two ticks symbol "Positive about disabled people". Under this scheme the Department guarantees an interview to anybody with a disability where the application meets the minimum criteria for the post. Particular arrangements are put into place for tests and interviews when requested by the candidate. Reasonable adjustments are made to the working environment for new entrants with disabilities. The FCO has appointed a Disabled Persons Officer to deal with disability issues within the Office.

  Diplomatic Missions
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the British diplomatic missions that have been closed during the last five years. [102407]

  Mr. Hain
  The British diplomatic missions that have closed in the last five years are: Douala in 1994, Kuching and Chiang Mai in 1998 and Cleveland in 1999.

  In addition, the Embassy in Belgrade closed at the start of the Kosovo campaign. The Yugoslav authorities subsequently severed diplomatic relations. We have since re-established a presence in Belgrade with an British Interests Section of the Brazilian Embassy.

  China
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of recent progress in co-operation with China in tackling international crime. [102704]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Jiang Zemin agreed on the need for further dialogue between our two countries on the problems of international crime and drugs in their meeting during the Chinese State Visit. I raised the issue of drugs with the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister during my recent visit to China and we agreed to continue close co-operation in this field, where we have had a number of small, mainly training, projects.
  203W
  There have been a number of successful co-operative operations between the British and Chinese police to deal with kidnapping cases.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he discussed further co-operation in the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction when he met President Jiang Zemin during his visit to Britain. [102742]

  Mr. Battle
  The need for further dialogue on this subject was agreed in the Prime Minister's meeting with President Jiang Zemin during the State Visit.

  EU Applicants
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries which(a) have applied for membership of the EU and (b) are investigating the possibility of applying for membership within the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [102459]

  Mr. Vaz
  The countries that have applied for membership of the EU are listed in the table. Accession negotiations started in March 1998 with Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia. Accession negotiations will begin in February 2000 with Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania and Slovakia. The Helsinki European Council on 10-–1 December 1999 recognised that Turkey is a candidate for membership. Norway put its application on hold in 1994 after a referendum rejected membership. Switzerland suspended its application in 1993. In 1987, the Council of Ministers did not accede to an application from Morocco. No other country has signalled an intention to apply for membership within the next 12 months. This Government strongly support EU enlargement.

  Countries that have applied for EU-membership

  Country

  Date of application

  Morocco

  120 July 1987

  Turkey

  14 April 1987

  Cyprus

  3 July 1990

  Malta

  216 July 1990

  Switzerland

  320 May 1992

  Norway

  425 November 1992

  Hungary

  31 March 1994

  Poland

  5 April 1994

  Romania

  22 June 1995

  Slovakia

  27 June 1995

  Latvia

  13 October 1995

  Estonia

  24 November 1995

  Lithuania

  8 December 1995

  Bulgaria

  14 December 1995

  Czech Republic

  17 January 1996

  Slovenia

  10 June 1996

  1 EU did not accede to the request

  2 Frozen in 1996, re-activated 10 September 1998

  3 Left in abeyance 1992

  4 1994 referendum rejected membership. Application on hold

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what arrangements(a) he and
  204W
  (b) Ministers in his Department have put in place for the taking and keeping of minutes of meetings between Ministers and people outside his Department. [102363]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Decisions on the format of minutes of meetings will depend on the nature of the discussions.

  Sports Clubs (Personal Injury Insurance)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will introduce legislation to require sports clubs to insure team members against personal injury. [102502]

  Kate Hoey
  I have no plans to introduce legislation requiring sports clubs to insure their members against personal injury, but I encourage them to ensure that adequate insurance is in place. The home country Sports Councils, in co-operation with the Association of British Insurers, published a booklet in 1997 called "Managing Risks" which provides guidance on insurance for sports organisations, clubs and individuals.

  Osborne House
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his plans are for the future use of those parts of Osborne House not once occupied personally by Queen Victoria and opened to the public, and of the grounds; and if he will make a statement. [102570]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  As I announced on 4 February, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has decided that it is no longer appropriate to run this part of Osborne House as a convalescent and residential home and will be seeking Parliament's approval to repeal the provisions of the Osborne Estate Act 1902 which places this responsibility on him. In the meantime the home remains open. I have asked English Heritage to bring forward proposals for the use of the accommodation currently occupied by the convalescent home.

  British Olympic Facilities
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what discussions he has had with the British Olympic Association on ensuring that a future British Olympic bid contains proposals to disperse major sporting events throughout the United Kingdom; [102804]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the British Olympic Association and other interested parties on ensuring the availability of funding for Olympic facilities throughout the United Kingdom. [102803]

  Kate Hoey
  I am in regular discussion with the British Olympic Association and other interested parties on a number of issues including facilities to stage a future Olympic Games. The International Olympic Committee require that the Olympic Games are city rather than countrywide based. The British Olympic Association, who have responsibility for UK bids for the Olympic Games, are finalising a series of feasibility studies on a London based bid and I am expecting their report shortly.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much his Department has spent on civil servants' transport in each of the last two years. [99145]

  Mr. Wills
  All travel undertaken by civil servants in DfEE and the Employment Service (ES) complies with the requirements of the Civil Service Management Code.

  For DfEE, the total amount spent on civil servants' car transport in each of the last two years is £648,826 (1997–98) and £720,853 (1998–99)1.

  For ES, the total amount spent in each of the last two years is £3,462,169 (1997–98) and £4,992,971 (1998–99)1.

  1 These figures are net of payments received from staff under DfEE/ES private user schemes.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to ensure greater transparency in the allocation of funds by local education authorities to individual pupils with special educational needs. [101467]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]: We have taken steps to require local education authorities to publish budget statements which make clear the amounts retained centrally and the amounts delegated to schools to make provision for children with special educational

  Percentage

  1997–98

  1998–99

  April-November 1999

  To complete the calculation of ill health benefits or short service incapacity grants within 20 days of receiving approval of the application

  91

  98

  91.7

  Requests for further medical evidence to be made within 5 days of notification

  —

  100

  97.8

  To inform applicants for ill health retirement of the decision within 10 days of medical advisers notification

  —

  —

  98.9

  The figures for applications rejected and successful appeals are as follows. Successful appeals usually result from further medical evidence being received.

  Number rejected

  Successful appeals

  1997–98

  1,227

  382

  1998–99

  788

  179

  April-September 1999

  288

  13

  1 Does not include appeals still under consideration.

  School Transport
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review arrangements for home to school transport. [102239]

  Jacqui Smith
  The School Travel Advisory Group is looking into all aspects of school transport and I expect to receive its recommendations early in the new year. In addition, we have a number of initiatives already in place: we have produced guidance for schools on safe routes; we
  206W
  needs, with and without statements. Once budgets are delegated to schools, schools' governing bodies may take decisions on precisely how to deploy the resources available for the benefit of individual pupils. Where extra resources are required to enable a school to make the provision specified in a statement of special educational need for an individual child, the local education authority may provide support from a central resource; devolve funds for that specific child; or in some cases, the schools' delegated budget will already include funds to meet the needs of pupils with statements of special education need.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average time taken for the Teachers' Pension Agency to process a teacher's request for early retirement on health grounds in each of the last three years; how many such requests have been refused in each of the last three years; and how many of these refusals have been overturned on appeal. [101923]

  Mr. Wicks
  The administration of the Teachers' Pensions Scheme has been carried out under contract by Capita Business Services since October 1996. Details of the average time taken for the complete processing of ill-health retirement applications are not recorded, but a Statement of Service Requirements (SOSR) attached to the contract has specific targets with regard to ill-health applications. The performance of the scheme administrator is given in the following table. These targets reflect the stages in the process where responsibility for the action rests with the administrator and not with a third party. The number of years for which the information is available reflects the periodic updating of the SOSR.

  are developing mapping software and a car sharing database for schools' use; we are reviewing the provision of transport for pupils with special educational needs, leading to guidance on best practice for Local Education Authorities; and we have been working with the Department of Health on "Safe and Sound", a competition for schools designed to promote healthier and sustainable school travel.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the outcome of the appeal to the Data Protection Registrar by the National Union of Teachers against his Department using home addresses collected for pension purposes and the General Teaching Council elections; and if he will make a statement. [102773]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Data Protection Registrar has confirmed that teachers' home addresses can be used for the despatch of pensions information and to form the basis of the electoral roll for the General Teaching Council.

  Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have spent on external conz45sultants and advisers since May 1997. [102080]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The Department's NDPBs spent £22.062 million on external consultants and advisers. The individual NDPB expenditure is listed on the following table.

  Department for Education and Employment—expenditure on consultants and advisers

  £000

  May 1997 to-date

  Total

  British Educational Communications and Technology (BECTa)

  865

  Construction Industry Training Board (CITB)

  638

  Education Transfer Council (ETC)

  0

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board(ECITB)

  35

  Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC)

  147

  Further Education Funding Council (FEFC)

  2,510

  Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)

  2,847

  Investors in People UK Ltd. (IIP)

  4,614

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA)

  3,800

  Remploy Ltd.

  816

  Students Loan Company (SLC)

  1,612

  Teacher Training Agency (TTA)

  4,174

  Advisory Committee for Disabled People in Employment and Training (ACDET)

  2

  Disability Rights Task Force (DTRF)

  1

  National Disability Council (NDC)

  0

  New Deal Task Force (NDTF)

  0

  Race Employment and Education Forum (REEF)

  1

  Skills Task Force (STF)

  0

  22,062

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to what extent the money contributed by TECs to the national legal fund established under the auspices of the TEC National Council is to be used to contest the distribution of reserves and assets upon the winding up of TECs; and if he will make a statement. [102081]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 14 December 1999]: We understand the primary purpose of the legal fund is to seek advice on issues common to all TECs/CCTEs, including the extent of the obligations they have under their contracts with Government. This is a reasonable step rather than each TEC seeking separate advice with the additional costs that would entail. However, we would not expect TECs/CCTEs to use public funds to contest the distribution of reserves and assets.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on the application by the WTO of the principle of free trade to purchases by Governments and local authorities of goods and services concerned with education. [101674]
  208W
  Mr. Caborn
  There have not been any such discussions concerning the WTO and Government procurement.

  A400M Project
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the proportion of the United Kingdom aerospace industry's projected investment which is accounted for by the A400M airbus military aircraft project. [102392]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My Department does not produce estimates of future investment in the aerospace sector. As my previous reply on 8 December 1999,Official Report, columns 571–72W, explained in relation to the Future Transport Aircraft competition (FTA), we assess the possible impacts of the bids on the UK's industrial and technological capabilities. Since the FTA competition is still at the competitive bidding stage, it would be inappropriate to publish information provided by companies as part of this process.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the Ministry of Defence over the A400M programme. [102741]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Future Transport Aircraft (FTA) competition is being run by the Ministry of Defence. The A400M, along with Boeing's C-17 and Lockheed Martin's C130J, is a contender in the competition. My Department is in regular contact with the Ministry of Defence in the consideration of the industrial implications of this procurement. Our assessment looks at the possible impacts of each bid on the UK's industrial and technological capabilities.

  Ghana
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those companies that have received promotional assistance in exporting to Ghana in each of the last five years. [101972]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: British Trade International provides assistance to companies seeking to trade with or invest in Ghana. I shall place in the Library of the House a list of those companies interested in exporting to Ghana over the last five years, who have participated in the formal export promotion schemes now run by British Trade International.

  Oftel
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the projected costs of Oftel for the financial years(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [102749]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Running costs

  12.3

  11.1

  Other capital expenditure

  0.3

  0.3

  Capital

  1.2

  0.4

  "Modern Markets: Confident Customers"
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how he plans to take forward the White Paper, "Modern Markets: Confident Customers". [103125]

  Dr. Howells
  The White Paper contained some 90 initiatives to help people get a good deal. I have today published a detailed implementation plan, giving commitments on timing and naming an official responsible for each. I have placed copies in the Library of the House.

  Post Office
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on DTI-DSS co-ordination in relation to the Post Office. [101554]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I maintain a dialogue with our DSS colleagues, and there is regular contact between our officials at working level on matters of mutual interest, including the Post Office.

  Electronic Mail
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to extend the privacy protection afforded to the Royal Mail to electronic mail correspondence; and if he will make a statement. [101083]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  Section 1 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 makes it an offence to intercept a communication in the course of its transmission by post or by means of a public telecommunications system. It therefore provides privacy protection for electronic mail (e-mail) when it is carried on the network of a public telecommunications operator (PTO), but not when it passes over networks which are not operated by a PTO. We recognise the need to extend legal protection to all communications on non-PTO networks. In June 1999, the Home Office published a consultation paper, "Interception of Communications in the UK", which contains the Government's proposals for legislation in this area. I will carry these proposals forward in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill which was announced in the Queen's Speech.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration and Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many immigration and asylum appeal hearings in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 his Department did not present its case. [101495]

  Mrs. Roche
  In 1997–98 the Presenting Officer Unit (POU) piloted new working procedures designed to increase flexibility and productivity which included identifying non-complex cases in which the absence of a Presenting Officer would not affect the outcome of the appeal. A total of 126 appeal cases were heard without a Home Office representative being present. In 1998–99 the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) significantly 210W
  increased its throughput of appeals and by introducing the new working practices the POU was able to target resources with some precision. The IAA was informed in 6,230 cases, 11 per cent. of the total listed for hearing, that there would be no Home Office representative: no information is available as to how many of these cases proceeded to a hearing. In the current financial year the IAA has been informed in 610 cases, 3 per cent. of total listed, that there would be no Home Office representative.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements(a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department have put in place for the taking and keeping of minutes of meetings between Ministers and people outside his Department. [102374]

  Mr. Straw
  Private secretaries usually take notes of formal meetings between Ministers and people from outside the Home Office. The degree of detail recorded, and the writing up of notes, depends on the nature of the meeting and of the issues raised.

  Police Forces (Reorganisation)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the police forces in England and Wales, the dates of(a) force reorganisation plans and (b) new chief officers taking up appointment. [R] [102393]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The organisational structure of each police force is a matter for the chief officer of police.

  In relation to police areas of the Metropolitan Police Service, Essex Police, Hertfordshire Constabulary and Surrey Police will change on 1 April 2000 when the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police District are brought into line with those of the 32 London Boroughs. These changes are from section 323 of the Greater London Authority Act. The commencement order has been made which will bring section 323 into effect from 1 April 2000.

  The dates of new chief officers who have taken up appointment during 1999 are:

  Date

  Dorset Police

  10 May 1999

  Gwent Police

  23 July 1999

  Hampshire Constabulary

  21 September 1999

  West Mercia Constabulary

  5 April 1999

  St. Kitts
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the entitlement of residents of St. Kitts to British citizenship. [102300]

  Mrs. Roche
  St. Kitts and Nevis is no longer a British dependent territory. A St Kitts and Nevis child may in certain circumstances have an entitlement to registration as a British citizen, but in most instances a number of years' residence in the United Kingdom is required on the part of the child and/or its parents. Adults may obtain
  211W
  British citizenship only by naturalisation, which is a discretionary matter rather than an entitlement, generally following some years' residence in the United Kingdom.

  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding is made available by his Department for help in setting up neighbourhood watch schemes. [102707]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We do not provide funding to set up individual Neighbourhood Watch schemes. We do, however, fund national initiatives such as publicity campaigns and training packs which have played a considerable part in the growth of the movement.

  Criminal Justice Act 1988
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the principal conclusions and recommendations of the review of the interpretation of section 133(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 that was concluded in April 1999; and if he will place a copy of that review in the Library. [101709]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This review did not lead to any change of policy or practice. The review was conducted by means of communications between Ministers and officials of various Departments, and legal advice to Ministers. The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information indicates that such internal discussion and advice is exempt from the commitments to provide information in that Code.

DEFENCE

  Rapier Mk 2 Missiles
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the value of the contract for Rapier Mk 2 surface-to-air missiles that was awarded to Matra BAe Dynamics; [100760]

  (2) how many Rapier Mk 2 surface-to-air missiles have been ordered from Matra BAe Dynamics in addition to the original order. [100759]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 15 December 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the value of the contract for Rapier Mk 2 surface-to-air missiles that was awarded to Matra BAe Dynamics. You also asked how many Rapier Mk 2 surface-to-air missiles have been ordered from Matra BAe Dynamics additional to the original order. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The value of the contract for Rapier Mk 2 surface-to-air missiles that was awarded to Matra BAe Dynamics is around £260M. I am afraid that I am unable to let you know how many missiles have been ordered as it is considered that the release of this information would be harmful to our national security interests and would also be in breach of a third party's commercial confidences. I am therefore withholding this information under Exemptions 1 and 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Naval Projects
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of the collapse of the Common New-Generation Frigate programme on future European collaborative naval projects; [100758]

  (2) what he estimates the typical cost of the Type-45 destroyer will be. [100751]

  Mr. Hoon
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the Hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 15 December 1999:
  I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Type 45 Project. This matter falls to me to answer within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The total programme cost for the 12 currently planned Type 45 warships including their missiles is approximately £6Bn. This includes approximately £1.2Bn for the development, design and build of the first of class ship and £1Bn for the development and initial production of the Principal Anti Air Missile System (PAAMS). The balance of £3.8Bn contains funding for further missile procurement, allows for the incremental acquisition of the combat system. The ship design will incorporate significant growth margins to allow for this incremental capability development. A typical cost per ship is thus difficult to asses but the average is expected to be within a target cost of about £270M, excluding missiles.
  You also asked what assessment had been made of the effect of the collapse of the Common New Generation (CNGF) Programme. The tri-national project office, before it closed on 29 October 1999, provided an assessment of the lessons learned to each of the three partner nations. These reported lessons are being carefully considered and we will be compiling our own UK national lessons learned paper in order to ensure that they are applied appropriately to other collaborative projects. At this stage, I would assess the key lessons to be:

  a. The operational requirement should be agreed in detail, and be confirmed as affordable against agreed budgets. This information (on requirement and cost) should be communicated to Industry at an early stage to avoid over-ambitious performance specifications being set at the outset that have subsequently to be adjusted (with consequent delay) as financial realities are brought to bear;

  b. early in the programme, a credible industrial organisation must be established which meets the requirements of industry and of all particular governments. For the UK, this means the appointment of an effective prime contractor not a joint venture company;

  c. work share arrangements should not be allowed to distort industrial management of the programme. The involvement of trans-national companies and OCCAR are likely to be helpful in ensuring work share issues are resolved efficiently and economically.

  Applying these principles proved intractable in the context of HORIZON but was possible with the PAAMS Anti-Air Warfare missile component of the CNGF programme and you will be aware that a Development and Production contract for PAAMS was successfully placed last August on behalf of the three nations. This illustrates that the HORIZON outcome need not inhibit successful collaboration in Europe in future.

  Missile Assessment
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the advantages of(a) the Meteor missiles made by Matra BAe Dynamics and (b) its US rival; and if he will make a statement. [100597]
  213W
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 15 December 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary for Defence about the assessments that have been made of the Meteor and US missile options bid into the Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM) competition. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  We are currently evaluating the Best and Final Offers we have received in response to the above competition to satisfy the RAF's requirement for a BVRAAM for Eurofighter. The evaluation will take into account a wide range of factors including missile performance, cost, industrial factors and overall value for money and will set out the respective advantages of each option. It remains our intention to announce the outcome of the competition in the new year.

  RAID System
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the RAF are participating in the Rangeless Airborne Instrumented Debriefing Systems mission. [101659]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  There are no RAF Rangeless Airborne Instrumented Debriefing Systems (RAIDS) 'missions' as such involving RAF personnel. However, the RAF has procured eight RAIDS pods and two ground stations and is conducting a trail of their utility. A wider procurement of RAIDS pods is in process. A number of RAF personnel across a number of units and organisations are involved in the trial but none of them is solely assigned to RAIDS.

  Family Contact
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions have been made to ensure family contact on 25 December 1999, 31 December 1999 and 1 January 2000 for those members of the armed forces who will be separated from their families on those dates. [101728]

  Mr. Hoon
  We recognise the importance of Service personnel away from home being able to keep in touch, particularly during holiday periods. To this end, all personnel deployed on eligible operations are given 20 minutes worth of free welfare telephone calls home each week. In the past, this facility has been provided using a mix of private and military services, and, whenever operational constraints have allowed, has also been made available to personnel to allow them to make additional telephone calls home at their own expense. All personnel deployed away from home over the Christmas and New Year period will have access to this minimum level of service, either as their primary means of calling home or as a fallback when other systems are not working.

  We are currently in the process of deploying a new communication system, called Project WELCOME, which is being introduced to give personnel who are deployed away from home on operations guaranteed access to a welfare telephone, whatever the operational situation. This new system will be fully operational in the Gulf by Christmas and will be introduced into other theatres as soon as the necessary equipment is available and appropriate contractual arrangements can be made.
  214W
  In addition to this, to cope with the increased demand over the Christmas and New Year, we have:

  Purchased eleven additional mobile phones for the Gulf.

  Introduced 'electronic blueys' into the Falkland Islands, following a successful trial in the Balkans.

  Arranged for the deployment of seven extra satellite phones into Kosovo.

  Negotiated with The Sun newspaper, BT and Siemens to provide a video conferencing link which will enable troops to book a 10-minute slot free of charge to link up with their families at home and talk on camera. The service will operate in Kosovo during the period 22 to the 26 of December and in Bosnia during the period 29 December to the 2 of January. It is anticipated that approximately 1,000 troops in each theatre will be able to take advantage of this service.

  Agreed with BT to provide all troops serving in isolated locations throughout the Balkans who are having to use the BT satellite phones with a free five minute phone card valid for use on or after the 25 of December.

  Agreed with Cable and Wireless that all single and married unaccompanied personnel serving in the Falkland Islands will be given 20 minutes of welfare telephone calls free.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements(a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department have put in place for the taking and keeping of minutes of meetings between Ministers and people outside his Department. [102376]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Decisions on the format of minutes of meetings will depend on the nature of the discussion.

  Departmental Employees (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the total workforce in his Department is of ethnic minority origin; and what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of people from the ethnic minorities in his Department. [102737]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Considerable efforts are being made in my Department to increase the proportion of ethnic minority staff we employ from our current level of 1.5 per cent. of the total civilian workforce. Our longer term aim is to reflect the diversity of MOD's recruitment catchment populations in our total civilian workforce. To this end our outreach work includes: establishing links with local racial equality councils and community organisations; targeted advertising; participating in careers fairs aimed principally at the ethnic minorities; sharing experience with like-minded employers through membership of Race for Opportunity; and providing work placements for ethnic minority graduates in association with the Windsor Fellowship. Internally, ethnic minority representation goals have been set and specific recruitment goals are being developed for recruiting areas which take account of relocations and re-organisations, and the representation of the ethnic minorities among the working population in catchment communities. Work is also underway, in conjunction with the Services, to improve the MOD's image as an equal opportunities employer in respect of both civilian staff and Armed Forces personnel.

  Reserves
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the categories of reserves, indicating in each
  215W
  case (a) the name of the category, (b) the numbers of (i) men and (ii) women in the category, (c) the amount of training obligations for the category, (d) the number of (i) men and (ii) women who fulfilled that training obligation in the last year, (e) the call-out commitment of the category and (f) the number of personnel in the category with whom there has been written communication in the last year to confirm (i) addresses and other personal particulars and (ii) continued availability for call-out commitment. [102828]

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

  Air Losses (Kosovo)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what type of manned and unmanned aircraft or air vehicles were lost during operations over Kosovo in 1999; and what is their replacement value. [101862]

  Mr. Hoon
  Over the 78 days of Operation Allied Force, the UK lost 12 Phoenix Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs) although only two of these were lost to direct enemy air defence activity. Additionally, one RAF C-130 Hercules was lost outside Yugoslav airspace.

  The approximate capital cost of the RAF C-130 aircraft is £15 million at 1998 prices. The original cost of the 12 Phoenix UAVs was in the region of £3.5 million. No final decision has yet been made on whether to replace these UAVs on a like for like basis but, if we were to do so, replacement costs would be subject to negation with the prime contractor.

  Nuclear Plant Safety (USA)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the health and safety record of nuclear-related plants managed by Lockheed Martin in the USA; and if they have incurred fines or had plants closed for health and safety reasons by the Department of Energy. [101863]

  Mr. Hoon
  The health and safety record of a US contractor operating under a US regulatory regime is a matter for the US authorities. I can confirm that the AWE Management Limited consortium, which will operate the Atomic Weapons Establishment from 1 April 2000 and of which Lockheed Martin is a member, will be subject to strict supervision by the Ministry of Defence and close regulation by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.

  Departmental Lost Property
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the items of equipment and furniture and their cost that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from his Department and its agencies during the last 12 months, identifying items valued at £5,000 or more, and separately identifying information technology material. [102836]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  My Department makes a statement on losses in its annual Appropriation Accounts. The Accounts for financial year 1998–99 will be published shortly. The detailed information requested is, however, not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Army Intelligence Corps
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the decision was taken to stand down the Research Unit of the Army Intelligence Corps; and if he will make a statement.[101865]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am withholding this information under Exemption la of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Military Insignia (Copyright)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the past two years legal action has been taken to collect fees levied for use of badges, crests and insignia of Her Majesty's armed forces; and what penalties have been imposed for infringement of Crown copyright in such cases. [101870]

  Mr. Spellar
  Over the past two years it has not been necessary to initiate legal proceedings in connection with the non-payment of fees for the reproduction of badges, crests and insignia of Her Majesty's Armed Forces.

  Defence White Paper
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for publishing a Defence White Paper. [103043]

  Mr. Hoon
  I will publish a Defence White Paper on Monday 20 December.

  CHARM 3
  Shona Mclsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement on the CHARM 3 training ammunition competition; and if he will make a statement.[103042]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I am please to announce that, following a competition and subject to the negotiation of satisfactory terms and conditions, we have decided to award a contract to Royal Ordnance for the development and initial production of 120mm training ammunition for the Challenger 2 tank. This is good news for the company and will provide the Army with training ammunition to match Challenger 2's excellent performance and capability.

  In addition, discussions between MOD and Royal Ordnance on a possible Partnering Arrangement are progressing very well. We signed a Partnering Principles document on 8 October, which defined our mutual objectives, including the achievement of improved value for money for the MOD as customer, and profitability for the company. Negotiations are continuing and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly. In the event that an agreement is reached, the intention is that CHARM 3 Training Round would be included within the scope of any such Agreement.

  Military Forces (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many patrols were carried out by each battalion stationed in Northern Ireland in the last month for which figures are available, broken down by police district and approximate district council constituencies.[101868]
  217W
  Mr. Spellar
  The number of patrols that were carried out by each battalion stationed in Northern Ireland in November 1999, broken down by each police district and

  Battalion

  Police division

  Approximate district council boundaries

  Number of patrols

  3 Infantry Brigade

  Armagh Roulement Battalion

  H

  Armagh, Newry and Mourne

  247

  East Tyrone Roulement Battalion

  K

  Cookstown, Dungannon

  160

  Ballykinler Battalion

  G

  Down, Ards, Newry and Mourne

  12

  3rd Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment

  J

  Craigavon, Lisburn, Banbridge

  185

  8th Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment

  H

  Armagh

  228

  8 Infantry Brigade

  Ballykelly Battalion

  N

  Limavady, Strabane

  12

  Londonderry Battalion

  N

  Londonderry, Strabane

  0

  Omagh Battalion

  L

  Omagh, Dungannon, Fermanagh

  104

  4th Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment

  L

  Fermanagh

  305

  5th Royal Irish Regiment

  Magherafelt, Limavady, Coleraine, Moyle, Larne, Antrim,

  O

  Ballymena, Ballymoney

  11

  39 Infantry Brigade

  Belfast Roulement Battalion

  B

  Belfast

  0

  Holywood Battalion

  D

  North Down, Carrickfergus, Newtownabbey

  0

  7th Royal Irish Regiment

  A and E

  Belfast, North Down, Castlereagh

  0

  9th Royal Irish Regiment

  D and B

  Lisburn, Antrim

  0

  A patrol is defined as any foot or mobile patrol in support of the RUC regardless of size or duration. Patrols conducted by the Army for local security around bases are not included.

  Some battalions operate in more than one Police Division. Police Divisions are not coterminous with District Council boundaries. These delineations are therefore only approximate and in some cases a Council area may be covered by more than one Battalion, e.g. Lisburn.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the overall strength in September(a) 1998 and (b) 1999 was of military forces in Northern Ireland, broken down into the numbers attached to the (i) RAF, (ii) Royal Navy (iii) RIR, (iv) RIR part-time and (v) others. [101866]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Strength 1998

  Strength 1999

  Army (General Service)

  110,873

  210,491

  Royal Air Force

  1,152

  1,150

  Royal Navy

  321

  182

  Unit

  Strength

  Length of Tour

  The 1st Battalion the Scots Guards

  604

  2 years—until April 2000

  The 1st Battalion the Royal Welsh Fusiliers

  608

  2 years—until August 2000

  The 1st Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment

  595

  2 years—until May 2001

  The 1stBattalion the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment

  639

  2 years—until December 2001

  The 1st Battalion The Royal Green Jackets

  590

  2 years—until March 2001

  The 1st Battalion the Coldstream Guards

  531

  6 months—until March 2000

  The 1st Battalion the Grenadier Guards

  500

  6 months—until December 1999

  The 1st Battalion the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire

  443

  6 months—until May 2000

  218W
  approximate district council constituencies are set out in the table:

  Strength 1998

  Strength 1999

  The Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service Full Time)

  2,627

  2,536

  The Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service Part Time)

  1,961

  1,841

  Total

  16,934

  16,200

  1Includes the Province Reserve Battalion and the Urban Reinforcement Battalion which are fully committed to Northern Ireland although only one company of each was deployed to the Province as at 30 September 1998. Also includes the Rural Reinforcement Battalion which was committed but not deployed at that time.

  2Includes the three Northern Ireland Reinforcement Battalions (Urban, Rural and Drumadd) which are fully committed to Northern Ireland but as of 17 November 1998 were all rear-based on the Mainland. It also includes the Province Reserve Battalion which is also fully committed to the Province but had only one company in Northern Ireland as at 30 September 1999.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Army regiments currently deployed in Northern Ireland, indicating(a) the numbers attached to each and (b) the estimated duration of their tour of duty; and if he will make a statement on planned deployment during the next 12 months. [101867]

  Mr. Spellar
  The British Army General Service Infantry Battalions currently deployed in Northern Ireland are listed in the table, along with their strength and tour length:
  219W
  Apart from one company of The 1st Battalion The King's Regiment, the following are fully committed to

  Unit

  Strength

  Length of Tour

  The 1st Battalion the King's Regiment

  579

  2 years—until April 2001

  12 Regiment Royal Artillery

  335

  6 months—until April 2000

  The 2nd Battalion The Light Infantry

  335

  6 months—until December 1999

  7 Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery

  425

  6 months—until January 2000

  Note:

  Figures as at 3 December 1999

  In addition there are six Home Service Battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment, totalling 4,377 soldiers, comprising both full-time and part-time members, which are wholly committed to service to Northern Ireland, but not shown in the above table.

  Details of future deployments to the Province are being withheld under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Number of patrols

  Battalion

  Accompanied by RUC

  Unaccompanied by RUC

  3rd Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  61

  124

  4th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  305

  0

  5th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  11

  0

  7th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  0

  0

  8th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  73

  155

  9th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  0

  0

  A patrol is defined as any foot or mobile patrol in support of the RUC regardless of size of duration. Patrols conducted by the Army for local security around bases are not included.

  Ordnance Replacement Costs
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the replacement costs of(a) Paveway II, (b) Paveway III, (c) RBL 755, (d) 10001b bomb, (e) Alarm and (f) sea-launched cruise missile. [102674]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 30 November 1999,Official Report, column 83W.

PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Service Modernisation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has received the substantive report on progress in modernising the Civil Service which was promised in the "Modernising Government" White Paper; and if he will make a statement. [102987]

  The Prime Minister
  I am very pleased to be able to report that the Head of the Home Civil Service, Sir Richard Wilson, has sent me his report on Civil Service reform.

  The world in which the Civil Service operates is changing. Information technology, the media, electronic communications, Europe, modernisation of the
  220W
  Northern Ireland under control of the GOC but are not currently deployed to the Province.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Irish Regiment patrols were(a) accompanied by the RUC and (b) unaccompanied in the last month for which figures are available. [101869]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of Royal Irish Regiment patrols accompanied by a member of the RUC and those unaccompanied for the month of November 1999 are set out in the table:

  constitution, and public demand for higher quality services are all changing fast, and the Civil Service needs to change too.

  Sir Richard and his colleagues have set out an excellent and exciting programme, which I fully endorse. It is designed to ensure that the Civil Service is fully equipped to deliver the Modernising Government agenda, and to meet the challenges of the 21st century. A Modernisation Fund of £100 million over two years has been set up to support the programme. Sir Richard and his colleagues will be leading these changes with the full support of the Government and, I hope, the House. I would like to pay tribute to the quality of the Civil Service. I believe that a sign of this quality is the fact that the Service has recognised for itself the need for further improvement and is now driving forward such an ambitious programme of reform. A copy of the Report has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 December. [102584]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning, I had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.

  Mid Essex Hospital Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Prime Minister what information the Government have compiled on the degree
  221W
  of compliance by Mid Essex Hospital Trust with the Government's undertaking that treatment for in-patients will be carried out within 18 months. [101942]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: The Government are committed to ensuring that no patient has to wait more than 18 months for treatment. To reinforce this aim Sir Alan Langlands, the National Health Service Chief Executive, has asked NHS trusts to review their waiting lists and to tighten their procedures.

  As a result of this work, a number of patients at Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust have been identified as waiting over 18 months for treatment 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 NHS 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.

HEALTH

  Correspondence
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire's letters of 23 August regarding Mrs. G. Hague, and 29 September regarding Mr. P. Hodgson. [102798]

  Yvette Cooper
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply to his question as soon as possible.

  Disablement Services
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people are waiting for an eligibility assessment for an electronically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchair; [102318]

  (2) how many extra contractual referrals took place during their last year of operation in respect of (a) orthotics, (b) prosthetics and (c) wheelchairs; [102316]

  (3) how many people who have been assessed as being eligible for an electronically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchair are waiting for one; [102319]

  (4) how many out of area treatments have taken place for (a) orthotics, (b) prosthetics and (c) wheelchairs. [102315]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) artificial limbs and (b) wheelchairs were issued by the National Health Service in 1997–98.[102320]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service issued 1,276 powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs in 1997–98. Information on how many artificial limbs were issued is not available centrally.

  NHS Dentists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to encourage NHS dentists to keep(a) their skills and (b) the treatments they offer up to date. [102354]

  Mr. Hutton
  The General Dental Council has agreed proposals with the dental profession for a 'recertification' scheme whereby dentists would not be allowed to remain registered unless they showed evidence that they were participating in continuing education and training. We support these proposals and are drawing up an order to make the necessary amendments to the Dentists Act 1984 by means of Section 60 of the Health Act 1999.

  Abortion
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he received the recent surveys carried out by Voice for Choice on abortion services; and what steps are being taken to ensure that the criteria for obtaining an NHS abortion are standardised throughout England and Wales;[101933]

  (2) if he will ensure that health authorities set up a central telephone helpline and booking system for use by women, doctors and other health professionals in line with the Family Planning Association's recommendations following their recent survey on abortion. [101934]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: Officials received a copy of the surveys on 6 December.

  It is for local health commissioners to determine the appropriate level of gynaecological provision, including abortion services, in the light of the needs of their local populations. The national sexual health strategy which is currently being developed will look at all aspects of sexual health including access to services.

  In addition the White Paper "The new NHS" outlines a number of steps which we will be taking to improve the consistency of service provision throughout the NHS. Health improvement programmes (HImPs) are being drawn up by health authorities in consultation with NHS trusts, primary care groups, primary care professionals, local authorities, the public and other partner organisations such as voluntary organisations. The HImP sets out the strategic direction on improving health and on delivering better health and social care as well as setting out the framework for action on commissioning services.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to give women in Northern Ireland the same rights to abortion as those given to women in England, Scotland and Wales. [101930]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: There are no plans to extend the Abortion Act 1967, as amended, to Northern Ireland.

  Secure Accommodation
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional places in local authority secure accommodation have been provided since 1 May 1997; and how many he plans to provide. [102766]
  223W
  Mr. Hutton
  At 31 March 1997 there were 346 approved places in local authority secure accommodation in England and Wales. A further 110 places have since been made available. Eight more places will become available next year. Decisions have yet to be taken on the development of secure accommodation beyond this spending period.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the further report by Sheffield University into the effectiveness of NHS Direct; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library. [102776]

  Ms Stuart
  Sheffield University's second interim report into the effectiveness of NHS Direct is expected early in the New Year. The University's final report is expected in spring 2000. Copies of the reports will be placed in the Library.

  Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre; and if he will make a statement. [103044]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre in Birmingham has made an important and valued contribution to the treatment and care of some of the most difficult and disturbed young people with whom the child care system has had to deal, and has been influential in the lives of many young people.

  When the Centre opened in 1978, except for St. Charles the other Youth Treatment Centre in Essex, which has since closed, there were no comparable facilities for accommodating and treating such difficult and disturbed young people. Since then, however, local authorities have developed their own secure accommodation and have become skilled and experienced in dealing with many young people needing secure care. The Department of Health has undertaken a major building and refurbishment programme in recent years to strengthen the range and geographical spread of local authority accommodation by providing an additional 170 places for young people. There will be funding in the coming year to continue this programme of upgrading and refurbishment.

  From April 2000, the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales will become responsible for commissioning and purchasing places in the secure juvenile estate for remanded and sentenced young people. The Board has decided that it does not wish to use the Glenthorne Centre for this purpose. As up to half the young people accommodated in the Centre at any one time are placed there by the Prison Service it would be extremely difficult to continue to run the Centre as a viable unit without these placements. There are also good child care practice issues to be considered. Because of the growth in experience and provision in the wider child care field, these young people can now be cared for in a number of appropriate locations and need not be labelled as "the worst in the country" by virtue of being placed in only one facility. For these reasons, I therefore intend to consult the staff and their representatives about the future of the unit, including its possible closure. The consultation period will last three months, at the end of which I will make my final decision on the future of the Centre.

  Generic Drugs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to offset the impact of a rise in the price of generic drugs in those health authority areas with a high use of such drugs. [102447]

  Ms Stuart
  All health authorities should have contingency arrangements in place to manage this and similar financial pressures within their unified budgets.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Billy Gorman and Paddy McKinney
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will place a copy of the judgment of the Court of Appeal on the 1980 conviction of Billy Gorman and Paddy McKinney in the Library. [101871]

  Mr. Lock
  Copies of the judgment have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Bilateral Concordat Wales.
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to publish the bilateral concordat between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales. [103046]

  Jane Kennedy
  I am pleased to announce that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and the First Secretary have agreed the text of the Concordat between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales. Copies of the Concordat have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and the text is available on the Lord Chancellor's Department website (www.open.gov.uk/lcd-see 'What's New?').

  I hope that the Concordat will mark the beginning of a fruitful and co-operative working relationship between the Department and the National Assembly.

  Advisory Committee (Eighth Report)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on legal education and conduct intends to publish its eighth and final annual report. [103045]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct has today published its eighth and final annual report, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

CABINET OFFICE

  Scottish and Welsh Ministers (Briefing Costs)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office from which budgets the costs of briefing Scottish and Welsh Executive Ministers by UK ministries for replying to debates in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are found. [101550]
  225W
  Mr. Stringer
  Any costs involved in assisting the devolved administrations are borne by the Department concerned.

  Modernisation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what discussions she has had with trade union representatives and others on modernising Government. [101551]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I meet the trade unions regularly to discuss Modernising Government, among other topics.

  I have recently discussed the modernisation agenda with Sir Jeremy Beecham of the Local Government Association, with members of the senior civil service and with representatives of the business and voluntary sectors.

  Social Exclusion
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made in implementing the reports of the social exclusion unit. [101552]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  All five of the Social Exclusion Unit reports—on rough sleeping, truancy, teenage pregnancy, poor neighbourhoods, and training for 16–18 year olds—are being implemented.

  In my new role as Chair of the Ministerial Network on Social Exclusion I will be making sure that the implementation process works, so that we deliver real change on the ground—where it counts.

  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement about the implementation of policies designed to tackle social exclusion. [101560]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  We aim to create a fairer society, in the next two decades, in which no child lives in poverty. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to take on a new role with the Social Exclusion Unit to make sure that joined-up government, particularly for deprived areas and people, is a reality both inside Whitehall and in every part of the country.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the Government's annual report on non-departmental bodies will be published. [101553]

  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the Government's annual report on non-departmental bodies will be published. [101555]

  Mr. Stringer
  "Public Bodies 1999" will be published tomorrow.

  The 1999 Executive Non-departmental Public Bodies Report will be published in January 2000 as stated in the Modernising Government Action Plan.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the cases in which powers formerly held by non-departmental public bodies have been transferred to elected bodies since 1 May 1997. [102513]
  226W
  Mr. Stringer
  The Government have transferred around 200 non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) to democratically elected chambers in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the number of(a) non-departmental public bodies and (b) task forces in England (i) on 1 May 1997, (ii) on 1 May 1998 and (iii) at the latest date for which figures are available. [102486]

  Mr. Stringer
  Information on the number of non-departmental public bodies in England, and throughout the UK, is published annually in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". Copies are available from the Library of the House. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 9 December 1999,Official Report, column 634W, for information on the number of task forces.

  Better Government for Older People
  Dr.Iddon
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the progress of the better Government for older people pilot schemes. [101556]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The programme continues to make good progress towards delivering real improvements in older people's experience of public services.

  The Bolton pilot, which I visited on 26 November, impressed me with a number of significant achievements: a new day care centre for Asian elders and better access to benefits information via a new touch-screen IT link.

  Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office discussed with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chairman of the Local Government Association how best to bring other service providers up to the high standards of the pilot projects once the programme's pilot phase comes to an end next year.

  Ms Blears
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress is being made in implementing better Government for older people. [101568]

  Mr. Stringer
  The programme continues to make good progress towards delivering real improvements in older people's experience of public services.

  Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State discussed with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chairman of the Local Government Association how best to bring other service providers up to the high standards of the pilot projects once the programme's pilot phase comes to an end next year.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress is being made in delivering the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [101557]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) today, column 261.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what guidance is given by her office to Special Advisers in Government Departments on the limitations to be observed on their political involvement. [101559]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Detailed guidance for Special Advisers on their role and responsibilities is set out in the "Model Contract for Special Advisers". This includes the rules governing the involvement of Special Advisers in political activities.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the number of advisers employed by the Government. [101562]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  There are 68 Special Advisers serving Cabinet Ministers. In addition, I have appointed Mr. Keith Hellawell as the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator and Mr. Michael Trace as his Deputy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has appointed Professor Michael Barber as the Standards and Effectiveness Adviser and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has appointed Mr. Chris Wales, Mr. Paul Gregg and Ms Shriti Vadera as members of the Council of Economic Advisers. All are employed on Special Adviser terms.

  Rural Affairs
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what actions she is taking to ensure inter-departmental co-ordination on rural affairs. [101561]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I am chairing the new Cabinet Committee to co-ordinate the Government's policies affecting rural areas.

  Inter-departmental Reviews
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proposals she has to enable parliamentary scrutiny of the recently announced inter-departmental reviews. [101564]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Interdepartmental reviews can be scrutinised in the normal way by ministerial accountability to Parliament.

  Internet
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps her Department is taking to make use of the internet in communications between Government and business. [101565]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Cabinet Office is investigating ways of increasing the amount of electronic communication with business, including the use of the Government Procurement Card, e-commerce discussions with major suppliers, and making procurement information available on the Department's website.

  Since the autumn of this year the Cabinet Office IT Infrastructure Division has provided access to the internet for all the Department's staff (via the Government Secure Intranet). This makes it possible for the Cabinet Office to communicate effectively with other departments and business and greatly facilitates meeting the Government's target for doing business electronically.
  228W
  The Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) has established, and manages, a number of procurement schemes under which public sector organisations can purchase a wide range of IT and telecommunications products and services from the private sector using the internet.

  Information Champions
  Mr. White
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the role of the information champions; and what progress has been made since the committee was set up. [101566]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Information Age Government Champions (IAGC) lead work in support of the Corporate IT Strategy. They take ownership on behalf of departments and agencies and report to Ministers and the Modernising Government Project Board. Members include representatives from departments, the NHS and local government. The IAGC have agreed a programme of work that will result in the publication in March 2000 of the Corporate IT Strategy for government. Further details of the work of the IAGC can be found on their website http://www.iagchampions.gov.uk).

  Regional Initiatives (Funding)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what discussions she has had with those of her Cabinet colleagues responsible for co-ordinating the delivery of economic development funding, European funding and other regional initiatives. [101567]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have no Ministerial responsibility for these policy areas but of course I participate fully in collective discussion of them.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on progress made by the Social Exclusion Unit in meeting the Government's target to reduce homelessness. [101569]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Social Exclusion Unit's report on Rough Sleeping sets the target of reducing the number of those who sleep rough by two thirds by 2002. The Rough Sleepers Unit in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is responsible for action to meet this target and they have today published an implementation strategy for England.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many deregulation proposals her Department expects to be introduced in 2000. [101570]

  Mr. Stringer
  There are about nine proposals under consideration at the moment.

  As my hon. Friend will know through his valuable work as Chairman of the Deregulation Committee, I will be introducing legislation in this session of Parliament to remove barriers to wider application of the current deregulation order-making powers. I am confident this will lead to more proposals coming forward for consideration by the Deregulation Committee.

  Civil Service (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what measures she is taking to tackle the under-representation of ethnic minorities in the civil service. [101571]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government are committed to redressing under-representation and we are actively working to recruit and retain ethnic minorities at all levels in the Civil Service. Some key measures include the appointment of an Outreach Worker to work with ethnic minority university groups to promote careers in the Civil Service, and a Civil Service ethnic minority careers fair which will be held annually.

  Meetings
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will include in the Government's Annual report dates of Cabinet meetings held and their duration. [101563]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  No.

  Breakdown of additional anti-drugs money

  £ million

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total

  PSS (purchase of community care services) Local Authority

  3

  5

  12.5

  20.5

  NHS—Health Authorities drug misuse special allocation

  12

  18

  20

  50

  Comprehensive provision for treatment of problem drug users in prison and effective links between prisons and community

  20

  20

  20

  60

  Voluntary drug testing in every prison

  2

  5

  5

  12

  Piloting of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders followed by comprehensive Implementation subject to evaluation

  1

  20

  40

  61

  Development Funding for Drug Action Teams

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  4.5

  Department of Health prevention work

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Research

  2

  2

  2

  6

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  217

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many fast track civil servants have been recruited to Government departments since May 1997. [101558]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  We recruited 766 Civil Servants on to the Fast Stream Development Programme between May 1997 and the end of October this year. 448 of those were recruited to the General Fast Stream and 318 to specialist schemes.

  Quangos
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she is taking to ensure wider diversity in appointments to quangos. [101547]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Government are committed to ensuring that public appointments are open to a wide field of candidates.

  My Department co-ordinates the work of other Departments in taking forward their published action plans to achieve equality of opportunity for all.

  Drugs
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much money has been spent to date on each area of the Government's anti-drugs strategy announced following the comprehensive spending review. [102662]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  It is not possible at this stage of the financial year to provide the information in the format requested.

  The Comprehensive Expenditure Review 1997–98 estimated drug-related spending across the UK to be in the region of £1.4 billion.

  The 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review settlement provided an additional £217 million over three years directed to health, local authorities and criminal justice agencies for targeted anti-drugs activities. The table details allocations.

  In addition, in July 1999, the Home Secretary announced the availability of a further £20 million for the development of Arrest Referral Schemes to get drug misusers into treatment.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Imported Chickens
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if(a) chicken meat and (b) chicken products imported from Thailand and Brazil are produced from animals raised using antibiotics that are banned in the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [100403]

  Ms Quin
  The details of antibiotics authorised for use in Thailand and Brazil are not currently available. However, like all other third countries that wish to export meat and other animal products to the EU, Thailand and Brazil are required to submit to the European Commission their plans for testing for residues of veterinary medicinal products including antibiotics.

  Cattle Incineration
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy on direct incineration of over-thirty-month scheme cattle. [100827]

  Ms Quin
  EU Commission Regulation 716/96 requires that OTMS animals be incinerated, or rendered and destroyed. The Intervention Board (IB), which is
  231W
  responsible for the administration of the scheme in the UK, looks to maintain a balance between direct carcase incineration and rendering. On the basis of capacity and cost considerations, the IB has determined that rendering should be the primary disposal route for OTMS animals. IB has contracted meat and bone meal incineration capacity to meet its needs for the foreseeable future. Direct carcase incineration will continue to play an important part in the scheme, in particular for casualty animals slaughtered on-farm.

  Flood Defence Review
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the results of the Flood Defence Review. [101448]

  Mr. Morley
  I assume this question refers to the action which the Government undertook in response to the 1998 Agriculture Select Committee Report on Flood and Coastal Defence, in particular the review of flood defence funding mechanisms. That review is continuing. A consultation exercise took place earlier this year and the comments received are currently being considered and an announcement on the conclusions will be made in due course.

  The Government continue to review progress on implementation of the Environment Agency's Action Plan for implementing the Independent Report on the Easter 1998 Floods, and have published the Agency's quarterly progress reports, most recently on 11 November 1999. Interim High Level Targets for flood and coastal defence operating authorities were published in May. These have been superseded by more comprehensive targets, published on 19 November, which will take effect from 1 April 2000.

  Departmental Employees (Disabled People)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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 within his Department. [101668]

  Mr. Morley
  6.8 per cent. of staff in core MAFF have declared that they consider they have a disability which falls within the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The percentage is 6.0 per cent. when Agency staff are included.

  We encourage the employment of people with disabilities by including equal opportunities statements in all job advertisements and providing reasonable adjustments at interview and during employment. For most clerical posts and equivalents we offer selection tests for people with disabilities who do not have the required academic qualifications. We employ people under the Employment Service's Supported Employment Scheme and provide mechanisms for helping staff with disabilities to adjust to any changes in their situation. We also have an ongoing programme of building works to improve access for people with disabilities.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Financial Instruments Fisheries Guidance grants received by(a) the Scottish fishing fleet
  232W
  and (b) the England fishing fleet will be mainly funded by the United Kingdom under the Fontainebleau arrangement. [102177]

  Mr. Morley
  Final decisions have not yet been taken on what Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) grants will be available to either the Scottish or English fishing fleet for the period 2000–06, but any introduced would be mainly funded by the United Kingdom taxpayer. Under the Fontainebleau arrangement it effectively costs the UK taxpayer around 71p for every £1 of EU money spent int he UK.

  FIFG grants are also dependent on a minimum level of additional national grant which would be wholly funded by the United Kingdom taxpayer. The proportion of the total grant of this national element would vary depending on the type of work aided and whether or not it is in an Objective 1 area.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department has spent on fisheries in each of the past five years; and what is his estimate of spending on fisheries in each of the next three years. [102397]

  Mr. Morley
  Grant in aid paid by the Department of the Environment to the National Rivers Authority, the Environment Agency's predecessor, for salmon and freshwater fisheries work was as follows:

  £ million

  1994–95

  111.1

  1995–96

  19.7

  1 England and Wales

  Details of grant in aid paid by MAFF to the Environment Agency are as follows:

  £million

  1996–97

  17.5

  1997–98

  17.4

  1998–99

  222.1

  1999–2000

  34.8

  2000–01

  34.8

  2001–02

  33.3

  1England and Wales.

  2In 1998–99 there was a temporary change in the rules whereby all revenue from licence fees was returned to Treasury but with an equivalent increase in grant in aid. The underlying figure for MAFF grant in aid is £7.9 million, which included a one-off additional payment of £0.5 million to assist the enforcement of the salmon conservation byelaws.

  3 England only.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions regarding the impact on the Environment Agency of cuts in the fisheries budget. [102398]

  Mr. Morley
  I have not discussed this matter with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions but I have done so with the Chairman of the Environment Agency.
  233W
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect of reduction in grant-in-aid on the Environment Agency's capacity to carry out its functions with regard to fishing in the North West Region. [102395]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on 27 October 1999,Official Report, column 922W.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [102338]

  Mr. Morley
  This information is not held centrally and with around 200 properties on the MAFF estate, gathering the information would involve disproportionate cost.

  We have the following figures for 19 of our major sites (including London HQ offices, HQ offices in York and Guildford and our Regional Service Centres):

  Rooms set aside for:

  Number

  (a) Ethnic minority religious use

  0

  (b) Pregnant and nursing mothers

  6

  (c) Smoking

  28

  Some of our larger sites have more than one building, which accounts for there being more smoking rooms than sites.

  Most of the Department's sites have first-aid rooms and/or meeting rooms. These areas are flexible and are made available to meet any reasonable requests from staff, including religious use and needs of pregnant and nursing mothers.

  Early Retirement (Farmers)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his reasons for deciding not to pursue an early retirement scheme for farmers; and if he will estimate the projected cost of such a scheme. [102799]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 December 1999]: In reaching a decision not to run an early retirement scheme, account has been taken of the results of consultation, an economic appraisal, and the scope for restructuring provided by other instruments under the Rural Development Regulation and elsewhere. The consultation showed that views were mixed on the benefits of a scheme. While it could contribute to restructuring, the cost would outweigh that benefit. A scheme would also be very complex and costly to administer and would be very difficult to target only to those most in need.

  The cost of a scheme would depend entirely on the rates paid—which are laid down in the Rural Development Regulation—and on the targets set.

  Religious Slaughter
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will assess the extent to which meat from religious slaughter is sold to the general public without being labelled as such. [102259]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 December 1999]: Figures on meat production do not separately distinguish meat produced from the religious slaughter of animals.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to make it his policy to ensure that all meat from religiously slaughtered animals is labelled as such; and if he will make a statement. [102256]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 December 1999]: We have no plans to do so.

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.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Personal Statement
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to make a personal statement. Yesterday afternoon I intervened in the debate on the Question in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. On reading my intervention, I have come to the firm conclusion that it was untimely, ill-thought out and may well have caused offence, which I pray your Lordships will accept was not my intention. I apologise sincerely and unreservedly to your Lordships' House in general and to the noble Baroness in particular.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

EU Tobacco Subsidy
Baroness Jegerasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why does the European Union continue to subsidise the growing of tobacco; and how much was spent on this subsidy in the last financial year.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government strongly disapprove of the common agricultural policy support regime for tobacco introduced in 1970 to support production in disadvantaged areas of the Community. We have argued consistently that the Community should progressively disengage from support for tobacco production on the g rounds of health and cost. We shall continue to press for further progress in that area. In the year ended 30th September 1998—the last year for which figures are available—just over 870 million ecus were spent on tobacco premia.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I have asked the same Question in the House for about seven years. Every time I receive a similar Answer: that the Government do not approve of subsidising tobacco growing, but because of the CAP we are bound to dish out money for it. Does the Minister realise that there is a contradiction here? Quite rightly, we spend millions of pounds on campaigns to stop people smoking in this country and to stop advertising and yet we ask the British taxpayer to pay taxes to subsidise the growing of tobacco. I believe that that is unsupportable.
210
Does the Minister realise that much of the tobacco that is grown in Europe is substandard? According to the World Health Organisation, a great deal of that tobacco is exported to the poorer countries of the world, where, as the WHO also tells us, smoking is increasing. I hope that some thought will be given to the ridiculous situation of sending subsidised tobacco to the poorest people in the world while spending millions on telling our own people not to smoke.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the points made by my noble friend. We have to recognise the contradictory nature of paying premia for a product that gives rise to such grave health concerns and which damages so many people's lives and health. My noble friend says that she has asked this Question for seven years. As she will know, there was some reform of the tobacco regime in 1992 with the introduction of a clawback arrangement of 1 per cent of the premia. In 1998 there was a modulation of the premia according to quality and a quota buy-back system for growers wishing to leave the sector. The clawback arrangements were increased to 2 per cent.
However, I recognise what the noble Baroness says about the quality of the tobacco that is grown and the way in which it is exported. The Government recognise and share the concerns. They have done all that they can and will continue to work in that area, but being part of a union where there are eight producer nations means that it is not so easy to make the progress that we would like.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is it the intention that all subsidies, including those that are camouflaged, will become illegal under World Trade Organisation rules?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the outcome of the latest WTO negotiations is so clouded as not to allow me to give an absolute Answer to the noble Viscount at the moment. However, I shall write to him on that issue.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I apologise for putting the matter this way, but can the Minister answer the Question on the Order Paper? Why does the European Union continue this absurd folly? In relation to the second part of the Question, can she say how much the United Kingdom contributes to the £700 million or £800 million that go down that classical "Euro drain"?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I tried to answer the Question. I was asked how much was spent on the subsidy in the last financial year. I gave the last available figure which, as the noble Lord may be interested to know, was 2.5 per cent of the overall CAP payments. I cannot work out the British share of that amount in my head, but I shall do so back at the office and write to him on that point.

211
I also said that the reason that the CAP support regime was introduced in the first place was to support production in disadvantaged areas of the Community, to maintain farmers' incomes and to reduce surpluses by adapting production to market needs. I imagine that that is the same reason that it is supported by those countries where tobacco producers operate now.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, according to recent authenticated reports, this area of expenditure was the subject of considerable fraud which brought into disrepute the whole way in which these funds are administered, both centrally and regionally? Will my noble friend agree that once again this is the result of qualified majority voting applying to all European expenditure and the allocation of resources? Will she agree also that any further endeavour to introduce qualified majority voting ought to be resisted with the support, I imagine, of the entire United Kingdom population?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I always hesitate to answer on behalf of the entire United Kingdom population in these matters. My noble friend is absolutely right that this matter is governed by qualified majority voting and that fraud has been a serious problem in this sector. The reforms in 1992 to which I referred reduced the opportunity for fraud by eliminating intervention and export refunds and by simplifying the premium arrangements, reducing the categories of tobacco on which payment was made from 34 to eight. The member states were also required to set up national control agencies in order to oversee the payment of premiums, the administration of the quota system and the contractual arrangements. Expenditure is going down in this area but, as I said before, we still believe it is too great.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister realise that she has my sympathy on this occasion, as well as sympathy for the noble Baroness who asked the Question? I spent a great many years answering in her place on this subject. As far as I remember I was told that most of the money goes to Greece for areas where they can grow nothing else.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness recalls well. Greece is one of the areas, together with France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Austria and Italy, that receives subsidy in this regard. It is a major problem because major investment is often required to help people to change. The alternative crops are often themselves in surplus, like olive oil and wine. Added to that, tobacco still attracts the highest premiums per hectare under the CAP regime. Changing things is therefore not an easy task.

NHS Financial Deficit
2.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jonesasked Her Majesty's Government:
What they anticipate the NHS financial deficit will be in this financial year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the latest forecast of income and expenditure for health authorities and NHS trusts is a deficit of £197 million.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is not the Minister being unduly reticent in his reply? Some of the forecasts that have been made have been of a deficit this year of £400 million with an accumulated deficit of over £1 billion, with worse to come next year. Is it not time, rather than denying the extent of the deficit or preventing it being published by finance officers of the NHS, for the Secretary of State to accept that the NHS is severely under-funded and that he should do his best to secure greater funding in the Comprehensive Spending Review next year?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the figure I have given is the best forecast we have. I believe the noble Lord is referring to the accumulated deficit of £1 billion talked about by the Healthcare Financial Management Association. I am glad to say that it is indulging in realms of fantasy. The House will well know that, in relation to resources for the NHS, through the Comprehensive Spending Review we have put in a large amount of additional growth money—4.9 per cent increase in real terms this year. Through that we are enabled to provide real improvements to the National Health Service. Thirty-seven new hospitals are either being built or are in the process of being built. There is much greater access to services. The NHS is undergoing a fundamental modernisation programme which we are funding.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what proportion of that deficit will be for the London area alone? Is it much worse off than other parts of the country? In view of the fact that no government are able to adequately fund the National Health Service, is it not time to look at new ways of doing so?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, London has a number of trusts which are facing financial pressures. We are working closely with them to ensure that they take the action that is necessary. In relation to alternative systems of funding, I am not persuaded by the arguments. The system that has been in place since 1948 has served the NHS well. We have the most cost-effective healthcare system in the world. We have shown, by the additional resources that we have

213
invested in the service, that we can sustain the NHS, make it fit for the future and have one of the best and most modern health services in the world.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is it not the case that the much publicised new money that the Government announced for the NHS will be largely swallowed up over the coming two years by cost pressures that cannot be avoided? Will the Minister confirm, for example, that additional pension contributions alone are set to absorb an extra £650 million over that period? That is on top of the huge costs arising from new legislation such as the EU working time directive.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there are elements which come into the budgets of the health service every year; for example, pensions, pay, the working time directive or indeed the rising cost of generic drugs. That is part of the life of the National Health Service. With a three-year Comprehensive Spending Review, it is not always possible to estimate exactly potential increases in budget. However, within the resources that we have made available, I am confident that we have the capacity both to meet those unexpected pressures and to introduce significant improvements in services.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister say whether awards for damages against NHS hospitals come into that total budget? If they do, can the noble Lord say how much such awards amounted to during the past year and tell us what Her Majesty's Government are doing to address the problem?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Countess is certainly right to refer to important and, I think, worrying trends in relation to clinical negligence awards. Within the deficit figure that I mentioned there is certainly provision for the potential future cost of litigation which has been started. The latest figures that I have show that in the 1997–98 summarised accounts for the NHS costs charged to expenditure for clinical negligence amounted to £144 million.
This is a matter of great concern. We have to be very careful in terms of avoiding defensive medicine. We also believe that the more effective clinical governance that we are introducing and the development of evidence-based medicine, will, over time, enable us to tackle these issues.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, in the allocation of resources, can the Minister say whether he has given attention to the appalling situation of the elderly in many of the hospitals, as has been revealed in recent press reports?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are very concerned to ensure that older people being cared for in the NHS receive a first-class quality service. My honourable friend, Mr John Hutton, has made it clear that the Commission for Health Improvement will, as a priority, focus on services for older people in its first inspection round. We are establishing a national
214
service framework on services for older people which will start work next year. It will focus on the very issues raised by the noble Lord.

The Salisbury Convention
2.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Allowayasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they favour retention of the Salisbury convention when Her Majesty's Opposition have no voting majority in either House of Parliament.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): Yes, my Lords. I am sure the noble Lord is aware that the Salisbury/Addison convention has nothing to do with the strength of the parties in either House of Parliament and everything to do with the relationship between the two Houses. The other House—and, with it, the Government—is elected on a universal franchise and, pace the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, no one in this House is elected on that basis. In those circumstances, it must remain the case that it would be constitutionally wrong, when the country has expressed its view, for this House to oppose proposals that have been definitely put before the electorate.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her reply and, indeed, for taking the Question. However, as a matter of principle and leaving aside Wakeham, if we may, for one moment, perhaps I may ask the following question. If the circumstances in which this convention was introduced and implemented no longer exist, can the noble Baroness say whether retention can be justified without further examination? Further, and in this context, can the noble Baroness say whether it is really requisite for the House to determine a self-denying ordinance to replace it? Is it not a matter for the House as master of its own procedures?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, if I understand precisely what the noble Lord is saying, he is asking on what principle the Salisbury/Addison convention was established in 1945. Perhaps I may quote directly from the then Lord Cranborne who, in proposing this, said that,
"we should frankly recognise that these proposals" —
those contained in the election manifesto of the Labour Party at that time—
"were put before the country at the recent General Election and that the people of this country, with full knowledge of these proposals, returned a Labour Party to power. The Government may, therefore, I think, fairly claim that they have a mandate to introduce these proposals". —[Official Report, 16/8/1945; col. 47.]
I am not sure where the noble Lord sees a difference of principle between that situation, which was enunciated and has formed the basis for the Salisbury/Addison convention ever since, and the situation in which we now find ourselves.

215
The noble Lord asked me to ignore the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his Royal Commission, but he will be aware that the Government very precisely put in the commission's terms of reference the need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent Chamber of Parliament. Having reread the recent constitutional lecture given by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on this subject, I believe he reaffirmed that point.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is very kind to say that she has reread my speech to the think-tank Politeia. I hope that she enjoyed it. However, is it not the case that in 1945 this House was entirely hereditary? There were no life Peers at all and very few Labour Peers. That justified the reason for the creation of what we now know as the Salisbury convention.
The noble Baroness has said that this House has changed, that there is a new dynamic, and that the House has a new authority. Therefore, does she agree with the view that I expressed in my speech—the Tory Party's view—that the time has come to re-examine the Salisbury convention and for discussion to take place before a new agreement can be reached between the parties?
Given the noble Baroness's initial Answer, could she possibly write to me—unless, of course, she has the answer to hand now—with a list of the manifesto commitments that she believes bind the House and this Parliament?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Yes, my Lords. I shall be delighted to send the noble Lord a copy of the manifesto, which may answer his question very simply. I shall not burden the House by trying from my inadequate memory to rehearse it to him this afternoon. However, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that he also said in this well-known lecture, which bears more than one rereading, that we should be, in his very felicitous expression, "less grim-jawed" about the Salisbury convention. Frankly, I never regard the noble Lord as being grim jawed at all, but, when speaking about the changing circumstances—and it is a delight to be able to quote him so extensively—he went on to say:
"The House of Lords is not suddenly going to change all that" —
that is to say, the Salisbury/Addison agreement—
"It will always accept the primacy of the elected House. It will always accept that the Queen's Government must be carried on".
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that the day that this House starts conducting a systematic, frontal attack on the legislative proposals of the elected government, that day this House will be signing its death warrant?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend puts it in a very exact form and one which I would hesitate to underline in public. However, if
216
noble Lords were to trespass very broadly on these understandings and conventions, it is very clear that it would indeed change the dynamic of future reform.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, as your Lordships are here concerned with a convention and not a rule of law, is it not the fact that it is relevant only in so far as it is constitutionally required? Is not that a matter for your Lordships and not for the Government to decide? Further, perhaps I may venture a third question: should not this matter be shortly debated again?
Baronesses Jay of Paddington: My Lords, in due deference to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, I say only that I was asked to comment on this matter. I was in no way suggesting that the Government were in any sense doing more than simply reflecting the established position. Of course, matters of procedure in your Lordships' House are for the House as a whole.
The noble and learned Lord asks me to comment on the constitution. I do not know whether he regards Dicey's Law of the Constitution as being an appropriate authority, but perhaps I may quote directly from it:
"The general rule that the House of Lords must in matters of legislation ultimately give way to the House of Commons is one of the best-established maxims of modern constitutional ethics".
Lord Hooson: My Lords—
Lord Denham: My Lords—
Noble Lords: This side!
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I believe that the House would wish to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Denham.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am most grateful. I remember a time when a Labour opposition took a lot of convincing that the Salisbury/Addison convention applied to them as well as to a Tory opposition. Over the years, the convention has gradually evolved to suit the circumstances of the time. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House will realise—will she not? —that there has been a rather substantial change in the balance between the two Houses which must lead to a substantial revaluation of the Salisbury/Addison convention.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: No, my Lords, I am afraid that I cannot accept that. The Conservative hegemony—I use the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer when he replied to a similar debate last week in your Lordships' House—in this House has been altered. As I hope that I suggested in my reply to the original Question from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, the Salisbury/Addison convention is based on the relationship between the two Houses. It has nothing to do with the relative party strengths in this House.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree that the

217
Salisbury convention is not so much a matter of principle as of expediency and convenience for the business of Parliament, and that the conditions which necessitated that convention coming into being still exist at present and will continue until we know what the permanent constitution of the second House is likely to be?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I agree with most of what the noble Lord has said. This matter is about business management, as I hope I made clear when I quoted the words of the then Lord Cranborne in 1945. However, it also concerns the political imperative of the elected party's manifesto commitments. Therefore, it goes a little beyond expediency and can concern the important political principles of the programme which is laid before the electorate.

Elderly Patients: NHS Hospital Treatment
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtreeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to investigate allegations that some elderly patients in NHS hospitals are being denied, or prevented from taking, necessary food and drink.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand that some of the allegations to which the noble Baroness refers are under police investigation. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment further on these. As regards NHS services for older people we are determined to ensure that these are of the highest quality, including the issues of food and drink.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister aware that over 60 cases of maladministration against elderly patients in National Health Service hospitals are now under investigation by the police? The Minister indicates that he is aware of that. How long has he known about that? How does he react to the allegation that food and drink are deliberately being withheld from these people because a dead patient means an empty bed? As the police are taking a long time o investigate these matters, will the Minister consider issuing an immediate instruction to NHS hospitals that such treatment will simply not be tolerated?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot comment on the specifics of the police investigation. It would, of course, be quite wrong to have—and we would utterly condemn—circumstances in which older people were deprived of food and drink.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, has my noble friend, or any of his ministerial colleagues, discussed with elderly people's organisations the Call for Action report co-ordinated by Age Concern and, in
218
particular, its recommendation that the Government should introduce equal opportunities legislation enshrining the principle of age neutrality so that people will no longer be denied access to healthcare or other support or services simply on the grounds of age? Can my noble friend offer any response this afternoon to that important recommendation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have seen the recommendation of Age Concern. I make it clear to noble Lords—I have already said this to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington—that discrimination of any kind in the National Health Service is totally unacceptable. I believe that rather than legislation, the best way forward is effective management of the National Health Service, for which we are responsible. I have already intimated that the Commission for Health Improvement as one of its first priorities will focus on inspecting services for older people in the NHS. The national service framework on services for older people which will be developed next year will, as part of its remit, consider these issues to make sure that the services we provide for older people are of high quality.
Baroness Young: My Lords—
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that it will be more effective if we hear the noble Baroness, Lady Young, first as there is a little time left.
Baroness Young: My Lords, thank you. Leaving aside the question of those patients who are the subject of police investigation, is the noble Lord aware of the extreme urgency of this situation in hospitals? Only this last weekend a terrible case was brought to my attention which concerns a relative of a friend of mine who died of starvation after three weeks in hospital. Is the noble Lord aware that it is not good enough to say that he will await the results of an investigation or an inspection? Does not he agree that this urgent matter requires attention today, not some time in the future?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I can only reiterate that I cannot comment any further on the specific cases which are being investigated at the moment by the police. I have already made it clear that we, as a government, would find it wholly indefensible for food and drink to be withdrawn from older people in the way that has been alleged by noble Lords. Our position is abundantly clear, and clinicians, who ultimately have to make clinical judgments, are well aware of that position.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I direct the Minister to another recommendation of the extremely important Age Concern report mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. It recommended that there should be a full inquiry into the treatment of older people within the NHS in view of the facts that were

219
uncovered in the report. Will the Minister indicate whether the Department of Health will conduct a full inquiry as recommended?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have just made clear that the Commission for Health Improvement will be given as one of its first priorities the responsibility of inspecting services for older people in the NHS. I have already made it clear that the national service framework, which, as the noble Lord knows, is an important and fundamental way of developing policy in the future, will be producing work over the next 12 months. I reiterate that we are determined that older people in the NHS receive a first-class quality service. We are opposed to discrimination of any kind. Although older people form 14 per cent of the population, they use 40 per cent of NHS resources.

Armed Forces Discipline Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Armed Forces Discipline Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 10,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 11 to 13,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 14 to 25,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 26 and 27,

Schedule 4,

Clause 28. — (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing in the South-East
3.8 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvonrose to call attention to the need for housing in the south-east in the years to 2016; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should inform your Lordships that I am chairman of SERPLAN, with no pecuniary interest! I am sure that we all look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. I should like to take this opportunity to clarify SERPLAN's position regarding future development in the south-east following the publication of the Crow Report.
As noble Lords may know, SERPLAN comprises all the planning authorities in London and the south-east: county, unitary, district and the London boroughs, representing about 18 million people—a region approximately the same size as the Paris region.
220
For over two years SERPLAN has been involved with some enthusiasm in producing a sustainable strategy for the south-east. A considerable amount of member and officer time and money have been expended. We also went through a major public consultation exercise before submitting our draft regional planning guidance to the Government. That draft version of the regional planning guidance was submitted to the Deputy Prime Minister last December. We welcomed the principle of a public examination into regional planning guidance and we were impressed also by the five weeks which were devoted to that purpose.
We had no illusions that our strategy was perfect—we have always been open to constructive criticism—but members and officers and, indeed, many people in the south-east, were outraged by the way in which Professor Crow, chairman of the public examination panel, in his report to the Government, set aside SERPLAN's draft regional planning guidance and substituted his own. There is a strong view that Professor Crow has gone well beyond his brief and has not appreciated the new relationship between central and local government implicit in the proposals which the Government have made for modernising regional planning.
There is also widespread concern at the attitude adopted by the panel towards the concept of sustainable development. The draft regional planning guidance is broadly in line with government policy. Professor Crow, however, has described sustainable development as something which is "fashionable". We have not spent two years developing a sustainable development strategy for the south-east just to be fashionable. We are of the view that our strategy is a genuine and largely successful attempt to put sustainable development at the heart of new regional planning.
The Crow report largely echoes the case put forward by the development industry to encourage continued rapid growth to the west and south of London. SERPLAN recognises the vital importance of the south-east to the national economy, but the panel's report brushes aside the problems of congestion and pressure on services and infrastructure already being experienced in those parts of the south-east. Such an approach to economic development would have the ultimate effect of choking off economic growth and prevent the region from realising its full economic potential by bringing forward development opportunities elsewhere in the south-east.
The Crow report also proposes a massive increase in house building, a grand total of 1.3 million new dwellings for the period 1991–2016. This proposed provision is higher even than the Government's own household projections of 1.1 million.
The extensive greenfield requirement implied by proposals for housing provision on this scale would remove the pressure on the development industry to seek out urban opportunities on brownfield land and thereby undermine the achievement of an urban renaissance. Such over-provision would also give the

221
green light to future migration into those parts of the south-east already experiencing severe development pressures at the expense not only of the poor areas of the north of England but also of the less favoured parts of the south-east, such as south east Kent and parts of the south coast, as well as areas of London.
SERPLAN has published its response to the report of the public examination panel and I have deposited copies of the report in the Library of the House. That document sets out the main points of criticism, the nightmare vision proposed for the south-east by Professor Crow, and reaffirms our members' and officers' commitment to SERPLAN'S sustainable development strategy for the region.
The objective is to achieve a more sustainable pattern of development and bring about an urban renaissance by making better use of previously used urban land and buildings and by promoting greater use of public transport.
Traffic congestion is a growing problem. To ensure continued mobility, demand management will be necessary, as well as measures to achieve a shift from use of the private car to better use of public transport and for the integration of the transport system with land-use planning.
We are in favour of economic growth. Indeed, one of the main themes of the strategy is to encourage economic success. What we propose for those areas to the west and south-west of London which are experiencing high levels of economic activity is a strategy to deal with the resulting impacts and pressures on the infrastructure. At the same time, we seek to rebalance the regional economy in favour of those areas which we describe as "priority areas for economic regeneration", such as east Kent and the south coast—to which I have already referred—as well as Thames gateway, which still offers further potential for regeneration.
We aim to make housing provision for the region by meeting housing need and taking into account affordability and accessibility in line with the more sustainable approach of "plan, monitor and manage", rather than "predict and provide", an approach which John Prescott—I nearly said Lord Prescott—has already declared "dead". The Crow report has put forward an alternative that will fail to meet housing needs; that will compromise a range of other policy objectives, including attempts to secure urban renaissance; and that will have repercussions for infrastructure provision as well as for public expenditure.
Professor Crow's approach to housing provision is underpinned by his belief that economic growth, particularly in those areas experiencing economic pressures, should be unconstrained unless there are overriding local environmental reasons. Congestion and labour supply problems are not regarded by him as a constraint on development. Earlier in my speech I referred to how such an approach to economic development would in reality stifle economic growth in buoyant areas of the region and reduce the economic potential of the region as a whole.
222
The aim of promoting an urban renaissance lies at the heart of SERPLAN's proposals and is in line with Government policy. The commitment to maximising the re-use of existing buildings on previously developed land is reflected in the national target that 60 per cent of additional housing should be provided in this way.
During my visits round the region I have seen many good examples of urban renaissance, three of which I should like to refer to. In the London Borough of Camden, a railway goods yard has been turned into beneficial housing use with affordable rents—excellent; in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, the Action Trust in South Leytonstone has regenerated a blighted site, knocking down early 'seventies housing blocks and replacing them with a wide range of terraced housing; and near the docks in Southampton, in the St Mary's area, a lot of rundown housing has been changed into an urban village, once again with mixed tenures, which appears very successful.
Much of the provision for new housing will be for single-person households. Many of these young people seek a high-quality urban lifestyle, with all the facilities and opportunities for social contact that that can supply. This is a growing proportion of the population, which requires a very different kind of housing from that offered by the traditional suburb. That is why SERPLAN—which incidentally came up with the urban renaissance concept when it began drafting its strategy at the beginning of 1997—is strongly in support of many of the ideas being put forward in the report of the Urban Task Force.
The key aims of SERPLAN's strategy are to provide for sufficient and adequate housing to meet the needs of people living in the south-east and to take account of affordability and accessibility.
The baseline level of housing provision—862,000 dwellings between 1991 and 2016—is no more than a starting point. The scale of housing provision against which our draft plan should be judged is 892,000–914,000 dwellings. The aim is to be responsive to needs as they arise, and as they change, and thereby to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of a decent home.
It is very clear that there may be a need for additional provision to be made for housing. If that proves to be the case, it will need to be brought forward and quickly cascaded through the development plan process. Local authorities have expressed confidence that this is something that can be done, and work is going forward on the mechanics of "plan, monitor and manage".
If everyone is to have the opportunity of a decent home, however, it is crucial that provision is made for a range of dwelling types and sizes in order to meet the needs of all sectors of the community, including those unable to compete in the market. This will require strengthened powers for local authorities to specify and control the range, type and tenure of all dwellings. Our aspirational targets for affordable housing is not less than 40 per cent of the total provision in the rest of the south-east, up to 2016. This amounts to 370,000 dwellings.

223
Professor Crow rejects a regional target for affordable housing and instead prefers to rely on increasing the overall level of housing provision and allocating the necessary land. Building detached, five-bedroomed, executive housing on greenfield sites, as many house builders wish to do, will not address the real housing needs in London and the south-east. The "trickle down" theory does not work for housing. SERPLAN's approach of "plan, monitor and manage" provides for housing needs as and when they arise and, with the backing of affordable housing targets, gives much more chance that it will be households in need that benefit from increases in housing supply.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships one final example, Brighton, where people from London are buying up large period houses in that town, which were formerly divided into flats for letting. The landlords are attracted by the once-and-for-all gains to be achieved, but the result is an acute shortage of accommodation to let at a reasonable rent in a town where that kind of accommodation is very much in demand. The numbers-led approach to housing does not respond to need.
What I have tried to indicate in opening this debate in your Lordships' House is that housing needs in the south-east are both varied and complex. The nature and distribution of housing needs in London and the south-east will not be met by a crude process of massive provision on greenfield sites, which would certainly result in the kind of damage that I have described.
On the contrary, it requires the measured and focused approach of "plan, monitor and manage", which enables local authorities to address specific needs in their areas as they arise and change over time. But it also requires local authorities to be given strengthened powers and the means to be able to do so. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, to be able to thank him for raising this matter, and to congratulate him on the manner in which he introduced what is a very complex and important subject. I have known the noble Earl for about 40 years, which is a long time. I have great admiration for his contribution to public life, especially in matters of local government and planning. Because of his long and great experience, we should very much take to heart what he has told us today. Indeed, I agree with most of what he said.
The Crow report states that sufficient housing should be made available for all who wish to live in the south-east region. I must ask the question: is that for all time? I point out that if it is for all time, there is going to be a period after 2016, and if it also applies to that period, I fear that the south-east really will be covered in concrete and housing. I am not at all sure that that will be a good thing, and the question should be considered very seriously indeed.
224
Additional housing between 1996 and 2016 is what is proposed, and it is to be a large addition. However, we are already one-fifth of the way through this period, so house building during the remainder of the period is likely to be rather frenetic. Infrastructure services will not be able to develop in time to cope with all the additional people. I refer especially to transport. Planning authorities will be under extreme pressure to give consent to unsatisfactory schemes. Far from improving our towns, villages and countryside, we are likely to be left with ill-considered and bad projects which, under normal circumstances, would not have been agreed.
So much additional housing not only poses a threat to the countryside, it also affects urban areas, especially if densities are to be increased. There is a need to maintain open spaces in towns as well as in the country. Indeed, perhaps it is even more important in towns so that a good quality of urban life is preserved. However, this additional building will put pressure on urban planners to allow overbuilding on sites which ought to remain as open land for the people of those areas.
Perhaps I may give an example. I live in Reading. Already there is pressure to develop the Kennet meadows for housing, which, as a matter of fact, are floodlands. That has been resisted until now, but under the Crow plan, pressures will increase further and eventually no doubt the developers and builders will get their way. Indeed, they will keep on putting pressure on urban areas such as Reading within the south-east region. Further, towns like Reading will be put under twin pressures. First, they will need to provide more housing within their boundaries, and, secondly, they will have to cope with transport and other infrastructure problems from the new rural settlements, such as Grazeley, just outside their area. Quite frankly, if Reading is to deal with the transport problems arising from that, it will need to demolish houses to provide more roads to give access from those areas into the town. There are real dangers to be faced.
Furthermore, I remember a time when Maidenhead was under great pressure to build estates on floodland. Eventually the planners gave in. What happened, of course, was that there was great flooding in the Maidenhead area. The developers and builders had already made their profits and had gone away quite happily. However, it was the public, through taxation and through water charges, who had to put that right. I fear that those kinds of pressures will be increased if the Crow report is accepted by the Government; I hope that it will not be. What is certain is that at present the urban areas do not have the resources to meet these demands. I feel sure that the Government will not put their hands in their pockets to provide the money that will be necessary to deal with this additional development.
The panel has accepted that all housing demands in the region should be met. It uses projections for new household formation to back up its case. But there are both social as well as economic reasons for this need. For example, additional housing need has been generated by a higher divorce rate and family

225
breakdown, which have been encouraged by government attitudes—I refer not just to this Government but to the previous government as well—towards the family and marriage and, indeed, by the expectation that in many cases the additional housing required will be provided by public authorities. The Government themselves have encouraged additional family formation.
The Government's approach to the family should be designed to keep families together rather than to drive them apart. That should figure in housing strategy. For example, taxation should encourage marriage and stable partnerships. Employment is a key component of any housing strategy, as the noble Earl pointed out. But that really does require intervention by central Government: not necessarily in the way it was done in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, but certainly by making other regions excellent places in which to do business and nice places in which to live. I realise that the panel believes that this kind of approach is old fashioned, but some better, nation-wide strategy wild have to be adopted if the United Kingdom is to avoid a situation where large areas will increasingly be grossly underpopulated while others are grossly overpopulated.
I hope that the Government will take note of what was said by the noble Earl and of what will be said during the course of the debate, and kick the Crow report right into touch.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I want to concentrate on one aspect which the noble Earl, to whom we are most grateful for initiating the debate, mentioned in the course of his speech. I refer to the growth of younger single-person households in London and the south-east, which is a very important aspect of the problem to which the noble Earl drew attention. Of course, it is not the only issue but it is a crucial one. I should Id like to put a little more flesh and blood, if I may put it that way, on the important points that he made.
I have had a look at the tables of household projections. I do not wish to bore noble Lords with the figures—they are all there in the tables—but I have calculated that of the total of 2.8 million single-person households in Lon don and the south-east by the year 2021, around 35 per cent—about 1 million—will be single people under the age of 45. It is on that group that I should like to concentrate.
The noble Earl was right to say that very many of those people want the buzz and excitement of the city centre. Last year I chaired a discussion of the Foundation for Science and Technology. Quite a number of those young people were asked about living and working space: in the millennium. They said that,
"they would wish to live near city centres in multi-purpose buildings, containing leisure and service facilities as well as domestic and possibly some employment features, with extensive use of information technology to ease contact with families, friends and business contacts. Such a lifestyle would offer the greatest choice of leisure and work opportunities".
226
That echoes entirely what the noble Earl said in his speech. More recently—at the end of November—I was privileged to hear the speech delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, to the British Property Federation. He said that the clue to getting more building on brownfield sites lies in taking a different attitude to densities. I ask noble Lords to hang on to that point because I believe it to be one of the keys.
How is the solution to be found for these younger single-person households, bearing in mind the need for higher densities? At Christmas time perhaps it is right that I should mention CASPARs—not Melchior or Balthazar, but CASPARs, City Centre Apartments for Single People at Affordable Rents. I had not heard about CASPARs until my attention was directed to them. They are an invention of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. I should like to quote a few words from Richard Best, the foundation's director. He said:
"The time is now right. Demographic, environmental, financial and social reasons suggest central urban sites should be developed for private rented housing. The biggest growth over the next couple of decades will be in single person households. 'Singles' are the natural market for city centre renting".
Mr. Best went on to refer to "thriving mixed communities."
The foundation has researched and developed the concept of CASPARs. Its research has been carried out in Birmingham and Leeds but the findings are equally relevant to London and the south-east. The foundation makes three points. It states that such accommodation can best be provided in converted buildings rather than in new ones, recycling buildings which have outlived their present purpose but could be converted into apartments of that kind. It has established that they should be able to be provided without subsidy. Indeed, Mr. Best's article suggests that there are quite good returns—better than one would be likely to get on the stock market. Some excellent examples already exist. At a recent reception in the House I sat next to the president of Redrow Homes. That company is now building this kind of accommodation in London. It can be done.
What are the indicators? First, the preferred location for these places is in or near city centres. It is not in the suburbs and it is most emphatically not on greenfield sites. Secondly, security is hugely important. With all the electronic aids now available, that can be provided economically. Thirdly, they should not be furnished, because people like their own furniture. But it is best to have the buildings provided with some basic fitted furniture. Fourthly, they should have economic heating. There should be one-bedroom flats for those who can afford only one bedroom, but the point was made to me very firmly that some of the more affluent groups would prefer two bedrooms. Fifthly, some communal facilities are necessary.
I believe that such accommodation addresses one of the social problems of this group of people in our society—loneliness. These are perhaps people who have had a relationship but it has broken up and they are facing living alone. They do not want a separate house in an impersonal estate, but they want

227
somewhere where they can have some kind of a social life and make friends. We must be careful; we are not creating hostels. The Rowntree research makes clear that that is not what is sought. It must be the kind of housing where the occupiers can, to employ an Oxbridge expression, sport their oaks; where they can go behind their own front doors and be assured of privacy but where they are also able to share some common facilities. CASPARs are a reality. They ought to form a part of the concepts of planning authorities seeking to grapple with the problems of the growing population in London and the south-east. In some cases that is happening already.
I asked a leading firm of chartered surveyors: what is the obstacle to getting more of this kind of housing built? I was told by its head of research that, over everything else, it has to do with the attitudes of planning authorities. They simply do not understand this kind of development. They must. I hope that the Government will draw this matter to the attention of every planning authority in London and the south-east. Then we may make some impact on the problem.
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue. We all need a decent home. Few in this House or anywhere else would dispute that. But when it comes down to the detail of how many homes need to be provided, where they should be, and for precisely whom, matters become much more controversial. Nowhere is that more true at present than in the south-east.
The south-east is already densely populated. Its transport and public services groan under the pressure of a booming economy. It also contains very attractive green belt which everyone wants to protect. But the south-east will not achieve its economic, social and sustainability goals unless we build the right homes in the right places for the right people. That is the challenge that we are debating. It is a challenge to all of us as politicians, whether at national, regional or local level.
Many voices and reports are contributing to this debate. There is SERPLAN, made up of the region's planning authorities, which proposes that, up to the year 2016, some 650,000 new homes are needed. The Crow report adds 64 per cent to that figure; it states that some 1.1 million additional homes will be required. The Government's figures indicate a need for slightly fewer than that. The Crow report is somewhat controversial. I am sure that we shall hear more about it during the debate. It recommends that the target for new housing on recycled urban land and the use of other buildings and redundant land should be reduced. Also, it is not clear whether the Crow report, although committed to housing need, wants targets to be set in the same way as is suggested by SERPLAN.
The Government have yet to give their considered response to the Crow report. The Council for the Protection of Rural England would like to see the
228
whole of the Crow report scrapped. It wants to see a system based more on local and regional planning, with strong account taken of sustainability and environmental factors. Social housing providers—I declare an interest as vice-president of the National Housing Federation—emphasise the need for targets for affordable homes. I believe that the Government have previously recognised that, because they have strengthened planning guidance in this area.
The time allowed for this debate is short, and it is impossible to go into detail on this vast subject or cover every area. My noble friends on these Benches will add some of that detail in their contributions. My noble friend Lady Hamwee will concentrate on planning issues, an area in which she has considerable expertise. I want to concentrate on two areas: the need for affordable homes, and the opportunity for maximising the use of derelict land and buildings.
Affordability is not merely about building four-and five-bedroomed homes on greenfield sites, which seems to be the direction that is often run by market forces. The proportion of lower paid workers, mainly in the service and public sectors, is increasing. Such workers find it difficult either to compete effectively in the tight housing market of the south-east or to gain access to social housing.
Households in the market sector in the south-east consume similar types of housing to households in the rest of the country, but pay a greater proportion of their income on housing costs. Income for income, mortgage payments are on average 24 per cent higher in the south-east than in the rest of England, and private sector rents are 20 per cent higher on average. So, although people in the south-east sometimes have higher incomes, the extra amount is often not enough to offset the increased cost of housing.
That means, for example, that teachers, nurses, firemen, policemen—all the essential workers needed in a thriving economy—often cannot afford to enter the housing market in the south-east. It means that children will often have several teachers in a term. That is particularly true in London. It means a greater use of agency nurses and a shortage of workers in many of our key service areas. That is why, as other speakers have emphasised, it is important that any future housing provision in the south-east takes account of affordability.
I now turn to the subject of empty properties and derelict land and buildings. The Empty Homes Agency estimates that there are some 950,000 empty residential properties in the south-east which have been vacant for more than a year. Many will be re-rented, and some will come back into use as a result of movement in the housing market. But many will remain empty. They are a blight on the local neighbourhood and at the same time deny people the homes that they need. But those figures do not include the many tens of thousands of new homes that could be created in the wasted space above shops and in redundant shops and offices and other buildings—buildings which, in planning terms, are not presently classified as residential.

229
The Empty Homes Agency has produced an excellent report, New Homes in Existing Buildings. What emerges from that report, and from the report of the urban task force under the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, is the need to harmonise VAT on refurbishment and new build. The difference between the two is a real block in many cases when trying to bring empty homes and other empty buildings back into use; and it does nothing to discourage builders from regarding greenfield sites as their first choice. A second crucial point is the council tax treatment of long-term empty property. It cannot be acceptable for it to be cheaper to keep a property empty than to have someone living in it. I do not believe that the use of empty property and derelict land and buildings is a panacea in terms, Of the matters that we are discussing, but it could play an important part. It is important that we develop planning and change financial regimes so that, wherever possible, we can maximise the contribution of that sector.
In order to solve these problems, we need political will and co-operation. There must be an understanding of how housing need affects everyone. But what is not required is political posturing, nimbyism or endless debates, often heard on the radio and in another place, about who did what, and when. People outside do not want a cheap party political debate on this matter. They want constructive debate. They want to find a way forward to solve some of the difficulties that we all face in the south-east. Experience tells me that our debate today is likely to be constructive, measured and informed. I look forward to listening to the remaining speakers.
3.49 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for initiating the debate and those who have spoken so far. In the collection of memorabilia at home there is an RIBA Pugin Memorial Medal won by my father in 1937 when he was a student at the Edinburgh College of Art. Twenty-nine years later he was awarded a doctorate at Edinburgh University for a study of the provision and use of space in European housing, comparing northern with southern. So it is from the context of this family formation and from the perspective of the diocese of Portsmouth, which consists of south-east Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, that I want to address your Lordships for the first time today.
I know that in some of the observations I shall make I have the support of other Church leaders in my area, including my close friend and colleague, the Roman Catholic Bishop of` Portsmouth, Crispian Hollis.
There is indeed a need for new housing. That leads me to ask the same questions as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock has just asked: what kind, for whom and where? In the urban areas of the diocese of Portsmouth, Portsea Island and Gosport, the percentage of housing classified as unfit is 7.2 per cent, 12,900 homes. That is higher than the average for the south-east region, which is 5 per cent.
230
We also have a growing problem of homelessness. Not far from where I live in Fareham there is a hostel for 100 people made up of lone-parent families and some refugees from Afghanistan, Kosovo, Georgia and Russia. They have been placed there by social services from all over the south-east. There are, moreover, hostels for young people and single men and women in the city of Portsmouth. That city has among its postcodes the poorest in the whole of the south-east. On the Isle of Wight, in Ryde and Newport, the major challenge is the lack of social housing for the homeless. Many have to be put in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Alternatively they are the hidden figures for whom, if I dare say it, there is no room in the inn at any time of year. Two hundred and fifty more houses need to be available per annum, over and above the 100 vacancies that usually occur. I know that the authorities and the housing associations on the Isle of Wight are working hard to improve the picture.
But what of the creation of community? In parts of Portsea Island some of the urban villages of the 19th century have proved wonderfully resistant to many of the negative social pressures towards fragmentation in recent times. That is largely because local neighbourhoods had their own facilities from the start: schools, churches, parish halls, shops, places to have a meal, fish and chip shops and the like.
But when we compare that scenario with two different developments—a large council estate in Leigh Park, north of Havant and the village of Whiteley, west of Fareham—there are, it seems to me, some important lessons to be learnt. Leigh Park was begun in 1947 originally for 2,000 homes. It now has 30,000 residents. It was built with no infrastructure, apart from schools and churches. It received its first dedicated library two years ago and for work or leisure it is essential to travel.
Whiteley, on the other hand, is a different social area altogether—a 1990s development of well designed housing units which have sprung up in a rather piecemeal fashion. There is now a school and a church congregation hard at work on a building project to which the sharing churches are giving every encouragement. But the village centre is on the edge of Whiteley and there is no good road system. That creates a problem in terms of access to work and shopping. Many people love the area and its accompanying wildlife; others have given up on the lack of amenities and have moved elsewhere.
Many of those questions are replicated elsewhere, including in the north-west at Manchester where I worked for six years. None of the questions is insoluble. Environment shapes the way we behave as well as the way we develop or do not develop collective trust which can enable us to look at new problems imaginatively—problems which highlight what human beings are, our inherent dignity as well as our inherent weakness.
I conclude with an illustration from when, as a boy, I eavesdropped on one of my father's site visits. It became a case study in the thesis to which I referred

231
earlier. We were in France, at the post-war Unité d'Habitation block of flats in Nantes designed by Le Corbusier, now part of architectural history. It was stylish for the time and every cubic centimetre was milked for its potential use. The dining room, in French fashion, was the place of gathering and lingering, unlike in this country with northern and southern housing having different styles and approaches. The local infrastructure was not bad for the time.
I shall never forget coming out of the elevator and being faced, not with a corridor, which is what I expected, but what amounted to a small open street. This reflected Le Corbusier's desire to try to form an urban village community. He had had that inner street painted white, but the flat dwellers had soon asked for it to be painted dark. They did not feel like an urban village and they did not want to be up there either.
The provision and use of space is a vital part of architecture; it is also a living spiritual force. I very much hope that the future planning of different kinds of housing for the south-east might reflect some of those considerations and those yet to be expressed in this debate in order to construct and reconstruct our built environment.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, it is my privilege and pleasure on behalf of the whole House to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his articulate and compelling maiden speech. The right reverend Prelate brings to our work immense, wide-ranging experience in the Church, much of it at grassroots level. He is also a talented author on spiritual issues. I see that the title of one of his books is, All the Company of Heaven. He will recall that Disraeli said, on his elevation to this House:
"I am dead; dead, but in the Elysian fields".
I hope the right reverend Prelate will enjoy the company, but even more I hope we will have the opportunity to hear him on many occasions.
This topic is of great importance to the needs and quality of life of future generations. The issues are acute for the south-east, the most successful part of our country, but they have real resonance for other areas. The south-west is but one illustration of a region which has problems with current anticipated targets.
My own interest is as a member of the Government Panel on Sustainable Development, set up six years ago in the wake of the Rio summit, to give direct advice to the Prime Minister on environmental issues of wide-ranging importance. The panel is chaired by the distinguished environmentalist, Sir Crispin Tickell, and we have the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, as one of our members.
We have looked at many topics. High on the list, regularly, has been the concern about successive projections of housing needs and their implications. We were long sceptical of the "predict and provide" approach to projections which led to the view that we should need 4.4 million new houses by 2016. So we
232
naturally welcome the reduction to 3.8 million by 2021. The recent projections are no doubt conscientious, but the change indicates the need to keep them continuously under critical and, indeed, sceptical review.
The south-eastern region has the ambition to be the economic hot spot of Europe. That is perfectly legitimate. But it carries with it the inevitable corollary that gravitational pull will lead to a growth of population. "How do we cope with demand?" is the critical question in this debate. Our panel has consistently considered that a dramatic effort of will is needed by government if the demand for housing is not to cut a further swathe through the precious countryside of our island.
It has long been accepted that housing development cannot simply be left to market forces. The green belt is a clear recognition of the need for government intervention; so is all the town and country planning legislation. It is welcome that the Government set targets for the amount of housing to be built on greenfield sites: first, 50 per cent and then 60 per cent. However, I wonder whether I am alone in thinking that this commitment has been a little more muted recently and may in practice turn out to be somewhat wobbly.
Developers obviously often prefer greenfield sites. What financial advantage is there currently to do otherwise? Take simply, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, the wholly anomalous position in regard to VAT. New buildings are exempt but VAT on the cost of conversion of residential building is charged at 17.5 per cent. In its fourth report in February 1998, the panel said:
"The Government has indicated that it is keen to promote the use of fiscal incentives and that it will give consideration to ways of applying them to land use. For example, the rating of VAT on greenfield sites and the refurbishment of derelict homes might be harmonised. The panel hopes that action in this respect will follow".
By October 1998 we had the Government response:
"The issue of the comparative rates of VAT on new build may also be of relevance, as the panel suggests, although VAT changes are constrained by European Union law and the demands of sensible tax design. These proposals are being considered by the Government in the wider context of the relevant policy".
There followed the familiar rubric:
"Final decisions on taxation are, of course, a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer".
How wonderfully illuminating! Lest the Eurosceptics—if there are any among us—should seize on this comment as one more illustration of the shackles imposed on us by the wicked bureaucrats in Brussels, I remind the House that only recently the French Government announced that VAT on conversions would fall to 5.5 per cent.
The panel returned to the charge in its report in January 1999:
"A major outcome of the proposed urban and rural White Papers should be the use of brownfield sites for development purposes rather than permitting the further erosion of the green belts".

233
That has proved too much for the Government. Ten months on, that report has received no response at all.
By contrast, those who are really affected by the problem responded with speed to the report of the urban task force chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Rogers. It was under no illusions. To bring brownfield land back into use is critical and difficult. One obvious impetus is to refuse access to greenfield sites, but that is not enough. Tax incentives are critical as the experience of the United States in the reclamation of urban areas demonstrates. It has even been proposed that there should be a tax on greenfield development and vacant brownfield land and an increased level of tax on vacant property.
If there were a tax on greenfield land it could be hypothecated to provide extra funds to cross-subsidise development on brownfield sites. I do not suggest that solutions are easy or that all of those that have been floated are right, but they raise the correct issues. They recognise that fiscal intervention is necessary to take account of the environmental costs and benefits of building sufficiently to incentivise the regeneration of urban areas. Without this we shall get nowhere.
The Government are not insensitive to the media. I conclude by quoting a comment in a recent editorial in The Times:
"The Government still clings to the forecast that 3.8 million homes will be required by 2021. But this prediction owes more to astrology than to sound reasoning … if more land is required for development, surely all brownfield sites should be considered first? Tax breaks might even be offered to tempt developers towards such areas. Free thinking is welcome. The development of Britain's green fields is not".
I believe that t his is one of the issues by which the Government will be judged long term and that concrete action is called for now. I look forward to the Minister indicating in his response what the Government will do.
4.06 p.m.
Lord Sawyer: My Lords, I also thank the noble Earl for initiating this. debate. I enjoyed his speech and agreed with much of what he said. Recently, I was elected chairman of the Notting Hill Housing Trust. We concentrate on London and the home counties and are one of the largest housing providers in the region. We house people from a wide range of income groups. Experience tells us that good housing goes hand in hand with economic prosperity. We have found that the most sustainable growth is often linked with existing communities and that the key ingredient is to ensure that we build balanced communities rather than seclude the rich in their own guarded enclaves or banish the poorer households to the socially excluded housing estates. We must apply that principle to future housing strategy in London and the south-east.
The housing capacity study for London makes a projection of 381,000 new homes in London by 2016 but only 20 per cent of them are what we regard as affordable housing. Clearly, that is insufficient. I agree with the noble Earl that the target for affordable housing at which we must aim is nearer 40 per cent. I emphasise the overwhelming need for greater housing
234
provision of all types in the south-east. I refer to affordable housing that will allow more middle income professionals, such as teachers and nurses, to work and live in London and the south-east. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, if we do not provide homes where people want them or near to where the jobs exist, we fail to face reality.
London and the south-east are growing and will continue to grow. It would be foolish to dampen this prosperity. If we restrict the growth in employment in the south-east it will not be to the benefit of other regions. The renaissance of the English regions will come from their wealth creation and a spirit of enterprise, not the application of a brake on the economy of the south-east. We need growth in all our national resources to be able to improve the quality of life for all. We need proper economic development plans for Scotland, Wales and the regions of England to tackle unemployment and housing demand, and the growth in the economy of the south-east will be linked to the growth in the supply of housing.
In many cases the new households will be created by local people who want a place of their own to house their families. These new households will be the saving grace for many of our communities. We can all see what happens otherwise. Many villages cannot now support a local shop or even a bus stop. Those who seek to deny any new housing also deny their neighbours the future support of an active community. Of course, some new housing development will raise questions. We must treasure our attractive countryside. We understand why people are so concerned about new development. Our experience at Notting Hill tells us that new development can be seen as a positive change rather than a negative threat.
We have responded to local views and, as a result, have learnt two important lessons. The first is that it is naive to believe that we can go on eating up greenfield sites. Too much of our housing industry has grown fat by pushing culs-de-sac into the countryside. Many people now react against that. We do not want housing that is considered to be an imposition or is resented by local communities. We have found that housing development which is part of organic growth and the renewal of neighbourhoods is far more likely to be successful. We should re-use existing buildings and previously developed land wherever possible. Clearly, this is bound to be a key factor in the sustainable growth of London and the south-east. If we fail to do this, there will be even more pressure from London on the housing market outside the immediate area of the south-east.
It is right to concentrate on brownfield sites, and housing organisations such as the Notting Hill Housing Trust have shown that it can be done. It requires vision and commitment to turn rundown sites into good housing. If we can do this in our building plans for the south-east, growth will not be so painful; in fact it can and will be beneficial.
The second lesson we have learnt is that housing developments work best when we build a balanced community. The success of this is shown in the make-up of our most treasured neighbourhoods. In our

235
cities, town centres and successful villages we see a mix of different households, income groups and people coming together to form communities. This is a powerful lesson for our future. In our new developments, provision of a range of housing for different income groups and a range of tenures should be the aim. No longer should we build housing which excludes people from society. All new developments should include some housing for those with middle incomes, and some for the lower paid.
Finally, we need planning policies and powers which encourage the development of attractive housing. If we can grow in that way, people will see new development as a positive change. Not only is it possible to build the housing needed but, if we do so, we shall also find that growth can also be seen as desirable. This debate has demonstrated wisdom, understanding, experience, realism and compassion by those participating. I am confident that the Government will provide an encouraging response.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I declare an interest as the president of the National Home Improvement Council.
As have all previous speakers, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for raising this issue at this time. Like all who are taking part in the debate, I have read the Crow report and, as I went through it, my concern mounted. It seemed to me to ignore the Government's brown-site policy. It showed a remarkable lack of concern on the subject of congestion, no apparent interest in urban renewal, and an indifference to the progressive erosion of greenfield sites—in fact the very opposite view about future development from that expressed by those who have spoken today and many others in this country. It has thrown into doubt the real needs for housing in the south-east. Perhaps I can best contribute to the debate by citing a practical example of what might happen if the erosion of greenfield sites were to proceed.
I live in an area of West Sussex known as the Weald Vale to the west of the market town of Horsham. In that area, there are four villages: Broadbridge Heath, Slinfold, Barnes Green and Southwater. Christ's Hospital school, which is in the vicinity, owns a large amount of land currently under cultivation. As part of the proposed development for housing, it has offered to sell 275 acres for such development in order to accommodate up to 3,000 houses.
Christ's Hospital school is an eminent school with a record of charitable work, taking on many pupils who cannot afford the full costs of their education. It is already well endowed; and, if the transaction took place, it would become even better endowed and I am sure that it would put the money to good use. However, at the same time consideration needs to be given to the impact of such a development on those who live in the area.
236
At present we are short of road space. There is congestion, even with the current population. So there would have to be much more work done on roads, quite apart from the building of the 3,000 houses.
There is a water shortage. In answer to a recent question, we were told that Southern Water would provide for the extra demands. As someone who has lived there for many years, I can only ask: why has it not met existing demands, let alone some future substantial increase in demand?
Gas, electricity and sewerage connections would have to be built. The local rail station is very small. No doubt it would have to be extended, as would rail connections. Schools and hospitals may well be required additionally. At the very least, all this work could take a decade of disruption which those who live there would have to endure—and the end result would be that a carefully nurtured area of market town and rural villages would be destroyed for ever and replaced with urban sprawl.
It might be argued that the prolonged misery of the few is justified in the interests of the many. I should like to question whether that is so. At present nearly 15 per cent—that is, 2.8 million—of the homes in England are in a state of major disrepair, according to the latest English House Condition Survey. Is it desirable to stimulate the further abandonment of such properties with their replacement with new homes elsewhere? Britain already has more derelict housing than other parts of western Europe. Is that trend to be accelerated?
I come now to the fiscal point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. It is about time that the extraordinary VAT disparity between improving existing housing and building new housing was changed. This can be done under European Union rules, as the noble Lord pointed out. It would be perfectly in order for the Government—indeed, I believe that the Commission is recommending it—to reduce the rate to 5 per cent to apply equally to new house build and conversions—and conversions play a large part in the whole spectrum. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred to it in relation to the provision of accommodation for young people wanting single accommodation. So a major step forward could be taken in harmonising the rate of VAT at a lower level, and probably with no loss of revenue to the Treasury.
Urban renewal has been mentioned. We need to balance the estimated needs of the south-east with the situation that exists elsewhere in the country, a point mentioned vigorously by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
I believe that there is an alternative strategy to that implicit in the Crow report. It would consist of house refurbishment and conversions with fiscal incentives—and so much housing in this country requires such treatment; urban renewal; concentration on brown site development, and the minimisation of greenfield development with fiscal deterrence. I believe that a combination of those policies would meet the housing needs not only of the south-east but elsewhere in the country also.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I declare some interests. First I am a former chairman of the CPRE. Secondly, although Suffolk is not in SERPLAN, I am President of Suffolk Preservation Society. Thirdly, I am a Suffolk fanner with green fields which I have no intention of seeking any permission to develop. Fourthly, I am in the process of converting redundant farm buildings into dwellings.
We owe a deep debt of gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for having this debate at the right moment. His achievement of getting agreement between, I think, 138 different local authorities cannot be underestimated. The Government are being asked to judge between SERPLAN and Professor Crow's panel, which suggests that the south-east can and should accommodate 430,000 more houses than SERPLAN believes to be possible. Professor Crow believes that Sussex alone must have an extra 137,000 houses, which is 55,000 more than SERPLAN proposed. Sussex is a dramatic, well-known and beautiful county and it will have many lobbies to protect it. I wish them well. Essex, whose subtle beauty is as important as it is unknown, is being threatened with an extra 150,000 houses, which is 66,000 more than SERPLAN proposed.
The decision to he made is hugely important. If it goes wrong, it will have a knock-on effect for the Government's policy in a wide area. Not only will it do great damage to the countryside, but it will screw up the Government's urban renewal policy throughout the Kingdom; in the north as well as in the south-east. It will imbalance the Government's growth policies.
We know that Mr Prescott has had one or two little local difficulties with the transport side of his house. We are benefiting because we now have the lead Transport Minister in this House. We look forward to discussing the issues with him on many occasions. However, we have been told by the Government—and I accept what they tell us—that Mr Prescott will retain control of the big picture; he will make the main decisions. I want to tell Mr Prescott, through the Minister, that this is the big picture; this is one of the big decisions. I hope that Mr Prescott will take personal responsibility for this crucial decision.
To some extent, Professor Crow represents the philosophy of the Town and Country Planning Association, which has had close links with the interests of the house builders. We all know that house builders prefer to build in greenfield sites. They are more economic and easy to build on and therefore make life simpler. You cannot blame them for that view, but you have to recognise it and bear it in mind. The Town and Country Planning Association was reared in the tradition of new towns, a tradition which some of us would say is responsible for the urban decay in many of our city centres. It likes to play on the big scale, indulge in grand planning and "play Monopoly"; what I would describe as the "Legoland mentality".
Let us consider how the huge figures—more than 1 million new houses, which is a 64 per cent increase on the SERPLAN prediction—are arrived at. First,
238
the predictions start with the demographic predictors (who were originally lodged in the basement of Marsham Street) putting forward the pernicious philosophy of "predict and provide". I do not blame this Government for that; the previous government had it, too. However, in March last year, we were told by Mr Prescott that "predict and provide" is dead and I saluted him for it at that time.
I want to refer noble Lords to a series of articles written by Simon Jenkins which appeared in various newspapers. He knows more than I ever shall about planning and development, growth and the quality of life in this country. Therefore, I do not apologise for quoting briefly from an article which appeared in The Times on 3rd November. He stated:
"Whitehall officials periodically gurgitate something called a 'rate of household formation'. Using census data, they count numbers reaching marriageable age, divorcing and living longer. They leave out anything they cannot count, such as numbers of asylum seekers or internal migrants. They do not regard second homes as 'households', or take account of such economic factors as youth unemployment, house prices, rents or shifts in housing benefit. In statistics, only what is countable counts.
This half-baked prediction of household formation is then, by sleight of hand, converted into a 'need' for the same number of houses … Worse, because census data is available locally, the number of houses 'needed' can be neatly broken down by county. House builders thus claim government authority to demand new land, preferably green fields, for their buildings".
He goes on to say:
"To speak of this 'trickling down' to meet housing demand from single households is like subsidising the caviare counter at Harrods to relieve malnutrition in the Gorbals".
I believe that the real requirement is to recognise that the so-called "housing need" should be met by combining the market and the people's determination of environmental standards required for us, for our children and for their children. Therefore, once there is a limit to the number of houses that can be built without destroying our countryside, the market will decide where they should be.
If that means that many new houses are not built in the south-east, that is the right answer. I support my noble friend Lord Jenkin in his remark about the need to utilise more redundant buildings. That would be perfectly possible and much cheaper. It can be reasonably economic, too. I have recently converted a redundant granary of mine to a one-bedroom dwelling. Admittedly without taking into account the site value, the rent provides about a 7 per cent return on the cost of the conversion. I believe that that is a reasonable return.
I do not need to take account of the value of the site because I do not want to sell it and as it was a redundant granary it was of no current value to me. I believe that in undertaking such conversions one is fulfilling a social purpose as well as enhancing the environment.
Now that our farming industry is in crisis, I hope that the Government are not tempted to bail out part of that industry in the south-east by allowing it to sell off blocks of green land for housing at huge profit.

239
That would be an immoral and unfair decision. The farmers who most need help are not even in the south-east.
I hope that Mr Prescott will take the whole issue seriously. The protection of rural England, for which the CPRE can take much credit, has been an acute political issue since the young and angry Clough Williams-Ellis wrote his England & The Octopus in 1928. If the Minister does not have a copy, I shall give him one, provided that he promises to read it!
4.27 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, that was a fair offer and I hope that the Minister is able to accept it.
I am delighted that 15 Members of your Lordships' House will debate housing from a range of angles. I have taken part in housing debates with only four or five speakers. The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, is to be congratulated on his luck, first, in winning the ballot and, secondly, in deciding that this topic needed airing.
I am not a Member who can argue about precise figures. I am not a professional or competent to argue about the figures; I am a politician. However, I speak from experience. I was first a member, then chairman, of a housing committee and I know that a number of noble Lords speak from such experience. I defy anyone who has had to get down at the mucky end of housing not to say how much we should pay for a big house, or for land or how we can keep people out or bring them in, but to say how we should provide for those at the bottom end of the pile. I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, say that we need affordable housing. Many Members of this House can afford to buy a bigger and better house, but if I speak on behalf of anyone, I speak for those who want adequate housing at a reasonable rent in the area in which they have grown up, which meets their needs and which provides a home in their community. It is not easy. When I listen to and understand what the Minister and his colleagues will have to do, I see that they are not going to satisfy everyone. There are different imperatives.
I plead one credential; I am joint president of the Association of London Government. I am not the only one in this House; the other joint president is the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who has vast experience at all levels in government, including at the very top. We try to represent the views brought to us by the London boroughs. The Association of London Government is calling for £300 million per year additional funding for the next three years to invest in 15,000 homes for the public sector; £50 million from the discretionary part of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme; for the Government to increase the current cost limits for acquisitions in the private sector and for repair of existing properties; and for the Government to give greater weighting to homelessness. Such initiatives would be appropriate as part of the Government's latest attempt to tackle homelessness.
240
In addition, the ALG is calling for a cash injection to meet the extra drain on councils' spending due to the costs of tackling homelessness; and for powers to allow London boroughs to make long-term—that is, of more than 10 years—leasing arrangements. In requesting the introduction of such provisions, it is not a foreign voice, but simply illustrates that when we look at housing, land and the future, different groups of people in this country have different agendas.
The debate has been conducted in the best of all possible spirits. People have put forward their point of view without rancour, sometimes with passion, but always with sincerity.
There are a number of things the Government can do to ease the situation. They need to develop better strategies for dealing with pressures that are national responsibilities, such as those relating to asylum seekers and refugees, which often fall disproportionately on London. Not much can be done about that problem; it must be tackled, but the burden on people who live in London can be eased. A review of options for reducing economic migration to London is needed. It has been said more than once that London is a magnet. We cannot change that; that is how it is; but we need to develop strategies to deal with that particular situation.
The consequences of the failure to meet those needs will include increased social exclusion; more people being housed in inappropriate and expensive temporary accommodation; and increased homelessness. If someone asks me whether I am in favour of more initiatives rather than fewer, I am in favour of more. I have had more than 40 years' experience of one kind or another. I have been responsible for as many mistakes as anyone else. We are now having to put right many mistakes, over which I presided at local and other levels. No one has clean hands in that matter; no one is beyond recrimination in the debate.
I turn to the amount of money spent on housing. I happen to be the chairman of a body called the United Kingdom Co-operative Council, which co-ordinates the broader co-operative movement. We produced a pamphlet entitled Realising the Potential,.in which we drew attention to the development of the co-operative housing sector. We pointed out that as a nation we spend less on housing than any of the 13 industrial nations which are members of the OECD. Between 1985 and 1996, we invested an average of 3.5 per cent of GDP in comparison with 6.3 per cent in Germany, 5.1 per cent in Italy and 5 per cent in France. Football and cricket are not the only league tables of which we are at the bottom. It may be a British disease, but it can be improved.
Much of the demand for housing can be met by using brownfield sites. In 1995, Price Waterhouse published a report on co-operative housing which showed that affordable housing is better managed and maintained if tenants are directly involved in its control and management. Within the panoply of provisions there is a sound case for greater attention being paid by the Government and others to the value

241
of co-operative housing. There is great value in it. No one should doubt the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to improving housing provision. The quality of the house in which one lives is probably a more basic matter. When I came into politics, housing was way up on the agenda. It has slipped. How and why has it slipped? Has it slipped because there is more affluence, because there is more indifference, or because there are other things on which people want to spend their money? I do not believe that anyone here has the answer, but I hope that the Minister takes heart from the fact that he has a number of friends all around the House who want to see him and the Government succeed in this difficult task.
4.35 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I share with other Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken today gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for raising this subject. His experience in local planning is a match for anyone's, if not more so. I was a member of SERPLAN under his chairmanship and found the whole process extremely interesting. The point of view he expressed would be widely supported by a number of people, not least the 150 or 200 people who gathered in a hall in Leatherhead on a wet Friday evening, who I am sure would have cheered him to the rafters—to use an old-fashioned expression.
I should like also—unfashionably, and slightly incorrectly—to say how glad I was to hear the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, whom I knew when he was in a rather less superior but none the less extremely valuable position as the parish priest in Guildford. I believe that we shall all enjoy hearing from him in days to come. I shall not repeat the many criticisms made or queries raised in the context of the Crow report, but I hope that the Government will respond to three major concerns raised.
First, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who emphasised the importance of housing as part of the well-being of the family, the individual and the community. I most sincerely believe that if we can tack le some of our worst housing, which includes poor housing in the south-east, we should do a great deal to improve the health—quite apart from anything else— and the general sense of well-being of the people who live in those houses. It is a powerful point to which I hope the Government will respond.
Secondly, I am concerned, along with others, about the balance between the development of the north, or for that matter the south-west, and the south-east. Those are broad categories and I know that one should not be too general, but I am trying to put my points briefly. I hope that the Government will respond to that concern.
Thirdly—I do not believe that this concern has been clearly articulated, although it lies behind much of what other noble Lords have said— I raise concerns over the way in which the public inquiry was handled. The drafting of the report on the inquiry appears to put into jeopardy the whole system of planning
242
established in this country and the Government's own recently enunciated policies which should guide that planning process. I hope that there will be a general response from the Government on that matter.
In the few moments remaining, I want to concentrate on the environmental aspect of the problem. People talk about the south-east as though it were some protective little enclave whose residents never want to see any change or development, or anything to spoil its pretty little green fields. People talk about "leafy Surrey". Since the Second World War, the south-east has absorbed housing equal to the size of London. If the plan goes ahead, the south-east will absorb a further amount of housing equal to the size of the Isle of Wight. Do not let us kid ourselves. Development in the south-east has continued, is continuing and no doubt will continue. Everyone understands that.
The question is how we can tolerate increasing amounts of concentration in population in what is already one of the most heavily populated areas in the whole of Europe. I believe one probably has to go to Holland, or possibly the suburban areas around Paris, to find so large an area with such a heavy density of population as one finds in London.
Of course, I know most about my own county and I shall concentrate on that. There is now very little left of Surrey which is not either built on, green belt, an area of outstanding landscape value or an area of outstanding natural beauty. Almost all the land which has not been built on falls into one of those categories. That is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to find a mechanism for introducing low-cost housing into Surrey. Meanwhile, the county has two-and-a-half to three times the national average of traffic. I support my noble friend Lord Ezra, who asked how we shall deal with people moving in and out of the Horsham-Crawley area—that whole area, which spills over into Surrey, which has been designated by the Crow report as a growth area. How shall we cope with the transport needs of that huge development? Does not the development in that area both presuppose that there will be a second runway at Gatwick and make that second runway more likely?
The decisions on the siting of development have enormous implications far beyond what is simply the local plan. Unfortunately, in this country we do not have a national airport strategy. In the absence of such a strategy, every existing airport is in danger of exponential growth, particularly the airports in the south-east immediately adjacent to London. I believe that there are some doubts as to whether the approach adopted by Crow does not predispose towards an expansion of Heathrow.
Therefore, transport, tranquillity and, finally, quality of life are all important issues. People want to establish their headquarters buildings in Surrey. They want to bring their executives and lower management to live in the county. When asked why they want to do so, business people reply that it is because of the qualities of the environment, which the exaggerated housing figures could help to diminish. My guess is

243
that that is also the case in many other areas in the south-east. We must not kill the goose which laid the golden egg.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for introducing this debate. Indeed, in many ways at the beginning of the afternoon he expressed all the concerns which exist about the Crow report. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I hope that the Government will take note of his very considerable experience in local government and planning matters when they give consideration to whether or not to amend SERPLAN's proposals.
I recognise that there is a need for planning policies which will ensure the continued prosperity of the south-east and the growth of its economy, and that that prosperity can be enjoyed by those who live and work in the south-east. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that it is difficult to know what should be the precise figure for new housing. However, I believe that we can all recognise an extreme case; a case which is so extreme that it deserves to be rejected. I believe that that is so with the housing forecasts and figures put forward in the Crow report.
I believe that there should be a speedy and outright rejection of the report with regard to housing numbers. I say that for a number of reasons. As previous speakers have already suggested, were the Government to prefer Crow to SERPLAN, they would fly in the face of the wishes of the local authorities and the regional planning body in the south-east. That will be at odds with the Government's own stated objective, which is to see greater power and responsibility exercised regionally.
Some in the United Kingdom believe that we are light years away from seeing central government trust local authorities to work individually or collectively, as in the case of SERPLAN. That is not a prerogative of one particular party; it comes simply with being the government at Westminster. However, in this instance the Government can prove that there is a real change abroad by rejecting the report.
As other noble Lords have said, Crow represents a return to predict and provide—a method which has been derided by the Secretary of State. It does not meet the objectives of brownfield sites. Sadly, it seems to have little regard for the environment. The south-east may be seen, and may see itself, as the powerhouse of the nation. However, its residents are entitled to assume that in pursuit of that goal or the maintenance thereof, some regard is had to the conditions which will prevail if development on the scale suggested goes ahead.
In the debate on the gracious Speech I drew attention to the fact that a commentator had estimated that the number of houses proposed by Crow would, if lining a single street, stretch the 7,200 miles from London to Hawaii. Clearly, the green belt is under threat, however much the authors of the report may seek to say otherwise. That seems especially to be the
244
case on the borders of the metropolitan area, precisely where it is most needed. If noble Lords are in any doubt, perhaps I may quote one sentence. I accept that quoting out of context can be invidious, nevertheless I shall read one sentence:
"Since at least 40 per cent of new development will be on greenfield sites, it is inevitable that some will have to be on the urban edge and in many parts of the region this means in the green belt".
That sends a most unfortunate message. If the urban sprawl is increased into Kent, Surrey and the other neighbouring counties of Greater London, the problems will be multiplied over an even larger and more unmanageable area than Greater London already comprises. Development on the scale suggested is not at the margin. It is not about trying to obtain a slight gain here or there; some sensible in-fill development or to obtain affordable housing in existing communities; in some cases, it means doubling the proposed development in the different counties: from some 35,000 houses in Surrey to 77,000, and from nearly 100,000 in Kent to 150,000. Once planning policies are altered to allow the houses to be built, the commissions will come through very quickly.
Local authorities will not want to be on the losing end of planning appeals. The houses will be built long before the transport and other infrastructure and facilities are in place. I submit to your Lordships that the impact on transport facilities and infrastructure will be enormous. Already, unsuitable roads are subjected to heavy and damaging traffic, and public transport leaves much to be desired.
The report talks about supporting improvements to public transport. But that and other infrastructure improvements take time and money. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, on the radio the other day repeating the statistic that it takes 14 years from the inception of a road scheme to its completion. I can tell your Lordships that the tramway in Croydon was a gleam in our eye in 1986 and it will open, we hope, next year—and that had a fairly straightforward passage. All those things which are needed to accommodate more people take a great deal of time and money.
I live in what some of your Lordships may not describe as a village but what we describe as a village; namely, Warlingham. It is on the edge of Greater London and within Surrey. Every year, the roads around that village lose more and more of their banks. Every year, another few inches are lost from the village green as a result of the depredations of traffic and deliveries to supermarkets.
Lastly, I ask the Government to look at the two questions that the authors of Crow stated were never far from their minds as they conducted this examination:
"Do you want the economy of the South East to stagnate or at any rate to perform at less than its full potential?
Do you want the planning process to frustrate or at any rate do less than it could to assist the desire of people to have a decent home to live in?"
It seems to me that those two questions are loaded, to say the least of it and that if you take a different view from Crow, it means that you are in favour of

245
stagnation or frustration. I should like to know what is the evidence that the economy will stagnate without that level of development. There are already many people living in those counties who would like jobs and economic growth for their own needs, not necessarily for the attraction of new people.
Decent housing has been talked about this afternoon by many noble Lords. Like them, I want to see that provision. But I do not want to see the additional houses comprising four or five bedrooms, three bathrooms and two garages, which is all too often the answer 1.o development.
Even if social housing policies are rigorously enforced, as other noble Lords have indicated, in my submission, it is not right for such housing to be away from the established centres.
I submit that the report raises more questions than it answers; creates more problems than it solves; undermines local responsibility; shows a lack of understanding of the conditions which exist and which will be exacerbated if it is adopted; and has a truly old-fashioned disregard for concerns about the environment.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I should declare two current interests. First, I am president of the Town and Country Planning Association, although I am not here to speak for that association this afternoon. Secondly, I am a prospective candidate for the Greater London Assembly and London will be very much affected by the south-east regional planning guidance.
From these Benches, we have chosen to focus our first contributions on need. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for framing the debate in that way. My noble friend Lady Maddock talked about a number of needs, including key service workers who are priced out of housing. That is something which my colleague, Susan Kramer, our mayoral candidate is making very much her own subject.
It is a multi-faceted subject. That is inevitable because people are complex. A multi-faceted—dare I say, joined-up?—approach is needed, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said. I have always supported an approach to planning issues which does actually plan; which does not provide a straitjacket but which looks ahead realistically. I am extremely comfortable with the plan, monitor and manage approach so long as it is not forgotten that the first element is planning.
It is my ambition also to achieve the greatest public participation—democracy involving the public without, of course, forgetting the role of government to lead. I am fascinated by the comments on the operation of the new-style panel, getting away from the adversarial approach and being open and participative.
Therefore, it is a pity that part of the panel's recommendations. the part which has hit the headlines, was not thrashed through during that process. But that perhaps is a matter relating to the process and not necessarily relating to the outcome. As
246
other noble Lords have said, it is important that we should not cling to polarised positions and not revert to an adversarial approach. It is all the more important that the process which leads to the decisions of the Secretary of State is dealt with in as transparent a fashion as possible. Certainly, no one can say that we are not now having a debate, although I am aware of how the general debate is concentrating on numbers rather more than on meeting need.
The noble Earl described the bottom-up approach taken by SERPLAN. I, too, was a member of that body for some time. We have not yet found an effective way of debating at local level strategic issues such as overall housing need. It is much easier to engage a community on subjects like local greenfield areas, sadly too easily confused with green belt. It is not nearly so easy to have a debate which deals with overall numbers and need, numbers which many of us cannot comprehend. I use the analogy of a committee which is likely to spend a lot longer looking at spending a few thousand pounds on a small traffic—management scheme than it is on spending many, many millions on some major infrastructure development. That is because it is so difficult to get one's brain round how one spends millions, as it is about how one houses millions.
SERPLAN is not a strategic body although its members and its officers struggle manfully to work cohesively, and I pay tribute to the noble Earl in that regard. To deal with regional strategic issues, we need regional strategic government, not officials who are part of the central administration.
What is the context for the debate? As has been said, there is the need for affordable homes; the connection between homes and jobs; the objective of urban renaissance; escalating house prices, which are of such concern at present—and I wonder whether limiting house building will do anything to control prices; transport congestion, to which my noble friend Lady Thomas and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred; and a concern to recognise the importance of our countryside and our open spaces in our towns, as well as outside them.
The core strategy of RPG identified by Professor Crow's panel comprises, as he says, seven essential and necessarily intertwined elements. Time precludes me from going through all of them but I shall mention three: the prospect of a decent home, affordable homes, planning now having regard for the sequential test with which your Lordships are familiar; securing a prosperous and attractive countryside; and, last but not least, urban renaissance, which in the report is extended to suburban areas.
Of course, the report has gone further, with detailed recommendations about APLE—areas of plan-led expansion. This debate is quite agricultural. That raises the question of whether we have yet worked out how the sequential test should be applied and, in particular, how far ahead we should plan. Is it possible to plan to lay the groundwork without firm commitment and without raising the temperature of the debate in such a way that the future development,

247
whatever form it might take, has so distressed people and polarised views that it makes it quite difficult to plan ahead?
The London Planning Advisory Committee sounded sensible notes of warning when it considered the report, supporting some parts of it and disagreeing with others. I shall mention just one comment. It suggested that SERPLAN's baseline figure for housing need is not adequate as a basis for the rest of the south-east's provision but also that the panel's other extreme would have untenable consequences.
No one argues with managing development. The logic is that if we anticipate that development cannot be contained in towns, should we think calmly about whether it needs to be concentrated on limited areas of greenfield sites? After all, the urban task force itself suggested that in the south-east only 39 per cent of development could be sited on brownfield land.
I believe that if we do not think about those issues we shall leave the way open for incremental development which causes such difficulty through its piecemeal nature. I agree with my noble friend Lord Ezra, who used the example of the Christchurch Hospital land, although, interestingly, I read Professor Crow's report as seeking to avoid that scenario.
The logic is that we should also look at what people do and where they live as part of the same picture. Professor Michael Breheny's recent work, undertaken for the Town and Country Planning Association, is interesting. He advises that,
"The new job centres are suburbs, small towns and rural a reas"—
that may not be news that we want to hear. He continues,
"Thus, for example, market towns, with a high quality of life. with none of the dereliction or social problems that tend to be associated with a manufacturing past … have tended to prosper … At the same time, work is becoming increasingly feminised and professionalised"—
I hope noble Lords will forgive the jargon. That will have an effect on the decline of full-time jobs and the places where jobs are to be found. Professor Breheny's conclusion is that,
"the changing geography of jobs is profoundly counter-urban".
That may not be welcome news, but I believe that we have to take the matter seriously.
The noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, talked about the need to assess where jobs will be found. It has been put to me that reducing jobs in Wokingham will not transplant them to Whitehaven. I agree with the noble Lord's regional approach.
Similar work—although I have not yet had an opportunity to read more than the press release—has come from the Performance and Innovation Unit, suggesting that we have to look at the issue of work in countryside areas. I do not believe that that amounts to building over the countryside, but it relates to addressing the issues.
When I first became involved in politics I was struck by the power of a point made to me on the doorstep: "I am all right, I have a home, but I really do not know
248
where my children will live". Twenty years ago or more that statement was forceful; now it is even more forceful. Society and government at every level have to answer that need.
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I must explain that I am here in place of my noble friend Lady Byford who, sadly, is not well. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in wishing her a speedy recovery from what, I believe, is a nasty bout of flu.
I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his speech and hope that he will find time to contribute to debates in the future. I greatly enjoyed his contribution today. I believe the right reverend Prelate summed up the debate when he said that it is a question of what kind of houses, for whom and where. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for the chance to join in this most opportune debate. His approach was one of authority and common sense. He has started us in the right direction.
As an elected member of a local authority I had to deal with housing problems, as did the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. It was heart-breaking to listen to the situations of some people which brought home to me the importance of having one's own front door. Yesterday morning the "Today" programme interviewed the chief executive of Locate in Kent. That organisation works with its French partner in Lille and with Eurotunnel Developments to attract particularly Far Eastern companies to set up at either end of the tunnel.
A number of points emerged, including, first, the fact that Far Eastern companies see Kent as the gateway to the UK and from the UK into Europe. Secondly, the south-east has to compete with the regions as government prefer new jobs to be located in areas of high unemployment in the rest of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Thirdly, it was stated that grants are available to attract firms to Kent.
As we have heard, some population specialists say that 1 million plus new homes will be needed by 2016 in the south-east. That must be based on greater numbers of elderly living on their own, greater numbers of single-parent families, lower mortality rates, lower marriage rates and inward migration. Can the Minister state what proportion of that 1 million plus homes are likely to be filled by people moving into the south-east over the next decade and a half? In his Answer of 30th November, at col. 718 of the Official Report, the Minister said that most of the current inward migration is from London. Can he say what proportion of that number are people who retire to the area and what proportion are people who are filling new jobs?
It would be interesting to know how many homes in each of the regions served by regional development agencies are empty and what proportion belong to local authorities, to various government agencies and departments and to private owners.
The business of attracting jobs to areas of high unemployment has been going on for a long time. It has been made more urgent by the decline in

249
traditional industries such as shipbuilding, coal, steel and heavy engineering. I understand that thousands of jobs in the textile industry are now coming to an end in the Midlands and the north. Furthermore, the crisis in agriculture is hitting family farmers who lose their homes when they leave their jobs. All of those people need new jobs in the communities in which they live.
One argument over devolution concerned the need to ensure that measures to attract jobs to Wales and Scotland would not merely move them from existing locations in England. Can the Minister explain what rules have been put in place to prevent that? Can he also tell us what measures are being taken to ensure that existing jobs do not move within England from one region to another as grants encourage companies to abandon old sites, leaving them for future generations to clean up?
If we are to have new jobs and more people in the south-east, it will be necessary to have more homes. That is obvious. Steps must be taken to ensure that planning permissions given in the next decade will result in housing suitable for those who will want to live in them in 2016. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, said, we need affordable housing. It is no use building 4 to 5 bedroom, three-bathroom and triple garage houses on half an acre if, in 15 or 20 years, the need will be for 2 to 3 bedroom units to accommodate those who can no longer climb the stairs or weed the garden.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, spoke about single-person households and the fact that there are 1 million in Landon and the south-east. He spoke of how their needs are different. Such people get a buzz from city centres and he told of the exciting projects of Redrow Homes in converting buildings.
Where there are large numbers of houses there needs to be adequate infrastructure, as so many noble Lords have said, including the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and my noble friend Lord Bowness. The wise words on global warming indicate that the south-east will become increasingly wet in winter and dry in the summer. Who will assume the costs of piping potable water in and storm or flood water out? The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, posed the question whether Southern Water would accept the responsibility. Or would government be expected to do so from central funds when problems began to show?
There is also a need for infrastructure to cope with transport needs. The 10-year plan unveiled by the Deputy Prime Minister is no more than 10 years' expenditure at current levels. Is it anticipated that funding for the roads, railways, buses, trams and trains, adequate to cater for the occupants of over 1 million plus homes, will come out of that figure? Or is this something the Government will be expected to provide from central funds when the deficiencies begin to show up? Where there are 1 million plus new homes there will normally be rather a lot of children. Part of the infrastructure requirement therefore will be for maternity units, nurseries, schools and play areas. Will those costs be met by the property developers or is that
250
something the Government will be expected to provide from central funds when nature's blessings begin to show up?
An obvious extension of that train of thought is the requirement for new facilities generally—for libraries, hospitals, for old peoples' homes. Many of the services will be provided by the local authorities through the standard spending assessment, but who will provide the capital for the buildings? Or is this too something that the Government will be expected to provide from central funds when needs must?
I fear that further house building in the south-east will take the form of a cycle which goes something like this: the Government provide grants to attract new jobs to the south-east; houses, factories, commercial premises will all be built in the south-east; houses, factories, commercial premises elsewhere will be empty. The Government have to find extra money to build roads, hospitals and so forth in the south-east. The Government have to find extra money to alleviate the results in the south-east of global warming—and so on.
I have not even mentioned the pressures on wildlife and prime agricultural land that the building of 1 million plus homes could cause. The south-east is host to a number of species which are not to be found in many other parts of Britain; for example, the yellow-necked mouse, the serotine bat, the large tortoiseshell butterfly and the pasque flower. How does the Minister propose to fit 1 million plus houses, two new national parks, countless factories, shops and offices and mile upon mile of roads and railtrack into this area and protect and preserve its wildlife and amenity value? Will the Minister provide the figures of grade 1 agricultural land which will be sacrificed directly to the concrete mixer?
A decent home of one's own is a goal we all share, and one that we all want for everyone. The contributions to today's debate have been informed and have shown the expertise and experience that exists in your Lordships' House. The debate has highlighted many issues and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
5.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for initiating this debate and for the wide range of contributions to it. As other noble Lords said, we are grateful for the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, who reminded us graphically that often community and human values override and are more important than even the best laid plans of planners and architects. That is a lesson we can learn from this debate which, not entirely but to a significant extent, concerned numbers as much as quality and community.
Serious and difficult issues are involved. It may be sensible for me to start by reminding your Lordships of the way in which regional planning guidance now works and therefore the context in which the numbers

251
have emerged and, not so much in your Lordships' House but in the media and elsewhere, been subject to slightly over-excited commentaries.
In general, the new system of regional planning guidance has been broadly welcomed across political parties and throughout the country. Instead of being chopped-down statements of generality, we intend that from now on the planning guidance should embody an agreed spatial strategy for each region. They will be agreed with the many different interests and agencies within the region, with the regional planning body in the lead. They will need to integrate all the issues to which the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and others referred—transport and economic planning generally—into a much more sustainable approach. Each RPG under this process is then subject to a public examination of the kind carried out by Professor Crow in order to ensure that all the main issues are dealt with openly and transparently.
A key feature of the arrangement, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, indicated, is one of partnership, bringing everybody into the process. It involves listening to residents, businesses and those who provide services in the region. A great deal of conflict is involved which must be reconciled; for example, the demands for growth and prosperity must be reconciled with aspects of the quality of life in the south-east, as indeed with other areas.
Without disparaging the difficulties in other parts of the country, the south-east faces a much more complex set of pressures than other regions. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and others in respect of SERPLAN for the way in which members and officers implemented the new procedures in preparation for the RPG. SERPLAN played a leading role in the formulation of regional planning policy and enthusiastically piloted the new procedures.
Under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, SERPLAN has given the south-east a distinctive voice and, to a large extent, as other noble Lords have said, brought together various interests in the south-east. In responding to a central point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, SERPLAN brought to the forefront the concept of sustainable development. The Government support it in putting that at the centre of what we are trying to do.
There is therefore a great deal of common ground between SERPLAN and the Government, contrary to what one may believe from reading the newspapers. We are both concerned to see sustainable development at the centre of any plans for economic growth. There is general agreement that we cannot go on building in the laissez-faire pattern which has occurred in recent years, above all in the south-east. We may have to concentrate on more limited areas and a more structured approach. Nevertheless, it is also the case that in the wider debates since SERPLAN published the draft RPG, some issues need to be addressed in relation to the SERPLAN approach and about which we ourselves may have anxieties.
252
The SERPLAN draft RPG was subject to public consultation and public examination. The position now is that, following public examination from Professor Crow, it is necessary for the Deputy Prime Minister, as the Secretary of State, to consider the panel's reports and all the representations on SERPLAN's draft RPG. We will then publish in the new year proposed changes to the RPG. Again, that process will be subject to full consultation.
That is the process. The panel report was a report on the public examination, and a wide range of representations have already been made. It is not the case that the panel put forward, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, suggested, figures which were significantly higher than those that were making representations to them. Indeed, some figures were significantly higher than that. Part of the problem of dealing with the figures is that to some extent today, and certainly outside this Chamber, Professor Crow has come in for a great deal of personal criticism. That is inappropriate. He was doing his job in this context.
However, the Government are not bound by the panel's view, nor indeed the view of SERPLAN. We will be giving careful and detailed consideration to all the recommendations before we make our views known. Planning the future shape of the south-east is a major undertaking. There is bound to be controversy; there are bound to be differing views and we should respect each other's views to enable us to reach as broad a consensus as we can in this context.
The role both of SERPLAN and subsequently of Professor Crow had to be seen in that context. In the south-east, as in the rest of the country, we are using these public examination panels. We have a panel of 10 independent persons, including Professor Crow, who chair those examinations and those on structure plans and make recommendations. Consideration of how effectively we can deploy our resources of those scarce people over the busy period next year led to an announcement by the Minister for Planning that Corrine Swain will chair the Yorkshire and Humberside examination rather than Professor Crow.
In relation to the south-east, it must be said that there is an absolutely huge demand for housing in the area. This is a reflection of the buoyancy of the region, the standard of living of its inhabitants and, indeed, the investment that is being made there. Most of the demand comes from the needs of those who are already living in the region forming households and having families.
We owe it to those in the south-east, as we do to those elsewhere, to ensure that they are able to secure decent housing. Shortage of housing is one of the reasons why prices in the south-east are beyond the reach of many. Even in the most prosperous parts of the south-east there are still substantial areas of poverty and deprivation. If the costs of housing are driven too high by shortage, there is a danger of more people becoming excluded because they cannot access satisfactory housing. Many people already find it very difficult to live near their jobs and that aggravates the problems associated with transport and infrastructure.

253
As I said, the majority of this demand comes from pressures within the south-east itself. There is also migration into London and into the rest of the south-east. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, asked me for precise figures in relation to the migration and I shall provide her with them in more detail by letter. The vast majority of people moving into the south-east come from the London area rather than from the rest of the country. Although it may be true that there is some small drift from other regions, it is not a massive north/south drift or a north/south divide which is being reflected and which is somehow manifest in the pressure on housing in the south-east; it is more London and the Internal pressures within the south-east. There are, indeed, movements out of the south-east into other neighbouring regions.
As far as concerns putting this into the national approach to regional policy, our policies for the regions aim to bring the less prosperous regions up to the standards of the best. Indeed, in response to my noble friend Lord Stoddart, that remains the strategy adopted by this Government. Our main instruments for this are developing planning measures region by region and the powers that we are giving regional development agencies. We are allocating expenditure to them in a way which provides more resources to tackle the problems in the north so as to try to provide greater employment and investment opportunities.
We also recognise the important role that the regional development agencies have in all parts of the country in supporting regeneration, including regeneration in the south-east, and in shifting some of the balance and, therefore, the pressures within the area. For example, there is much more pressure in the western part of the south-east on housing and on other infrastructure than there is in the eastern part. There are also areas of derelict and previously contaminated or work-out land, such as the Thames Gateway, which could do with substantial further development. There are also parts of the south-coast, like Hastings and Sandwich, where again there is not only deprivation but also a need for more substantial housing and infrastructure.
As I said, and as other noble Lords have indicated, there are serious problems about the approach taken by the panel and. its implications as regards the pressures on housing in the south-east. There are also problems in relation to SERPLAN's original proposals; for example, there appears to be a view built into the SER PLAN figures that fewer households will need separate dwellings than has been the case in the recent past. In other words, there will somehow be a slow-down in the growth of families and consequently in family life. We do not quite see the justification for this and it is something that we need to consider. We need to consider both propositions in the light of such questions.
We need to ask what will happen to households if insufficient housing is provided. If real needs are found to exist, how will they be provided for? Alternatively, will there be a huge backlog that cannot be met which will show itself in rising prices and, therefore, further exclusion? Our approach to all of these pressures is
254
that we have to plan, monitor and manage the system and that we must do so with a high degree of regional consensus to meet the legitimate future needs. We need to do so as scientifically as possible, while bringing with us as many people as possible. We cannot do so by astrology or by simply accepting "predict and provide" figures; and certainly not by accepting the figures of house builders and developers.
Contrary to the more extreme reactions to the panel's report and their association with the Government, we are certainly not taking a "predict and provide" approach. We need to consider a wide range of factors. We are looking for a sustainable future. Similarly, we cannot leave local authorities to do it on their own. Indeed, that would be subject to the normal wrangles at that level. Structure and unitary plans have to be brought together and local authorities will have to do this within a framework that we have to give them. We all need to set out a way forward in the regional guidance as a clear basis for future development planning, subject to monitoring and management and bringing all the authorities concerned together.
It certainly does not mean that the Government are blindly following Professor Crow's recommendations; it means that we need to take account of them and the points raised. In particular, we need to look at a new assessment of the needs of the area and the capability of the south-east to deliver more housing, including conversions, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and others, have said, and an improvement in the housing stock. We must also look at new developments. It is not sensible for the south-east to do what it has far too frequently done in the recent past; namely, allow very substantial development of so-called "executive housing" to spread in a poorly-planned fashion, largely into greenfield sites.
Over the past 20 years such developments have perhaps caused a high level of anxiety in the towns and villages of the area. I do not believe that we should continue to go down that road. Few authorities have seriously considered the alternatives to moving onto greenfield sites. We have made clear our commitment in the south-east, as elsewhere, to move from the current figure of around 50 per cent to a60 per cent development of brownfield sites within the south-east.
As concerns were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and, I believe, by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, I should point out that we are also committed to maintaining a green belt. There has been a fair amount of scare-mongering in this area. The green belt needs to be maintained and there should be no inappropriate development on it. That does not necessarily mean that the current boundaries have to be ossified for good; indeed, there will be a few exceptional circumstances. However, during the period of this Government so far over ten times as much land has been, or is proposed to be, added to the green belt as against that which has been lost or is proposed to be lost. This is the approach we are taking to maintain the robustness of our greenbelt policy.

255
There is another factor that needs to be considered and it is one that has been alluded to; namely, that the south-east has been building at some of the lowest densities in the whole country. That is one of the reasons why so much has spilt over into greenfield sites. On the one hand, there are many people saying that land is so precious that we cannot build on it—at least not to the extent that we are already doing—and, on the other hand, there are developers and authorities who are making little attempt to build more economically and sensibly. We are also talking about smaller households and smaller families in this context. As I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, there is a complete mismatch. It means that the housing requirements are actually using more land in the south-east than is necessary. Indeed, if building continues at the present rate, the size of those houses laid together would stretch a lot further than Hawaii.
It is not sensible for us to be building in that way in the south-east. We need to plan for a wider range of housing with much smaller units and less lavish provision for the car in residential layouts. We must look at sustainable patterns of development, which will also restrict the pressure on transport and other infrastructure. That is not to say that what we are going in for—my noble friend Lord Stoddart was slightly worried about this—'is "town cramming". We are going in for an effective and planned approach to urban renaissance, greater efficiency in the use of land and a greater part of the new development occurring on brownfield sites.
The guidance that we have produced in PPG3 and PPG13 is already clear and will be reflected in our wider polices for urban and rural areas. This fits in very well with what a number of noble Lords said during the course of the debate. We do not accept the view of the panel that a 50 per cent rate of development on previously developed land is the only one that is feasible in the short term. We are committed to the higher figure of a recycling target of 60 per cent. We are committed to bringing brownfield sites into housing use. We are also committed to developing empty property and unfit property, although there are far fewer empty properties in the south-east than in most other parts of the country.
We are also committed to making sure that the housing that we provide is accessible and affordable, as my noble friends Lord Graham and Lord Sawyer and the noble Baronesses, Lady Maddock and Lady Thomas, have said. It is key that our young people are able to access housing. It is key that our service employees who may not be high up the income scale can access housing. It is important that every family has access to a decent home. Planning policy has been changed already to give local authorities the tools to require a more sustainable mix of housing. Authorities in the south-east must not continue to prioritise greenfield or sprawling executive estate-type housing. Our policy must be to increase the re-use of brownfield land. We have the recommendations from the Urban
256
Task Force of the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, which provide further measures which we can pursue in that direction.
Local authorities, of course, have a key part to play. My honourable friend Nick Raynsford has recently announced that £187 million of capital resources have been awarded to local authorities in the south-east for investment in housing. That is a massive increase of over 50 per cent on the previous year. These increased allocations have been made through the housing investment programme and will give authorities in all parts of the region the opportunity to make real inroads into the backlog of repairs and to improve their stock in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suggested.
Many of the points which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and others on promoting urban regeneration, including the issue of high density, low cost housing, are currently being considered in the context of our preparing an urban White Paper in response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rogers. We are pursuing a rigorous programme of analysing those proposals and of research. As is already clear, there is considerable scope for towns in the south-east to improve their town centres and to provide the housing that is required.
Noble Lords will not expect me to comment on the various taxation proposals which have been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, but they will all need to be considered in this context. I note that I am approaching the limit of the time in which I may speak and therefore I shall finish. We have had a good debate. I think that I have made it clear that at this point the Government endorse neither SERPLAN's nor the panel's approach. The Government have a number of queries in relation to both of those. However, it is vitally important, politically and for the future of the south-east, that so far as possible all responsible parties in the south-east should reach a consensus on this matter which reflects the real needs of the south-east and the varying pressures on different parts of the south-east. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we ought not to allow ourselves to develop polarised positions on this matter. I assure noble Lords that my department, and above all my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, are committed to getting this right. My right honourable friend will take a little more time to present the Government's views and for the views of others to be taken into account.
This is one of the most difficult planning issues which the country faces at this point. I am grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords and in particular for the initiative of the noble Earl in introducing this debate and for all the work he has done on SERPLAN prior to that.
5.33 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I have about three minutes in which to say a few words. I believe that the debate has been a great success and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to it.

257
I was particularly interested in the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. He understands the concept of sustairtability. I hope that he will agree with the following definition of sustainability; that is, meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. That is an important definition.
I was delighted to hear the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. He referred to Leigh Park, Havant. I was chairman of the planning committee that gave permission for those 2,000 houses. I could not know the area better as I visited it many times. However, much more importantly, the right reverend Prelate said that behaviour is related to environment. That comprises a bigger problem than merely planning.
The Minister explained the planning guidance process and referred to the common ground between SERPLAN and the Government. I realise that he could not say much more than he did today. I was grateful for the way that he summed up the position. I look forward very much to the Government's response for my own sake. for all noble Lords' sake and for SERPLAN's sake. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Coal industry
5.35 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wathrose to call attention to the future of the coal industry and related coal engineering industries; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the position of the coal and coal engineering industries, not least because this debate takes place at an extremely critical time both for the industry and for the future arrangements for the energy requirements of our country.
I think that it is best if I begin by asking my noble friend a number of questions. I hope that they will receive relevant responses. I shall then say a few words about my anxiety with regard to the various issues to which those questions refer.
First, do the Government accept that much coal will continue to be required by the United Kingdom for rather a long time?
Secondly, do the Government accept that it would be wise for the United Kingdom to retain a coal engineering industry, not only to maintain its commendable export record but also because the world will continue to need coal and other minerals as people penetrate deeper into the earth's crust for those resources? At the same time, people may soon cry out for a clean coal combustion capacity, to which our industry could con tribute provided it has the home base which it will need if it is to survive.
Thirdly —this is 'elated to my previous point—even if our coal industry disappears there will still be a huge international "coal burn" for a long time. The destruction of our industry will have remarkably little effect on that total consumption.
258
Fourthly, if we do not burn coal, how will it be replaced? Perhaps my noble friend can tell us the scale of our gas reserves. I understand that the current record suggests proven gas reserves of perhaps no more than eight years-worth. More will be discovered, but probably in smaller fields which will be difficult and expensive to harvest.
Fifthly, is it sensible for us to sustain a belief in cheap, subsidised exports when our industry could soon be on the verge of disappearing?
Sixthly, Poland now aspires to be a member of the EU. It is obliged to act as a responsible part of the EU. It is in principle not supposed to dump within the EU and yet Polish coal is being sold in Britain today at a price of £1.10 per gigajoule, which is way below the cost of production. When one adds the substantial cost of transporting that coal, one realises that that importation is almost indefensible.
Seventhly, has the Department of Trade and Industry considered the implications of the recent purchase of Ferrybridge, Fiddler's Ferry, Drax and Eggborough, for which a price of almost £1.5 billion has been paid? That suggests that people from abroad are quite prepared to import large quantities of coal into the United Kingdom while our industry disappears.
Eighthly, have the Government disregarded the fact that, excluding Russia, Europe has only some 3.6 per cent of the world's gas and one-eighth of the world's coal, and that we shall be increasingly dependent on gas and coal from areas of the world which are certainly not particularly stable or likely to be favourable in their attitude to the United Kingdom's needs?
Ninthly, is it reasonable to pursue a course which will see the end of British deep mining when it is currently demonstrating an enormous capacity in a successful and safe operation, providing that base which the engineering industry requires?
Tenthly, do the Government intend to maintain their present approach given that £14.5 billion was devoted to the subsidy of the coal industries of Germany, Spain and, to some extent, France, while our own industry not only is not subsidised but bears charges and costs which are not applicable to our European neighbours' industries?
Eleventhly, do the Government recognise that the United Kingdom has been successful? If one looks at the rates of productivity in Europe, one finds, for example, that, measured in kilogrammes per man hour, Spain produces 400, Germany 650 and the United Kingdom, on the latest figures, well in excess of 1,600. We are far, far more effective than our European competitors, whose industries are being retained.
Lastly, do the Government recall that they promised the coal industry no favours but fairness, wisdom and a level playing field? In that case, how can one defend the fact that our industry is facing a very adverse slope?
Those are the questions. I shall now express why I am concerned. When I became a Member of the House of Commons in 1970, I had 12 collieries in my

259
constituency and more than 20 within five miles of its boundaries. Thousands of my constituents worked in the industry. In the village in which I lived, close to Wath upon Dearne, 57 per cent of the men worked in the pit. There are two or three industrial gypsies now, working for contractors at long distances.
Before that, I was a local councillor. In my ward was Manvers colliery, where my father was over man, and the headquarters of the South Yorkshire area, which then consisted of 19 collieries. Only one of those remains—Maltby, which has vast reserves—on which £200 million was invested. It should have a long life; it employs only 400 men. It was not even on the list that Mr Heseltine produced in the earlier Parliament.
Silverwood was on that list. I am pleased to see that the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Haslam, are in their places. I shall listen to their speeches with interest and respect. They may recall that Silverwood was one of the most profitable, record-breaking pits in the country over a long period. At this moment, vast sums of money are being expended in reclaiming the site of that very successful former colliery. I shall listen to other noble Lords' contributions with great interest. I hope that they will be helpful in assisting the Government's view.
It is all very well to say that there will be help for the areas affected, but most of the pits in the constituency that I represented closed in the 1980s, about 12 years ago. A lot of money has been spent since, but the gap between the problem and the remedy, or attempted remedy, has been a long one—12 years. There was enormous concern about the devastation of employment which then occurred. Many spoke about that. Some spoke also about the social corrosion of the changes which took place and which may have placed our areas at a particular disadvantage.
The debate comes at a critical time. Will the United Kingdom be able to withstand international forces which we may not at this stage be properly able to assess? Will we sacrifice energy security? We seem to be hell-bent along that road. Do the Government recognise that if the deep-mine industry, as successful as it is, is wiped out, that will inevitably destroy our mining engineering industry, which requires a home base, at least for demonstration purposes? We need to be very careful about that.
There is much talk about green issues. My noble friends who have known me for a long time will recognise that I have been a conservationist, a very green politician, for a long time. It is certainly well over 25 years since I first spoke about the need to burn coal cleanly and said that there is no need for the filth which pours into our atmosphere so remorselessly and unrelentingly, and which has been scarcely adequately challenged internationally. I support our commitments in Kyoto; I wish only that other advanced countries—particularly the United States—would take the same approach. We have to recognise that, although we have achieved much, a great part of that bill is borne by the mining communities.
260
We should not be too glib when we talk about alternatives. We talk about solar power. Many parts of the world have greater access to that source of energy than we have in the United Kingdom, even with global warming. Wind power is not as attractive as many people imagine, although it may have a contribution to make— as have other renewables, although some of them will be frightfully expensive. I recall that in 1970 I had a briefing from the electricity industry. I can see now how we were presented with the nuclear future through very rose-tinted spectacles.
As this century ends, the newspapers are full of photographs providing images of the past 100 years. Some will stick in our minds for a very long time—the pictures of the closed collieries; of the pit wheels marking where the collieries stood— but, as I have said before, the one that will long linger in my mind is of standing beside the sarcophagus at Chernobyl. That may be some evidence that man's ingenuity is not quite matched by man's wisdom.
The world will continue to need coal for a long time. We ought to be contributing to a capacity to burn it cleanly.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. I appreciate his long-term interest in the mining industry, particularly in the welfare of miners. We have both contributed to debates about compensation and the delay in payment of compensation to miners who have been affected by breathing and chest diseases as a result of working for long periods in coal mines. There have been reports recently in the press that some of the compensation for these people will come from the miners' pension fund. I can tell my noble friend that in South Wales that has gone down like a lead balloon. Does he have any observations to make about that?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I remind your Lordships that this is a timed debate. It is undesirable that noble Lords should interrupt at any length during timed speeches.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am well aware that the Government are taking rather a lot of money out of the miners' pension fund. I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Varley, who is very knowledgeable about these matters and experienced in energy matters, may wish to comment.
Some years ago, when Mr MacGregor was chairman of British Coal, I went to a large exhibition at the National Exhibition Centre which was presented by the British mining engineering industry. Mr MacGregor spoke at that exhibition bringing in the new criterion that no reserves could be counted unless they could be mined currently and profitably. That wiped out about 150 years of Britain's SS coal reserves. I wonder whether the Government have done a calculation of the effect of the massive increases in productivity in the past decade, under British Coal as well as under Mr Budge. I believe that, in economic terms, they have clawed back at least half of the period that Mr MacGregor wrote off.

261
Will the same criteria apply to the small gas fields which will be very expensively harvested? That should be considered.
I am nearing the end of my speaking time. I became very angry occasionally during debates on coal in the previous Parliament because all we used to get from the other side were references to Mr Scargill and the miners' leadership, with the very clear implication that the mining communities were the enemies within. I found that utterly offensive. The record of those communities in Britain has been very substantial. We heard no words about the "enemy within" when the nation called for coal, and there were no such words when men were suffering from pneumoconiosis and other such diseases against which my noble friend Lord Lofthouse has waged such an active campaign. It is good that the Government are now implementing the provisions introduced, albeit half-heartedly, by the previous administration. However, this is a national burden—and it ought to be.
Miners' health is also one of the reasons why I welcome the priority given to safety by British Coal—now our national coal board—and by Mr Budge. While I opposed the privatisation of coal, I was reassured by the priority given to health and safety by Mr Budge, and I believe that the men and management at Tower colliery, at Long Gannet and those in Mr Budge's pits deserve commendations on their efforts to ensure that strides forward in productivity are matched by concerns for safety and health. Because of that, perhaps future miners will not suffer such disadvantages. At this time we need wisdom and I only hope that Her Majesty's Government will show it. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Haslam: My Lords, first, I should like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, for introducing this debate, because yet again the coal industry and its related industries are clearly at another important crossroads. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me if I reflect briefly on an earlier period of British Coal when I was directly involved as its chairman during the period after the miners' strike until the end of 990. I believe it contains some important lessons for the present situation.
First, we should remember that the trigger for the strike was the threat by my predecessor, Sir Ian MacGregor, to close six collieries. In the five years following the strike we were to close over 100 uneconomic pits, leaving 69. Manpower was reduced by 140,000, but total output was only marginally reduced. Thus, productivity was doubled, equivalent to an improvement of 14 per cent per annum. I do not take any great pride in those statistics, but if that had not been done, I do not believe that we would even have the coal industry that we have today.
Surprisingly, Mr Scargill survived at the end of the strike, but was suffering from the illusion that the strike had been a real success. Thus, he was as confrontational as ever and opposed to the closure of
262
every colliery. However, most of the miners had come to recognize—I pay tribute to them for this—the economic realities and we were able to work around Mr Scargill. That was only made possible because during that period we had no enforced redundancies. Every miner was offered either a transfer to a lower cost pit or the generous redundancy terms that we were permitted to offer by the then Conservative government. I must also pay tribute to the outstanding British Coal management skills in carrying through this daunting task. It was quite the most difficult one I had experienced in my long and varied industrial career. I should also like to endorse the tribute of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, to the officials of the miners themselves, who in the end did extremely well to help to bring about that particular achievement.
My successors were able to pursue these policies with equal vigour right up to privatisation in 1994. It had been my belief that the "fighting weight" of the industry would be based on about 35 to 40 large, low-cost collieries, the number being predicated on the belief that they would provide future access to most of the remaining workable reserves in the UK without incurring the prohibitive costs of sinking new mines. However, that was not to be.
There were a number of other parallel issues on which we focused our attention. These were as follows: first, the dumping in the UK of cheap coal from Poland, Russia, Colombia and China; secondly, the import of highly subsidised nuclear energy from France through the inter connector link, which originally was intended primarily to export cheap coal energy to France. Those dumped imports were equivalent to the output of six large collieries. Thirdly, government subsidies to British Coal were being phased out, but massive subsidies continued to be paid to the coal industries of Germany, Spain and France. In Germany, the subsidy was between £3 and £4 billion per annum. The outcome of this was that the UK bore the brunt of absorbing all the cheap imports that were available around the world.
Furthermore, there was a need for urgent government support in the development of clean coal technologies, which could improve generation costs by 25–30 per cent and reduce by a similar amount the emission of greenhouse gases. One of the greatest contributions that the UK could have made to reducing world CO2 emissions would have been to develop and demonstrate advanced clean coal technology. Undoubtedly, that technology would have been widely adopted in the developing world.
All these topics were pursued with vigour by the then government and also with the European Commission. But even then the limited support we received could only be described as lukewarm. As a result, all the topics have today a familiar ring because they are still not solved and continue to be subject to rhetoric rather than determined and meaningful action.
Current world coal consumption is about 4 billion tonnes per annum. Reputable international energy agencies estimate that that figure will rise to about

263
6.4 billion tonnes by 2020, primarily because of growing demand from the developing countries, in particular China and India. For example, China's need for coal is growing at the rate of about 100 million tonnes per year. Surprisingly, demand is also growing from the USA as it cuts back its nuclear capacity. At present, no further nuclear plants are planned for the USA, and by 2020 half the existing units will have been closed down. That represents almost 10 per cent of US energy consumption. What will replace it? It will be coal and gas, and most probably mainly coal. Those figures also reflect that there are an estimated 200 years' worth of coal reserves in the world, whereas the comparable figure for oil and gas is 50 years. It has often been said that we shall find new reserves of gas. However, having visited the Falkland Islands recently and seen the drilling operations off the islands, I believe that we might be coming to the bottom of the barrel.
A worrying feature is that the countries I have just mentioned are not showing any signs of supporting the Kyoto targets. By 2020, even if the UK and EU targets are met, they will have a minimal impact on the world outcome. The achievement of any Kyoto targets for reducing the world production of greenhouse gases from coal-burning are far removed from reality.
There is no doubt that in the late 1980s the German Government heavily supported their coal industry because they failed to face up to the problems of restructuring, as we did. However, now they have a more valid reason as they face a real problem: they are dependent upon Russia, the Middle East and Algeria for their supplies of natural gas. As the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, has already indicated, those countries are not the most reliable suppliers. They also face added pressure from their influential Green Party to phase out their nuclear industry, which represents 30 per cent of their electricity supply. Against that background, the German Government are most unlikely to allow their coal industry to disappear.
On the evidence that I have, our own natural gas reserves are currently estimated at 12 to 14 years, although the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, quoted a lower figure. But, surprisingly, we shall be supplying gas, through the new inter connector, to the Germans, for example, in the interests of so-called EU competition, thus further reducing the life of our own reserves. In addition, the Magnox nuclear reactors will be phased out by 2010 and the AGR reactors will be past their anticipated life, eventually leaving only the Sizewell B reactor active. Therefore, we could then find that we are in the same position as the Germans, dependent upon imported gas from Russia and the Middle East and our growing renewable energy sources which, while making encouraging progress, will not in any way fill the gap.
Against that background, are we willing to allow the remaining vestiges of our coal industry to disappear, along with the future access they provide to some of our valuable coal reserves, without having a much clearer vision of how we will meet our energy needs post 2020?
6 P.m.
Lord Varley: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, in debates of this kind. His comments were certainly interesting and the points he made about the world situation were devastating. I was particularly interested in his comments about the Falkland Islands and his visit there. I was the chairman of the Falkland Islands Company for about five years. Along with others, I would be absolutely astonished if oil were discovered in the Falkland Islands in the quantity that is regarded as commercial, although I hope fervently that that will be the case.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, in his tribute to British mining engineers. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will join in that tribute. Until a few years ago we had—I do not know whether they still exist in the quantities required—the finest coal mining engineers in the world. They contributed immensely to the terrific productivity records of British Coal not only under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, but under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, too. It is a pleasure to follow such a distinguished industrialist as the noble Lord, Lord Haslam.
It is also a pleasure to support my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath. I thank him for initiating the debate. I congratulate him on making such a powerful speech in support of the coal industry and the related engineering industries.
It appears to me that the country is now in a make-or-break situation as far as concerns the coal industry. That sounds dramatic, but I believe that we are exactly in that position. With British mined coal at a production level of around 25 million tonnes a year, employment at about 7,000 people, and faced, as we are, by imported coal, some of it at dumped prices, we are presented with close to a crisis in the industry. The fact that the coal industries of our European neighbours receive massive state subsidies from their governments only highlights the problems we face here in Britain. Either we take whatever steps are needed to protect our industry at roughly its present level or we give up the ghost and face the consequences.
I cannot pretend—I hope that the Government do not pretend—that a few fine words and cheap platitudes will save the industry. There are many people now who secretly believe that the coal industry is a fringe industry and an embarrassment; an industry that ought to be got rid of as quickly and as quietly as possible. I noticed that in a debate in another place on 10th November, Mrs Helen Liddell, the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe—what a wonderful title that is—said in her peroration that,
"coal has a future".
Addressing the mining communities directly, she went on to say:
"from the bottom of my heart,…we"
meaning the Government—
"will not turn our back on them".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/11/99; col. 1065.]

265
I hope that those fine words will not come to haunt Mrs Liddell in the future. I have read very carefully what she said in the debate on 10th November and I could not detect anything in her remarks which encourages me to believe that the industry will not decline further, and probably quite rapidly, in the next year or two. Unless action is taken quickly and effectively, what is left of the industry will be gone in a short space of time. It will then become a real fringe industry.
I hold no brief for the company, RJB, which owns the bulk of the coal industry. But if the fine words of hope and heartfelt concern of the Minister for Energy mean anything at all, they mean that she will have to work out with RJB what is needed to secure the industry's future at the current level of production; and she will have to do it very urgently. That may mean direct financial assistance, either in the form of direct subsidy to the producers, similar in scale to that which is made by governments in Germany, France and Spain, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, or a subsidy to the electricity generators to burn coal. If the Government do not take action soon, the honeyed and comforting words will be seen and taken as empty gestures.
Some may say that it is perfectly reasonable— some would even say desirable—to let the coal industry die. I have heard those arguments put time and again. That is not my view yet; I think that the industry can still be saved. It is not the declared policy of the Government—yet. But unless the Government take action soon, the industry will die quite quickly and more misery will be inflicted on the mining communities, adding to the massive misery imposed on the miners by the previous Conservative government and from which they are still suffering.
We hear a great deal about the deprivations of the inner cities. I do not doubt for a second the privation and acute hardship that exist in parts of our great conurbations. But those hardships are shared by former mineworkers and their families in small mining communities throughout Britain. The throwing out of work of miners by the previous government in the early part of this decade created wretched conditions in those areas. It will take many, many years to eliminate those conditions.
The Markham Valley in north Derbyshire, where I worked as a very young man nearly 50 years ago, had five collieries within about two-and-a-half miles. Markham Valley is well known to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and probably to the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, too. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, visited the area on many occasions during his stewardship of the National Coal Board. At the peak of performance, those five pits employed about 5,000 men. The villages which surrounded those pits have suffered a plight which will take decades to eliminate. I have in my hand a photograph of the existing site. The head stocks of those pits have gone, the surface buildings have been removed, and this vast site has
266
been bulldozed. It looks like a lunar landscape. I shall show the photograph to my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey—
Lord Hardy of Wath: McIntosh!
Lord Varley: My Lords, I beg my noble friend's pardon. I shall show the photograph to my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey at the end of the debate.
The local authorities which cover the area are doing what they can to create what they euphemistically call a "growth zone", but they lack the financial incentives and the money to do it at the pace that is required. A few months ago the Deputy Prime Minister launched a task force to implement money through what is called the Coalfield Regeneration Trust. The money allocated to the regeneration trust is a pathetic amount of £10 million. To be charitable, that £10 million regeneration trust could be described as a step in the right direction—a small deposit towards what is really required. But the Markham Valley site alone—the lunar landscape to which I have just referred—will cost £37 million for site reclamation, development, proper roads, a motorway junction for access and servicing, and environmental services. There are dozens of comparable sites throughout Britain.
The coal industry and the industries associated with it have shed something like 250,000 jobs since 1984. I do not believe that any industry, over the same period, has experienced job losses on such a scale in such concentrated areas.
Fortunately, former mineworkers have a pension scheme. In fact, they have two: a mineworkers' pension scheme and a staff scheme. Here I must declare an interest. I am a beneficiary of the pension scheme, for service going back to the early 1960s. I receive 28p a week from the scheme, on which I pay 40 per cent tax. However, I make no complaint about my personal position. Given that the service took place a very long time ago, 28p represents good value. Fortunately, I receive bigger and better rewards from pension schemes linked to later employment.
Mineworkers' pension schemes are very wealthy and successful. That success reflects great credit on the schemes' trustees and the fund managers. The pension schemes have generated huge surpluses. I do not want to go into all the detail, but because the Government became the guarantor of the pension scheme—that is what the men in the pits voted for when the pits were privatised—the Government are legally and properly entitled to a proportion of the pension surplus. To date, that entitlement adds up to £3.4 billion. The Government have not taken that amount so far; I believe they have taken around £250 million a year. The surplus money is still accumulating interest and profit. It is conservatively estimated that it will soon exceed £4 billion.
The Government deserve to be rewarded for the risk that they took in guaranteeing the pension. But as the present day beneficiaries grow older, the numbers will decline and the risk will diminish. It seems to me that

267
some of that colossal pension fund surplus could be used to enhance the benefits of pensioners, but also some of the Government's proportion could be channelled into helping to regenerate former coalfield areas.
I want to mention another matter which may be considered relatively minor in terms of this debate. However, it is not minor to the men concerned. All I ask is that my noble friend should refer to it in his reply or promise to write to me. It is the question of miners' concessionary fuel. I have been told that the Department of Trade and Industry, which takes responsibility for the concessionary fuel scheme, has it in mind from April next year to offer to those who benefit from the scheme not only UK-produced fuel but manufactured briquettes made abroad, including Chinese anthracite. All of this may be a great slander on the Department of Trade and Industry and I shall be very pleased to hear my noble friend say that it is not true. Perhaps he will look into the matter and comment on it in due course.
It seems to me that the coal industry is at a critical turning-point. I re-emphasise what I said at the beginning of my remarks. The Government must either take a bold policy decision soon to hold the current level of production and protect the coal industry's market at around £25 million tonnes a year, or they must openly and honestly declare that the industry must face the full force of the market as it pertains in this country, and that it must do so without help.
If the Government choose to support the coal industry, they will have to say that they are doing it on energy policy grounds and strategic grounds. It will mean facing up to the environmental questions referred to by my noble friend Lord Hardy and investing in clean coal technology. It will mean subsidising the private coal producers or the private electricity generating companies which burn coal. I know that it will stick in the gullet of many Members of the House of Commons, but it would be barmy to renationalise the coal industry, as some suggested in another place on 10th November—even though the market capitalisation of RJB is only £45 million. RJB bought the English coalfields from the Government at a cost of £814 million and they are now worth only some 6 per cent of the original price.
If the Government say that it is no part of their business to keep the industry intact, it will wither away quite quickly. We shall have to face up to the need for a massive realistic programme of financial assistance to regenerate the areas concerned. That would need to be done quickly and with great sincerity. I mean a worthwhile programme of financial assistance, not the fiddling, paltry £10 million regeneration scheme that our loveable Deputy Prime Minister was put up to announce some weeks ago. There was a strange juxtaposition in this House earlier when the House debated the pressures on housing in the south-east and what is likely to happen early in the next century. If we
268
do nothing about the coal mining areas, miners' children and grandchildren will drift south and exacerbate the problems that exist in those areas.
The Government must face up to the crisis. It is no good Ministers looking to officials in their departments to bring forward schemes to soften the impact and put off the evil day. Officials will always do a good job. They will always find some short-term palliative to get over the immediately difficulty, as I have seen happen on dozens of occasions. Ministers will say that that is wonderful. They will be Micawberish, hoping that something will turn up. It is "make up your mind time" for Ministers. It is time for them to be brave and bold. I hope that they will be.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, for introducing the debate and am honoured to take part in it. I suspect that I am the least well-informed speaker on this subject. I did go down a deep coal mine in my youth, when the National Coal Board seemed to take the view that there were not enough Etonians under ground. I suspect that that view is shared by other people for other reasons! I greatly enjoyed the experience, but cannot say that I have had any great involvement with the coal industry since then.
There are a number of very good reasons why the Government should continue to support the coal industry. It is something that only the Government can do, because it requires a long-term strategic view on what is right for this country. Looking ahead, we are clearly in for some rough times in the energy market as fossil fuels run out. As has been said by other speakers, many of the reserves of those fuels lie in parts of the world that are not naturally stable or particularly friendly towards this country. We are therefore likely to see some sharp fluctuations in prices and availability.
There is a great deal to be said for making sure that in this country we continue, for the sake of the stability and long-term health of our economy, to have a diverse set of available energy sources; and that, where possible, those sources are indigenous. I welcome the Government's efforts in relation to alternative sources of energy, and hope that they will continue to build over the years, but they would come nowhere near to replacing the coal industry, or indeed the nuclear industry. We are faced in the short term with price pressures from dumping and subsidies overseas, and from short-term economies in relation to gas-fired power stations—short-term in relation to our life-span, if not those of our children.
Industry, given the chance, may take a five-year view on what is the best fuel to use and the best strategy for generating power. Being speculative, it might even stretch it to 10. The Government must think in terms of 50 years. They must think in terms of contingencies about which the ordinary industrialist may not have to think. The Government must see it as their responsibility to reduce the risk of catastrophe that the country is running in the long term—at the

269
acknowledged cost of some greater price, an insurance premium, as it were, that we all must pay on electricity in the mean time.
We cannot expect the Government to do anything about the subsidies that Germany gives its coal industry. There is remarkably little evidence that this Government will be effective, even in dealing with monstrous illegalities like the French beef ban. The German subsidy on coal has been running for a long time. We managed to do nothing about it; this Government have made no dent in it. It will continue. There is therefore a cost to the Government in supporting the coal industry which comes from the failure to deal with subsidies elsewhere. The Government must bear that cost. It is a consequence of failures and of the decisions that they have taken and it is not right that they should impose the costs of those decisions on the coal mining industry.
When it comes to coal, particularly deep coal where the main reserves lie, the Government need to consider the desirability of keeping the industry going in a manner that will enable it to respond, when the time comes that coal is needed again in large quantities.
It is clear that a large proportion of the world's fossil fuel reserves is in the form of coal. It is also clear to us all that when push comes to shove and there is a lack of fossil fuel and alternative energies remain, as they will, substantially more expensive than fossil fuel—Kyoto or no Kyoto; global warming or no global warming—we will use those fossil fuels.
The coal industry has a good, long future world-wide. We should not, for reasons of short-term economic circumstances, put our participation in that industry—a substantial and successful industry—at risk, particularly when so many of the factors disturbing the industry are essentially down to the Government, one way or another, in terms of the decisions they take about the structure of the energy industry in this country and the extent to which they allow subsidised coal imports to displace our domestic production.
I do not suppose that I have made myself popular with my Front Bench in saying that. I do not believe that either Front Bench will be pleased with any of the speeches today, but I hope that we shall hear something of comfort from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. At least his party has an historic association with the coal industry. I hope it still means something to them.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, it is inevitable that, as the fifth speaker in the debate, I shall repeat some of the points made by previous speakers. I make no apology for it. In any case, repetition will serve to emphasise what I, like others, believe are important points. I was delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, enjoyed his visit down the pit on one occasion. I am sure that his enjoyment depended largely on the fact that he knew that he did not have to spend the rest of his life down there.
270
The coal industry is once again facing problems. In the many years of my connection with it, there have always been problems. However, today I believe that some of the problems are rather different. With sympathy and determination from the present Labour Government, they can be solved or considerably alleviated—I say "immediately". The Government have shown sympathy with the difficulties now being experienced.
It would be helpful if the Minister would make the Government's attitude towards the coal industry clear and unequivocal. The Government could and, in my view, should say that for the foreseeable future this country needs a coal industry. The direct employment in the industry of about 15,000 people—reduced though it has become in recent years—is still of great importance. Indirect employment in the coalfield areas and the jobs in the mining equipment companies are equally important. There are other considerations, some of which have already been mentioned, such as the saving on imports.
Some of us have heard from the British mining companies group that if the UK mining industry ceases to be an equal fuel supplier, there will be a loss of up to 8,000 of their companies' engineering jobs and over 50 companies will follow. I fear that those figures are reasonably accurate. We may hear more about them later.
I interpose one little point here. The Minister may be able to say something about the position of Ellington colliery in Northumberland. We are all aware of it, some of the Ellington miners were in the House of Commons yesterday and I had the opportunity to talk to them. I need hardly say how deeply concerned they are.
Much of my speech will be taken up by asking direct questions to which, frankly, we seem to receive either no answers or indirect responses which evade the questions. My first query concerns state aid to the German, French and Spanish coal industries. That has already been mentioned, but it has to be repeated. There is no doubt that those countries receive about £3 billion in assistance. Are the payments contrary to EU law? One answer given is "yes". Another answer is "no"; that the British Government can choose not to provide such help. In the event, we know that the British Government have done that. I want to know what the position is because we need clarification on it. Polish coal is entering this country at prices which do not reflect the true costs of its production and transportation. In other words, according to the usual definition, the coal is being "dumped" in this country. Is that, too, contrary to EU law? Is it likely to be stopped? I should like that question answered.
In the case of Spain, there is the discriminating application of limits on the sulphur content of coal from different ECSC sources. My right honourable friend Helen Liddell, the Minister in another place, has said that the UK has received assurances that UK coal will be treated on the same basis as Spanish coal. Again, my question is: When will we know when that becomes effective?

271
In Germany, state aid has led to a distortion in the anthracite market (not mentioned so far) in the ECSC and particularly in the UK. Again, has any practical action been taken on that? I believe that the British Government have raised some or all of those matters with the European Union. However, my main concern now is—and I underline this—to ask: When will something be done about them? To some extent that reflects the concern which my noble friend Lord Varley emphasised in his contribution.
Before too long, the Government will have completed three years in power. We seem to be achieving little, or not that much. On the same principle, it is tempting to refer to the beef crisis, but let us stick to the coal industry for the moment.
The Government responded to representations made by a number of us about distortions in the electricity generating market which favoured the contribution of new gas-fired power stations. I asked the energy Minister how many consents had been given to such power stations since the present Government came to power on 1st May 1997. The answer is that 23 approvals have been made, 14 have been turned down. Those 14 would have generated four gigawatts of electricity, equivalent to 10 million tonnes of coal. I am not convinced that the Government have got the balance quite right, at least for the present. However, we should be clear that the policy of stricter consents is short term and temporary. Those are the Government's words. In the interests of security and diversity of supply, it is of the utmost importance that the Government do not terminate the arrangement prematurely. The 1998 Digest of UK Energy Statistics shows that on current use, proven probable gas reserves will only last only 14 more years.
On a separate but important point, will my noble friend say whether the Government still retain an interest in coal liquefaction? For many years some of us in another place and here raised the question of oil from coal. I am aware that, quite apart from the technical side, one of the many problems is its expense. However, I believe that some research into it by the Government is well worth the money. Perhaps my noble friend is able to comment on it. Some countries, particularly in Africa, have had liquefaction for many years and perhaps we can learn something from them. It is a sad thought that, if the difficulties of coal liquefaction can be surmounted, we in these islands are sitting on millions of tonnes of unmined coal that can be exploited for this very purpose.
The background to everything that has been said in this debate is the efficiency of the UK coal industry. There is little doubt that in recent years the industry has reduced its costs. However, I have found difficulty in obtaining figures that can be compared with those of our competitors. I keep returning to this point. One source shows that the UK industry has reduced its costs to £1.15 per gigajoule but that import prices have now been reduced to 75p per gigajoule. Another source reveals that average UK coal prices are still one-third higher than those for imported coal not supported by state aid.
272
Against that, the Confederation of UK Coal Producers calls attention to what it calls "a whole raft of on-costs" that must be absorbed in this country in reaching the final selling price, which is the lowest pithead cost in the European Community. The on-costs, some of which will be familiar to noble Lords, include: royalties paid per tonne produced; licence fees for consents to mine coal; licence or planning permission fees to local government; mineral planning regimes; and full restoration costs for open cast operations. There are other on-costs. Can my noble friend say whether or not this is a justifiable complaint? I believe that that is a crucial ingredient of the debate. If so, how can we begin to make comparisons in considering the fundamental issue of the price of coal? It will also be of assistance if my noble friend can say whether these facts and figures are reasonably accurate. I find it difficult to believe that the countries that I have named can be so much more efficient in producing coal regardless of the differing circumstances of the nature of their coal deposits.
I hope that I am correct in assuming that the Government, at least for the present, do not place emphasis on nuclear power. I believe that in this country there are two factors of which most people are aware and about which they express fear. Nuclear power carries risks, and waste storage problems are frequently brought to the attention of the public. Accidents in other parts of the world, not least the recent one in Japan, receive massive publicity. Whatever the safeguards, I am sure that people would not welcome an increase in the use of nuclear power, at least at the present time. Most nuclear stations have passed their design lives, and we can assume that some, or perhaps all, of the older stations will have to be decommissioned. We cannot depend on gas for much longer. Therefore, that is yet another reason for ensuring the continuation of our coal industry.
I turn briefly to the question of clean coal technology. I am glad that other noble Lords have referred to this matter. The value of this technology is proven and enjoys the support of most people in the coal industry. Why is progress being delayed? There is a greater need for it now than at any other time. If there is a lack of investment, is there not a case for tax or other incentives? This is a matter which I believe the Government should seriously consider. In a recent debate on the coal industry in another place, my right honourable friend the Minister responsible for energy did not mention clean coal technology, although time may have prevented her from doing so. But it would be helpful if today my noble friend could say something about it, particularly as other noble Lords have touched on it. This is one area in which substantial progress is urgently needed.
In conclusion, I can tell my noble friend that nothing I have said is a criticism, even an implied one, of the Government's policies on the coal industry. However, there is still much to be done. Those of us who come from mining families and have represented mining constituencies recall all too well the attitude and policies of the party opposite. The Government have to deal with some of those legacies. The action taken

273
since 1st May 1997 is a demonstration of the appreciation of the work and sacrifices of generations of miners in the most difficult and dangerous occupations. All who are concerned about the future of the industry know that in spite of the real difficulties that it faces, it will receive sympathy and fairness from the present Government, and I hope that we shall hear something about that in my noble friend's reply today.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in listening to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, who so effectively introduced the debate this afternoon, and the noble Lords, Lord Haslam and Lord Varley, I thought of the number of times in the past that we had together dealt with coal affairs. I was also very impressed by the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and his strong support of the industry, and the noble Lord, Lord Dormand. For the record, I should declare that I have been in the energy sector for many years. I am still actively involved in it, regrettably at an age when most sensible people would long since have retired, but I cannot resist the lure of trying to promote the efficient use of energy.
I should like to think back for a moment and then move forward. We should recall that in the post-war period the coal industry has suffered the most dramatic turn-round of any industry, perhaps in our whole industrial history. After all, this was the industry which powered the Industrial Revolution and contributed a major part to the country's wealth over several centuries. Regrettably, it is now a shadow of its former self.
When I joined the newly-formed National Coal Board in 1947 there were 700,000 mineworkers on the colliery books and over 900 collieries, no doubt many of them quite small. However, they were all deep mines. That was the number with which we started. Today, there are fewer than 10,000 mineworkers on colliery books and 18 collieries. What has happened is that productivity has increased enormously, but the size of the industry has declined massively.
That is about the past, and we cannot undo it, but, as other noble Lords have said, we must now be concerned about the future. I agree with the consensus view which has emerged that at the very least we need to keep the industry at its present size; and there is a strong case for saying that it should grow further. The reason is that we shall begin to run out of indigenous gas before very long and will depend more and more on supplies from uncertain sources. Furthermore, the decommissioning of nuclear plants is beginning. That process will accelerate, and something will have to take the place of those plants.
Many suggestions have been made about what to do about it. I should like to make two practical proposals. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in advance, I believe that these are very modest proposals, to which the Government could accede without much difficulty, but they would make a major difference to the future of the industry as it is now.
274
The first suggestion is this. The coal industry is having to face up to substantial imports of coal, some of which may be subsidised and some not. What has exacerbated the situation is the strength of sterling. I remember being bedevilled with that problem when I was directly involved in the coal industry. In some periods imports would be very cheap because sterling was high and transatlantic rates were low; at other times the reverse was the case. The problem was to ride the storm. I believe that we have to do that now.
Twelve million tonnes of steam coal are being introduced into this country for power station use. My inquiries have shown that out of current production and existing capacity, and drawing on stocks, it would be possible to replace 5 million of those 12 million tonnes. If that were done over a couple of years, the position of sterling and many other factors might well change and the industry could experience a major respite.
The cost would be minimal. About £5 per tonne, £25 million per annum, would secure an additional 5 million tonnes for the power station market. If they wished to pursue the idea, it would be for the Government to consider how it could be achieved. As the noble Lord, Lord Varley, pointed out, it could be done by the difference being given to the power stations, to the pits directly or in some combined way. To provide that extra tonnage, which would tide the industry over a difficult period, it seems a minimal charge compared with the massive subsidies given elsewhere.
My second proposal looks to the future. Clean coal technology has already been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. If coal is to be maintained as a long-term source of energy in this country, the environmental considerations become uppermost. Unless we can devise technologies which can reliably make coal more attractive from the environmental point of view, it will be difficult to secure its long-term future. That can be done on the basis of processes collectively known as clean coal technology. We do not need more laboratory work. That has all been completed; the processes are known. What is required is a major demonstration plant. Unless we can have such a plant in this country—there are some Elsewhere—it would not be regarded as a valid way of going forward. On the basis of that demonstration plant, I believe that we could begin to build up power station capacity using that technology. Within the next 10 or 20 years when many of the nuclear stations could be decommissioned, it is not inconceivable that clean coal plants could aggregate to something like 5,000 megawatts. But in order to achieve that, we must have a demonstration plant.
What demonstration plant do we need? We are talking about a capacity of 400 megawatts. That would cost a substantial sum. But it would not be for the Government to put in that money. We would need to create the conditions under which the private sector could invest in that technology. Two years ago, I introduced a Bill to extend the non-fossil fuel arrangements—they give assistance for non-fossil fuels to be developed—to fossil fuels where there was

275
a strong case. I instanced clean coal technology. I remind your Lordships that the principle of the non-fossil fuel arrangements is that no capital is put in to stimulate those developments but that a rather higher price of electricity is guaranteed over a period. For example, if the price of electricity, as at present, is about 2.5p per kilowatt hour on the pool, some higher price would be guaranteed over a period. And on the basis of that benefit the investment, which could be substantial—we may be talking about £300 million pounds going into the plant—could be forthcoming. I am told that in this case little extra is required—something like a ½p per kilowatt hour. On that limited basis—from the Government's point of view the small amount would be spread over 15 years—there could be much interest from the private sector in investing in the demonstration plant, in the expectation that after a few years' experience of that plant no further assistance would be required and that it could well be worth while investing in ordinary-sized commercial plant.
I believe that those two proposals are modest and may represent the view emerging from our debate. I think that we should put forward practical proposals where possible. I hope that they will be considered seriously. As noble Lords have said, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Varley, it is a time for major decision. If measures similar to these modest proposals are not taken now, the mining industry will continue to decline. Of the 18 collieries I mentioned, three are up for closure. So the number is diminishing rapidly. If we are not careful, more will be up for closure simply because the markets will not be there.
Something has to be done. In the long history of the coal industry, from time to time governments have intervened because they have felt it necessary to do so. For example, the government intervened in the market schemes of the pre-war period to cut out the internecine competition between the various colliery companies; otherwise the industry would have been destroyed. From time to time governments have intervened. And this is such a time. Such intervention need not be substantial. It does not need to be anything like the level of subsidies paid in other countries. I believe that these modest proposals could spell the difference between continued decline and maintaining the industry, perhaps with possible expansion to meet the needs of the future.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wish to ask a brief question. I know that it is a timed debate. Does he agree that some of his suggestions do not lie in the hands of the Government of this country? I referred to a number of matters relating to the European Union where it is difficult to get either action or satisfaction.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I believe that the whole policy should be discussed with the European Union to gain its full support and agreement. For example, it might be possible for the demonstration plant to get some resources from the European Union. However, I
276
believe that the initiative must come first from the Government, and they then need to consult the European Union on that and related matters as soon as possible.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, on initiating this important debate. Without doubt, the British coal industry has experienced serious problems during the past two decades. Economics and the environment were the principal reasons for pit closures in the 1980s and 1990s and now the driving forces are still environmental. As already mentioned, they include the problem of subsidies in Germany, Spain, France and Poland, which are almost certainly illegal.
The falling price of coal is a major additional factor, with the price down an astonishing 50 per cent during the past five years. It is particularly sad that Ellington is to close at a time when other employment in manufacturing in the north-east is under threat from government policies which pushed manufacturing into the recession from which it is just emerging.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the United Kingdom coal industry continued its long-term decline. In 1997, production stood at 45.8 million tonnes, down more than 11 per cent from 51.9 million tonnes in 1996. That represents less than one half of the 1987 figure of 98.7 million tonnes. In 1997, the UK imported more than a quarter of its coal. The decline in production has been apparent for some eight years. Peak output was 292 million tonnes in 1913, about one third of which was exported. Production remained fairly constant at between 170 and 190 million tonnes until 1957 when it began to decline, being replaced by oil and subsequently gas and nuclear power.
The same trend is apparent in the employment figures. In 1913, more than 1.1 million men were employed in more than 3,000 deep mines. On nationalisation in 1947, 1,500 pits employed 750,000 men. By late 1992, there were 41,000 miners in 51 British Coal pits; in late 1998, only 13,000 miners in 23 deep mines remained.
During the past 20 years or so, the industry has not been sufficiently competitive to survive against coal produced more cheaply elsewhere in the world. In order to ensure the survival of the industry in this country, it was necessary for governments of all parties to agree to close down uneconomic pits, regrettably leading to the loss of more than 200,000 jobs. The effect of that was movingly described by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy.
By the end of the previous Conservative administration, a smaller but much more viable industry had been created. When the Labour Government came to power the industry was expecting that decisions would continue to be made on its future, taking market conditions and economic viability as the main criteria. However, it did not expect to read that Labour would put further obstacles in its way.

277
In its manifesto, the Labour Party made clear that it would fight global warming through a new target of a 20 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2010. The Labour Party in opposition assured the coal industry that coal mining jobs would be safe. Yet the Deputy Prime Minister has signed up to achieving an even higher target for CO2 emissions than was demanded at Kyoto. Can the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, quantify what effect that will have on the coal industry in terms of pit closures and loss of jobs? Furthermore, can he say how the Government will reach the target to which they signed up in Kyoto?
Another major problem faced by the UK coal industry is that it is not operating on a level playing field with regard to subsidies. Our industry is unsubsidised, whereas the total subsidies to the German, French and Spanish coal industries between 1995 and 1998 were £14.5 billion. Those subsidies are highly unfair and probably illegal. Most European states outside the UK have been accused of subsidising their coal to the detriment of UK producers, although EU rules forbid giving one company an unfair advantage over a competitor.
In response to a Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, stated that,
"we are working with our colleagues in Europe to make certain that action is taken to reduce the subsidies".—[Official Report, 4/11/99; col. 269.]
Will the Minister explain what progress has since been made on the issue?
I understand that outside the EU, Poland has been dumping cheap coal in this country. Can the Minister refer that serious problem to his colleagues in the Foreign Office? It should be suggested to Poland in clear terms that as a pre-condition of it joining the enlarged European Community, such practices must cease with immediate effect.
Returning to the UK coal industry, the Government are making a conscious effort to help by imposing a moratorium on gas-fired power stations. Thirty-six applications in the pipeline were frozen. However, as is often the case with the Government, the actuality has been different from the rhetoric. Between the announcement of a new policy in October 1998 and the end of October 1999, the Government approved 16 new gas-fired projects, most notably one of 500 megawatts in South Wales just before the Welsh Assembly elections. The 2,000 megawatts of approvals overall potentially displace 5 million tonnes of coal from the electricity market, the equivalent of two collieries.
The Conservative Front Bench believes in the ending of the gas-fired power station moratorium because it drives up the price of electricity. Even the Labour dominated Select Committee on Trade and Industry stated:
"We do not believe that this moratorium on Section 36 consents for new power stations will assist the coal industry in the short term … We look to the Government to ensure that the moratorium is lifted as soon as is practicable.".
278
Can the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, give the House some guidance on the timetable for lifting the moratorium?
I want to address other issues with regard to the industry. First, there is the question of the import of French electricity via the French inter connector. According to figures from the RJB mining company, that displaces 7 million tonnes of coal each year. It is astonishing that the Government continue to allow these imports from a country which has failed to liberalise its electricity market as required by EU law.
The second issue that I want to address was brought to my attention by Scottish Coal. It is the plight of Scottish coal being transported to English power stations. According to Scottish Coal, existing contracted traffic flows suffer routinely a 30 per cent reduction in rail freight availability, putting pressure on cash flows and potentially putting Scottish Coal products out of business. Currently, Scottish Coal is short of 10 to 15 trains a week, thus costing the company one-third of a million pounds while RJB is short of 50 trains a week, costing the company £1.5 million. Coal Pro has recently launched a complaint and it is hoped that if the Office of the Rail Regulator can tackle the complaint it will be given every support by the Government.
In summary, we on these Benches recognise that times are very difficult for the coal industry. However, we do not believe in state aid for coal and we wish the unfair subsidy system carried out by France, Spain and Germany to be stopped. We believe that the Government's decision to impose higher emission limits than those agreed at Kyoto will cause serious problems for the industry. We favour more gas-fired power stations being built and we strongly favour an end to the moratorium on gas-fired power stations. I have put to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, some questions, and I should be grateful for a reply. My final question is: when can we expect the reform of the electricity pool system, which could be of help to the industry? I look forward to the Minister's response.
7 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this well-informed debate. To have a debate on coal which is well informed and includes a noble Lord from Eton and one from Winchester is, I suppose, not bad. Above all, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hardy on introducing the debate. He posed me 12 questions to which I shall try to reply as I go along. I shall try to sum up at the end if I can and if I need to, but I have been asked literally dozens of questions. I shall do my best, as I always do, but I shall write to noble Lords whose questions I fail to answer.
The key to understanding the fate of the coal industry and the potential future of the coal industry is to look at it in the context of energy policy as a whole. The key to energy policy is that the previous government did not have one. Indeed, they prided themselves on not having one and on saying that the market unrestricted should govern the future of

279
different fuels. The trouble with that argument was that changes in the relative prices of different fuels at various times—year by year, and sometimes even month by month—made forward planning of energy policy difficult if not impossible. Certainly, the attempt to rely only on prices at any one time as the determinant of the constitution of energy and in particular of electricity generation was a nonsense.
When representatives of the coal industry came to us in 1997 and expressed their concerns about distortions in the energy market, which they said were killing coal, they asked for "fairness, not favours", which I believe is a proper position from which to start. In our response to them in the White Paper on energy policy of October 1998, we set out objectives for the coal industry which deserve to be repeated and emphasised here. We said that the objective should be that the supply of fuel—in particular, for electricity generation—should be secure, diverse and sustainable. The combination of those three criteria should enable fuel to be obtained at competitive prices.
Looking at those objectives, it is clear that that is not in itself a proper platform for the salvation of the coal industry, but it is one on which we can see how a coal industry may survive and how distortions which have damaged the coal industry in the past could be got rid of. Everything that noble Lords have said about the decline of coal and the risks of gas is true. It is certainly the case that the coal industry has declined in the way described; it is true also that in the pits which have survived and in other pits which have not been finally decommissioned, there are long-term reserves of coal under this country. In addition, it is true that the reserves of gas available to this country are limited in their duration. In response to my noble friend Lord Hardy, it is true that Britain will be expected to be a net importer of gas by 2010. We shall have to become used to the right way of describing such figures. I believe that a century ago one said "oughty-one" and "oughty-two"; I do not know whether that is worth reviving.
In response to a direct question from my noble friend Lord Hardy, it is true also that Europe will be a net importer of gas in the not-very-distant future. In the interests of security, diversity and sustainability, we must consider the long-term future of all the fuel sources which could contribute in particular to electricity generation. I shall return at the end of my remarks to our reform programme for energy generation if I have not covered it in the rest of my speech.
It makes common sense to ensure diversity of energy supply. An acceptable level of diversity is part of energy policy, to make it flexible to be able to respond to unexpected events or situations. The contribution of coal to power generation has declined; in 1990, it provided 72 per cent of electricity generation; in 1998, it was only 30 per cent. We do not have a fixed view on what the energy mix should be, or on the proportions of different fuels needed to guarantee security of supply and diversity, but we do not want to see our
280
capacity to produce electricity competitively from coal being eroded by distortions in the market. That is why I talk so often about energy and not only about coal.
That is also why we announced a programme to reform the electricity markets so that all fuels, including coal, could compete fairly. I agree not only with my noble friend Lord Hardy, as I have said, but also with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the prospect of substantial decommissioning of nuclear power stations without their replacement will affect us in the near future.
The White Paper identified lack of competition among generators as one of the distortions of the electricity market. My noble friend Lord Hardy asked about the price paid for the divestment of Ferrybridge C, Fiddlers Ferry and Drax—but I forget the first one he mentioned. That divestment was part of our policy set out in the White Paper to remove distortions in electricity generation. I have no evidence that the high price is such as to encourage the import of coal, but certainly the fact of divestment and the removal of distortions cannot be bad for coal.
The electricity market is now open to competition at all levels. Separation of supply and distribution in the electricity market will be achieved through market forces and regulation, and formalised through legislation which we intend to introduce as soon as possible.
I was asked by my noble friend Lord Dormand and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about electricity trading arrangements and, in particular, about the Electricity Trading Pool. We published a blueprint for those on 21st October. The utilities Bill was mentioned in the Queen's Speech; it will be brought forward as soon as possible and it is our intention that the new electricity trading arrangements will be introduced before the end of the year.
I was asked by a number of noble Lords about the stricter gas consents policy, a phrase I prefer to the term "moratorium" used by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, because there have been more approvals than refusals. Refusals for gas-fired plants are painful decisions to take because applications for gas-fired plants in many parts of the country are greatly supported by local people. I remember taking part in a debate on Raglan Bay in Wales last year, where the pressure from south Wales—which does not have an excess of electricity generation—for approval for the combined heat and power neighbourhood heating plant was strong. Indeed, Baglan Bay has been approved. However, I emphasise to my noble friend Lord Dormand that 4 gigawatts of capacity have been refused in the 14 refusals, which is not insignificant. It is equal to half of the whole output of RJB Mining and it constitutes significant support for the coal industry. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, said officially on behalf of the Conservative Party: that the Conservative Party is against those stricter consents and, therefore, to that extent is against this support for coal.
With regard to how long the policy will continue, the White Paper made it clear that the policy will be relaxed as soon as the Government are advised by the

281
director-general of electricity supply that the reform programme has been undertaken and that distortions in the market have been removed. That does not mean completing every aspect of the programme but, certainly, we must have the new electricity trading arrangements in force before the consents policy can be relaxed. That does not enable me to give a strict calendar date.
I was asked by many noble Lords about subsidised coal and unfairly priced coal imports. Of course, it is true that Germany in particular, Spain and, to a lesser extent, France heavily subsidise their coal industries. Historically, that goes back to the European Coal and Steel Community, which pre-dates the European Community. The levels of subsidy which they give to their coal industries are permitted by the agreements of the European Coal and Steel Community and result from the fact that they were already at a high level from the base date of 1993. As has been pointed out, at that time we were subsidising our coal industry by only £12 million but those countries were able to give subsidies of £3 billion or more, which is still a reduction of the 1993 figure.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, believed that there was nothing to be done about that and the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, asked me about progress on the matter. There has been some progress; for example, with regard to graded anthracite, we have complained about the unfair practices of two subsidised German anthracite producers. In 1998, the Commission requested repayment of aid by the German companies involved. With regard to Spain, our complaint to the Commission has resulted in confirmation that any UK exports to Spanish power stations will be eligible for the same subsidy as that paid for Spanish coal.
I recognise that in many respects we are constrained by our international obligations. The current ECSC agreement comes to an end in 2002. We shall have to negotiate for the most favourable replacement—if there is to be a replacement—of that agreement when the time comes. Again, with regard to the inter connector with France, that is a treaty obligation and there is nothing that we can do about it in the short term. However, so far as concerns the electricity industry in France, we are certainly pursuing the anti-competitive practices which enable France to export subsidised electricity to this country.
I was asked in particular about Polish coal. Noble Lords will want to know that Helen Liddell, the energy Minister, has recently met the Polish energy Minister. We understand that the coal industry will lodge an anti-dumping or anti-subsidy complaint with the European Commission concerning Polish coal imports. I do not believe that it is appropriate for me to intervene in their negotiations on accession to the European Union, but I cannot imagine that this is a matter which will be ignored when those discussions take place.
The important point I make about German, French and Spanish subsidies is that there is no German, French or Spanish coal imported into this country. Even if the subsidies did not exist, there would still be
282
little chance of United Kingdom coal being exported to those countries in competition with unsubsidised coal from other parts of the world. Theoretically, of course, that is enormously important but in practical terms it does not make very much difference to the UK coal industry.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene. He will no doubt accept that if those countries did not subsidise their coal industries, the opportunity for those exporting to the United Kingdom would be diverted to the areas where imports are far more competitive than the expensive coal produced in those countries.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that argument depends on an assumption of limited availability of coal from the rest of the world. I am afraid that I do not believe that to be the case. If I am wrong, I shall write to my noble friend. To put the matter into context, less than 5 per cent of UK coal imports are priced unfairly. We simply have to deal as best we can in the real world with the problem of cheaper coal from other countries which is not unfairly subsidised. When my noble friend Lord Varley challenges me to put up or shut up—in other words, to protect the coal industry unequivocally or to abandon it to its fate—I have to say to him, with due respect to his experience in government, that things do not work like that. We do the best that we can. With regard to energy policy, I have said that it is designed to produce a rational economic policy for energy and for electricity generation. One of the benefits of that should, and we hope will, be to benefit the British mining industry.
Lord Varley: My Lords, I shall remind my noble friend of what he has just said when the industry has gone. As sure as night follows day, unless something is done pretty quickly, this industry will go.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have spent a quarter of an hour describing what we have been doing and what we are doing. I know that I shall not satisfy my noble friend, but I must continue as best as I can to describe the facts as the Government see them. Those include having a rational energy policy in which coal continues to play a part. It is our view that with the objectives of security, diversity and sustainability, coal should continue to play a significant part in British energy policy.
My noble friend Lord Varley and a number of other noble Lords expressed the view that the support for coalfield communities was inadequate. My noble friend was wrong to say that the task force has only £10 million. In fact, it has £53 million. However, I acknowledge that, in view of the devastation which has been caused in coalfield communities by the decline in the mining industry, anything which we do for those areas will be inadequate. I could give your Lordships a list of a whole range of initiatives which have been taken, but my noble friend Lord Varley would tell me that they have been "put up" by civil

283
servants. The initiatives are all valuable, but I am not claiming that coalfield communities are what they were when the bulk of the population was in well-paid work in the mining industry. That cannot be so.
I was asked about the UK mining machinery industry. In the time available I can say only that we acknowledge and welcome the fact that the UK mining engineering industry is exercising its skills effectively, not only in sales to this country but particularly in exports. We are doing everything that we can to help that industry to diversify into overseas markets. We have been supporting work by the Association of British Mining Equipment Companies, and the Indo-British Coal Forum is helping us to export British mining equipment to India. There are many other worthwhile initiatives which demonstrate our support for mining engineering.
In particular, I was asked about cleaner coal technology. We value that in its own right. My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, is that the Kyoto agreement is not a threat to the coal industry. The issue of cleaner coal technology forms an insignificant part of that agreement, and I do not believe that the noble Lord is right in saying that we are exceeding our obligations under Kyoto. However, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Dormand and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that cleaner coal technology is an important issue. We set out in Energy Paper 67 this year detailed plans for research and development, technology transfer and export promotion. We are making available £12 million for cleaner coal R&D over three years and we expect there to be more as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. We are also undertaking more feasibility work on underground coal gasification and accessing coal-bed methane. There is no work that I know of at the moment on liquefaction but I shall write to my noble friend on that point.
We have done a study on the demonstration project for which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked. It concluded that it would not be justified in terms of a direct grant or any other kind of levy. We shall look at that again within the next three years and I shall be glad to correspond with the noble Lord on that issue.
I want to respond to the points made, in particular by my noble friend Lord Varley, about coal pensions. Indeed, there are two funds. The major fund had a 20 per cent uplift in 1997. It is true also that there were very serious deficits in the earlier years after privatisation which were made up by the Treasury. But that was the agreement at that time and it is certainly true that there is a very substantial surplus at this time.
I know that mining communities have been offended by the idea that we should be hypothecating some of that Treasury money to put in to the health plans for the mining industry for dealing with vibration white finger and pneumoconiosis. I understand the offence that caused, but it speeded up the payments and has done some good. I do not believe that that is very different from my noble friend Lord Varley asking me to divert the money from the Treasury into regeneration of the coalfields. It is still hypothecation.
284
My noble friend asked me about concessionary fuel. I am sorry that I cannot answer. As we speak, DTI Ministers are taking decisions on the award of the tender. We shall make an announcement as soon as possible.
I hope that I have shown that, in seeking to reestablish rational energy policies as a whole, we are doing everything that we can to ensure that the coal industry continues to play a part in fuel and energy policy in this country to the benefit of the coal industry and of the country.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, it has been an extremely interesting debate and I am grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed to it and contributed on the basis of considerable knowledge and experience. The noble Lord, Lord Haslam, recognised the need for high productivity collieries during his tenure after the strike.
I certainly hope too that the Government will pay heed to the informed contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and in particular to the two proposals which he made. They are modest but they could be of enormous significance.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dormand, with his knowledge of the North East. He referred to the Ellington Colliery. My noble friend will be aware that the last colliery in Durham was closed with, I believe, 40 years of reserves. I hope his contribution will also receive attention.
My noble friend raised the question of gas consents. The Minister referred to that in his winding-up speech. The fact remains that during the last period of Conservative administration, 16 consents were given while in a similar period under the present Government, 32 consents have been granted.
I do not wish to be discourteous to the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, but I prefer the Etonian to the Wykehamist contribution this afternoon. If we were to burn even more gas without limit, our stocks would not last until 2010. My noble friend was being extremely optimistic in that assessment.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made an important point that strategic consideration cannot and should not be ignored. I agree with the assessment made by my noble friend Lord Varley. We are reaching the point at which action must be taken; otherwise there will be no deep mine industry in these islands. If that is the case, no matter how many initiatives the Government take to assist our superb mining engineering industry, that will go down the drain too. That is not a conclusion which anyone with any sense would wish to occur.
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Student Loan Scheme
7.24 p.m.
Baroness Youngrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ensure that those who have studied at British schools elsewhere in the European Union can gain access to the student loan scheme.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank all those who are to take part in this short debate this evening. I expect we all agree that it is at rather an unsociable hour and on rather an unsociable day.
I have now taken an interest in the British schools in the European Union for a very long time. I started, first, when I was a Minister at the DES, as it was then called, in 1979 doing the job that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone., does today. On a number of occasions I have raised various matters of concern to those schools.
I should say at the outset that this is in no way a party political issue. I have always received support from all sides of the House and I hope that that will be so again this evening.
Perhaps I may briefly say something about the British schools. Those schools belong to what is known as COBISEC, a rather curious acronym but it covers them all. There are 36 British schools. They educate some 12,000 students in the European Union, but they are unusual in that they are British Schools in the European Union. The national curriculum is taught throughout. the schools, which usually cater for pupils aged from five to 18. Pupils take GCSEs and A-levels. The schools are inspected by Ofsted. They take great trouble to keep up with all educational developments in the UK and receive all the essential publications and materials from the DfEE.
They are independent and charge fees. Of course, they have to do that because they receive no help from the British Government, nor from any other source. Although I have tried on many occasions to secure some financial help for poorer students at those schools, I have not yet been successful.
I believe that the schools make a huge contribution, not only to education, important though that is; their contribution is much wider. As I have heard myself say many times, and, indeed, heard government Ministers say many times, the United Kingdom is part of the wider European open market. Of course, as a result, many British businessmen and women must, of necessity, live in the EU. It is a part of their job and, in most cases, it is not an option. They are in the EU to work and not there for a holiday.
Not surprisingly, under those circumstances, many parents want their children to be educated in a British school and they want that education to be unbroken; that is, the children can go to the British school and can return to a maintained school in the UK without more than the normal difficulties of changing school which they would experience in this country—hence the great value of the British schools. Some children attend for
286
as little as a year or for an even shorter period. Others are educated at such schools throughout their whole school lives.
Therefore, the British schools make a huge educational contribution to our effort in Europe. Indirectly they make a huge contribution to those people who are exporters and who are really involved in the business of developing the large open market which is the European Union.
The subject of this Unstarred Question is a narrow point but it is extremely important. Many pupils from those British schools qualify for entrance to British universities. In fact, a very high proportion go on to further or higher education. But they are not automatically eligible, as would be British students in the UK, for loans from the Student Loans Company. That has had the effect, which I am sure is not intended, that it is much more difficult for the poorer students than for the better-off students. After all, if your father is the chairman of a major company in Europe, you are in a very different position from if you are the son or daughter of a teacher. The Student Loans Company arrangements are, as I am sure the Minister knows far better than I, more favourable than loans from commercial banks. With the added costs of fees at universities, the ability to have a loan from the Student Loans Company makes a great deal of difference.
As I am sure the noble Baroness knows, the Chairman of COBISEC has been in correspondence with the Secretary of State, Mr Blunkett, over the past months on that matter. Perhaps I may quote from the Secretary of State's letter dated 13th October 1999.
"I understand your concern arises from the requirement that, in order to be eligible for student support, students should have been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for the three years preceding the start of their course. You will appreciate that residence criteria have been set so that support reaches those who can be said to have a residential connection with the UK. However, we do recognise that some students cannot meet this requirement because they have been living abroad on a temporary basis. Local Education Authorities are therefore able to waive the three year ordinary residence requirement if they deem that an applicant's absence is due to temporary employment abroad".
He goes on to say:
"We believe this is a fair approach, and we do not have any plans to change it".
The difficulty—I hope the noble Baroness understands that there is a difficulty—is that it is unfair. The regulations are applied, I am sorry to say, rather haphazardly and inconsistently in local education authorities. In effect, for a student leaving school, it is a lottery. I am sure that that is not the intention, but that is the effect.
This evening I do not want to be entirely negative because the issue is far too important. I am confident that it is an issue that could be solved without too much difficulty. The COBISEC schools have made a number of suggestions, but they would really like a straightforward and clear system that is intelligible to the students involved as well as to the local education authorities.

287
We have raised, first, the issue that it is government policy to place no restrictions at all on the movement of people for employment purposes in the EU. Why not apply the same principle to education? Secondly, why not have a consistent application of regulations in every local education authority? It seems to us that the Secretary of State could set consistent criteria which would be uniformly applied throughout the UK. That would make all the difference.
Thirdly, it would be helpful if all applications could be dealt with by one central unit, similar to that set up to deal with the payment of university fees by EU students. We have considered that one criterion might be a letter or a contract from a parent's employer which could be regarded as sufficient evidence of the temporary character of employment. Alternatively, a right to a loan could be linked to domicile rather than to residence, although that is not such an easy criterion. I understand that the Inland Revenue consider British citizens born in the UK to be domiciled here for life for inheritance tax purposes unless they can prove that they have a new domicile, which is extremely difficult.
It may be that none of those suggestions is quite right, but they are meant to be constructive. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell us that she is able to move on this issue. I feel that we are handicapping a number of young people who could come to this country to qualify at our universities. They could make a contribution to this country or to the EU, or anywhere else in the world, in future but at the moment some of them will find it difficult to get to a British university, despite having the correct qualifications, simply because they happen to reside in Europe.
We simply ask for a clear, straightforward system. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on that. If she cannot give a positive answer this evening perhaps she will take the matter away and return with one in the not too distant future.
7.34 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that the British education system has a fine reputation throughout the world wherever it exists. British schools are well recognised. We should do all that we can to encourage and nurture that reputation. I congratulate British schools on the excellent job they carry out throughout Europe. I am happy that I have had the opportunity of visiting some of them, not when I was a Member of the European Parliament, but more recently as a Member of your Lordships' House.
Tonight we are speaking particularly of the 36 COBISEC schools in the European Union. In that respect, I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Young on championing the COBISEC British schools on a number of occasions and on a variety of issues, not least, as I remember well, during discussion on what became the 1988 Education Reform Act. In many ways the COBISEC schools have been joined and integrated into the British system or at least they have been able to co-ordinate their activities with the
288
British curriculum. Those schools should be further encouraged to continue that process by allowing the pupils to progress from British schools abroad to British universities. I believe that the input of such students in our British universities would be beneficial. For those, like myself, who wish to see a Europe which understands itself better, the value of that contribution cannot be underestimated.
The subject of the debate is a technical issue. It is not a problem of principle because, as my noble friend said, successive government policies have encouraged the free movement of people for employment purposes throughout the EU. Therefore, it follows that people who, together with their families, have to move should have facilities for the education of their families.
In respect of university fees, I would be glad of clarification from the Minister. I had understood that there was full reciprocity for university fees between European countries so that university students could move from one country to another and expect to receive from their governments the same assistance and support. That has always been something of a problem for us as we pay not only fees but also accommodation costs to our students. That is not so in all European countries, and it puts us at a disadvantage. An Italian student coming to study at a British university would have far more financial support than a British student studying at an Italian university. Although the rights are reciprocal, they are based on what a student receives in each country and in Italy a student would receive only payment of fees and nothing towards accommodation. In that respect I do not fully understand why student loans should not be made available to students coming from other parts of the European Union, particularly when they are emerging from British schools and have had the benefit of a British school curriculum.
My noble friend Lady Young covered many of the issues relating to this matter and in particular emphasised the unfairness of the system as it applies here. As I said, it seems to be a technical issue rather than a matter of principle. It is the unfairness of the way the system is interpreted which has given rise to the discussion this evening. I urge the Minister to support the case that has been made and look forward with interest to what she has to say in reply.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, first, I have an interest to declare in that I have a British grandson at school in Brussels who is hoping next year to go to a British university, if he is accepted, and also no doubt, following this debate or further discussions, hoping for the availability of a student loan.
My noble friend Lady Young gave a detailed picture of the background of the subject of the debate tonight. It is clear that with regard to student loans a fairly fluid position seems to obtain. According to which university in the UK one desires to go—for instance, Sussex University—a student loan may or may not be available. It depends on the interpretation of the regulations by the local authority.

289
I contacted Westminster City Council's education department asking for information and was told that student loans are sometimes given to British students who have been educated on the Continent and come back to enter an English university—in this case it would be the University of London, King's College, or one of the other colleges of the university—but it said that certain criteria are used to judge whether the student will be given the loan, and those criteria do not necessarily apply in other parts of the country. That is the difficulty. My noble friend Lady Young was right to ask that there be some sort of regular standard throughout the Gauntry whereby if regulations exist but need not be strictly adhered to, the same criteria are used to make that judgment. That is where the prime difficulty arises.
As I understand it, there is a three-year residence requirement immediately prior to going to a British university, regardless of nationality. Someone from South America, Canada or even Mongolia may be eligible for a student loan while at university in Britain, but someone born and bred in London who has been living since the age of, say, 13 outside Britain with his or her parents would not be eligible for a loan unless a specific local authority decided to help out in a particular field.
Children receiving education under the British system in another member state of the EU will clearly benefit more from the British university system than from going on to a foreign university, with all its different ways and standards. A French university programme, for example, is different from that in a British university. Clearly someone who benefited from a British school in an EU member state and who was coming back to Britain would hope to benefit from all that other British students have been able to benefit from, including a student loan.
Other countries, of course, have other regulations. For instance, France—ever keen to keep its nationals in a close relationship with their home country—enables the young to have free or subsidised education at French universities, regardless of the length of time they lived outside France. In fact, they may never have been in France before but on coming to a French university they are given the same benefits as any other French student. One would hope, of course, as my noble friend Lady Young said, that we eventually reach that situation in this country.
Since the introduction of student loans in the United Kingdom, there seems to be some variation in the way the rules are applied. Apparently some councils grant loans to students whose parents are working and living abroad on temporary contracts; for example, those who do so for not more than five years and who remain closely connected with the United Kingdom by still having a home here This point was raised by those I spoke to at Westminster City Council. If someone keeps a home in this country, though they are not living here and for the time being do not pay United Kingdom tax, the fact of having a home here would entitle the child to come back to a British university and have the benefit of a student loan. It is not a happy situation for a new Labour government to encourage
290
those who have homes all over the world, including the United Kingdom, who are working elsewhere in the Community to receive the benefit of student loans for their children while, as my noble friend Lady Young pointed out, someone who is not well off and has a modest post in France or Germany would not be eligible because they could not afford to keep a home in this country while working abroad.
The measures seem to vary according to the interpretation placed on them by individual local education authorities. That is the problem. How is it possible to persuade a local authority to interpret the rules in a way which will apply equally and fairly to those citizens who come back from other parts of the world? There are clearly different methods of dealing with these arrangements. Can the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, say what consideration has been given to the plight of those not residing in the United Kingdom immediately prior to the envisaged date of entry to university, who will have lived here for many years before going abroad and who may also have the intention to return after their employment? What chance will there be for those students?
The three years prior to university is one of the most difficult times for a child. The parents are abroad, and they come back to the United Kingdom to find all those who came over just three years before and who are living in the United Kingdom have the benefit of student loans, whereas they, who have been working abroad either for the United Kingdom or for its benefit, do not have that opportunity for their children.
No doubt there are other alternatives. But whatever system may be agreed, it is arguably simpler to waive the residence criteria which local authorities apply in different ways. I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will give consideration to that and to the other proposals made by my noble friend.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I too begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for introducing this debate. She said quite rightly it is not in any sense a party political issue and for once I am delighted to be on the same side and agree with everything she said. She also described the point as "narrow", and that may be right. But, as she also said, it is an extremely important point for a considerable number of students and their parents. It is also a point which should be capable of resolution.
The noble Baroness spoke of her many years of involvement with this subject. I believe we all acknowledge that fact and pay tribute to her. My noble friend Lord Sharman has also had many years of involvement. Indeed, I believe that he was co-founder of COBISEC back in the 1970s. He has asked me to pass on his apologies to the House tonight. Unfortunately, he has to be out of the country, otherwise he would certainly have taken part in this debate and would have spoken with very considerable personal knowledge of the issue, which I do not claim to have.

291
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, described the work of the British schools. I believe she rightly said that there are 12,000 pupils in the 36 schools affiliated to COBISEC. By no means are all of those pupils the children of well-paid, senior business executives. Of course, some may be, but many are not. This issue is of great importance to them.
The essential difficulty is the fact that the current arrangements are discretionary and that local education authorities apply the regulations and interpret their discretion haphazardly and inconsistently—or, let us just say, differently. I asked my own LEA today what its practice was. After 25 years of membership, I must confess that I did not know. My authority confirmed all that we have heard today; namely, that it applies the criteria as best it can and that it is aware that other LEAs, with equal good faith, do it differently. Those concerned recognise that it is inconsistent and unfair and would welcome clearer guidance and criteria against which to work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, quoted the letter from the Secretary of State of 13th October to the chairman of COBISEC. I should like to do the same because, in that letter, the Secretary of State said that LEAs are able to waive the ordinary three-year residence requirement. He also said that DfEE officials were then in the process of reviewing the way that they advise LEAs on the interpretation of the residence requirements and,
"in particular the temporary absence provisions".
I have looked through the Eligibility Guide for Mortgage Style Student Loans 1999/2000 and could not help noticing a remark made during Question Time on 6th July by a noble Lord on the Government side. He said that he thought that anyone eligible for a student loan ought to be capable of understanding the regulations. I must say that the Minister disagreed with him on that occasion; and now I know why. Having read through the guide, it seemed to me more suitable for a PhD thesis than for a first degree.
However, the regulations seem to show that the state of the law on these temporary absence provisions is alarmingly flexible and that to ask the relevant authorities to judge each case on its own particular facts gives them an undue degree of discretion. As regards temporary residence abroad, students and their parents have no clear guidance as to which pattern of behaviour is likely to be acceptable and which is not. That cannot be satisfactory.
As I said, the Secretary of State said in his letter of 13th October that officials were reviewing the advice to LEAs. I hope that the Minister will tell us the results of that review tonight, what advice, if any, will now be given to LEAs, and, indeed, whether it is to be varied. If that review, which I imagine to be relatively straightforward, is not yet completed, can the noble Baroness tell us when it will be and what is delaying the process? As we have said, this is an important issue which needs to be resolved.
292
I cannot fail to use the opportunity of this debate to widen the discussion slightly. Your Lordships will be very aware of the commitment from these Benches to make the European Union a success. Free movement of labour has always been one of the central aims of the Union. But with so many different regulations and charges being applied to the sons and daughters of European citizens, it is clear that free movement of labour is seriously impeded. For example, a business executive wishing to develop his or her company's work in the European Union may have decided that it is important to live and work on the spot in Brussels, Hamburg or Madrid. Indeed, he or she may wish to encourage other company employees to do likewise. However, if those with children have good reason to believe that doing so may discourage their children from attending a British university, that is a powerful reason to consider staying put.
The plethora of different and conflicting regulations and charges in different EU countries is an impediment to the free movement of labour. The Liberal Democrats would like to see this Government open negotiations with partner states to establish common standards in such regulations and charges.
As regard this particular issue, I must say that this ad hoc treatment is part and parcel of the general ad hoc-ery—if that is the correct word—in the students' support system. We would argue for a simple system to be available to every British subject wherever resident. We want a single body for all students, including mature student. UCAS could well be given an enhanced responsibility for this by taking over the role of the Student Loans Company and the LEAs. That would solve many problems, including the one we are debating tonight.
Pending that, perhaps I may press the Government at least to consider establishing a central unit to deal with this particular issue. Such a unit could deal with British students who are temporarily resident abroad and enable them to apply for their student loan in that way. Indeed, that would be a similar arrangement to the process that I believe now applies for the remission of student tuition fees. It is not reasonable to expect students living abroad to negotiate with a local authority in the United Kingdom with which they may have only a distant connection.
I cannot conclude my remarks without saying a few words about LEAs. I said earlier that my LEA confirmed that the situation is as has been described tonight; in other words, haphazard at best and open to different interpretation in different areas. Most importantly, that is unfair to the students concerned. It is also unfair to the LEAs or, more particularly, to the staff. As I demonstrated by my own ignorance, it is not the members who deal with such issues; it is the staff who have to do so. They encounter students who describe the circumstances of their friends and colleagues who happen to be dealing with another LEA, which is interpreting the regulations in a different way. That is also unfair.
Perhaps I may press the Government, first, to tell us the results of the review or when we will have them; and secondly, to agree to establish a central unit to deal

293
with these applications as a matter of urgency. All those who have spoken are looking forward to the Minister's reply. I am sure she will acknowledge that there is a problem here, although I am sure she already knew about it. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is a problem that is capable of solution and one that needs to be solved. It is clear that the present arrangements are not working well. I hope that the noble Baroness will tell us what she is going to do about it.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, it is good to have a unanimous view on the problem before the House. I hope that the Minister will he able to share our views. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Young for raising the matter this evening, as it certainly needs readdressing. I am also grateful for the support of my noble friends Lady Elles and Lady Hooper.
As my noble friend said, there are 12,000 pupils who are vulnerable and subject to arbitrary discrimination. Today, as we prepare to enter the 21st century, we are witnessing mobility of people that would have been unimaginable only 25 years ago. Families move around the European Union particularly but also around the world as the global market takes hold. I can only see this escalating in future years.
My noble friend Lady Young has a particular point concerning British students in British schools in Europe. It is simply this: access to student loans. The Council of British Independent Schools in the European Community is a respected, sizeable organisation with a membership of 36 schools teaching those 12,000 young people and children. These British schools are in 11 European countries. The students are taught in English by qualified teachers who are eligible for the teachers' superannuation scheme and also eligible to qualify as Ofsted inspectors.
Given these points, if I were a parent sent overseas I would feel that my children would be following a British education abroad. I would also expect my child to sit British examinations and to have the opportunity to follow on to a British university with the benefits that go with that. However, as my noble friend Lady Elles said, that does not happen automatically. Depending on the local education authority there may be access to the student loan scheme for some but the applications of others may be rejected.
We now have a system of loans, not grants as in the past. Therefore the cost to the Government must be far less. Perhaps the Minister can tell us the financial commitment involved. Indeed it would be strange to say the least if the Government recognised European students going to Scottish universities by giving them preferential treatment over fees while at the same time denied British students access to the loan scheme. If the present situation continues, I am sure that many parents will take this into account before accepting a position abroad, especially if they have children about to enter the last years of school. The letter that has been mentioned that was sent by the Secretary of State to the chairman of COBISEC in October leads to uncertainty and ambiguity.
294
Young people seeking access to the scheme live abroad because their parents do, not because they choose to do so. Therefore they cannot fulfil the residence requirement. In the latter part of the letter the Government state that they wish to ensure that temporary absence provisions are applied consistently and are understood. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House the result of the review of advice to local education authorities and what is the current advice on the residence requirements and the temporary absence provisions.
Surely it would be sensible if all the applications were dealt with by one body so that consistency and clarity are obvious. Residence and domicile often cause problems to people. I was fascinated to hear that British citizens born in the UK are deemed to be domiciled here for life for inheritance tax purposes unless they can prove to the contrary. Perhaps therefore access to a loan should be linked to domicile and not residence as my noble friend has suggested.
In summary, there is a problem. One student is lucky; another in identical circumstances is not. The Government surely cannot condone that situation or allow it to continue. I hope that the Minister will agree that the time has arrived when this matter should be looked at again.
Finally, I thank my noble friend for the clear and unambiguous way in which she has presented her case.
8.2 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. for raising this issue. I very much agree with all the speakers in this debate that this is in no sense a party political issue. As I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said, it is a technical matter which concerns eligibility for the student loan scheme. I also recognise the contribution made by British schools in the European Union. Of course, they educate not just British students but also a number of students from EU countries and from further afield.
The student support system, including student loans, provides help with the costs of higher education for those with a relevant residential connection with the UK. This criterion of residence, rather than nationality, has been the principle of successive governments, including those under which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, served. I believe that she has already indicated that. Consecutive governments have taken the view that it is right that the support provided by the taxpayer should be targeted at those who have a history of residence in the United Kingdom. Where students at British schools in the EU can meet the residence requirement and are on a designated course of higher education, they will be eligible for student support.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, that such students make a valuable contribution to university life in the UK through their rather diverse and sometimes interesting experiences. However, perhaps I can explain to the noble Baroness why I felt

295
that she may have been a little confused. As regards tuition fees, European Union students in whichever country they are studying are treated in exactly the same way as students in that country. That would apply, for example, to a British student in Italy. If tuition fees are charged in Italy—as they are in some universities—the student would pay on the same basis as an Italian student.
However, student maintenance is a matter for each individual country. There is no reciprocity there. If, for example, a British student is studying in Sweden or the Netherlands where there are loan schemes, he or she is not eligible. Similarly European Union students studying in the UK are not eligible either. A quite different regime applies for tuition costs as opposed to loans.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, may find it helpful if I say a little more about the residence conditions that prospective students have to meet before they can be eligible for student support. I hope that she will forgive me if I recount a little history with which she may be familiar but which may not be familiar to all the contributors to the debate.
The 1958 Anderson report, which provided the foundation for all subsequent systems of student support, enshrined three principles relating to residence. First, a student should be ordinarily resident in the UK. I shall say a little more about what that means in a moment. Secondly, the student should not have been ordinarily resident solely for the purpose of receiving full-time education. Thirdly, there should be some provision to cover temporary absence from the country. These principles continue to apply today.
I give a little more history. The Anderson report did not specifically recommend a minimum term of residence, although a three-year residence requirement was introduced in the 1962 Education Act. Inevitably, there are good arguments for a shorter or longer minimum period. This is a question of balance but we, like many previous governments, believe that the requirement to be resident in the UK for three years is fair and clearly demonstrates a substantial residential connection with the UK.
The term "ordinarily resident" was defined in this House several years ago. Briefly, the judgment stated that local education authorities should ask themselves whether an applicant for support has shown that he or she has lawfully, habitually and normally resided in the British Islands from choice and for a settled purpose. An exception is made where this condition cannot be satisfied because the applicant or his or her parents have been temporarily employed or absent abroad.
Local education authorities are responsible for determining whether an individual student meets this three-year residence requirement. Their decisions are based on information which is supplied by the student. It is for the student to satisfy the LEA that he or she was resident within the UK throughout the three years immediately preceding the start of the academic year in which the course of higher education began.
296
Local education authorities may also determine that an applicant can qualify for support where he or she has not been ordinarily resident in this way because of temporary employment or absence abroad. The parents of some students attending British schools abroad may, indeed, meet the temporary absence provisions—as I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, quite rightly pointed out—and their children will then be eligible for the full range of student support, including, of course, student loans.
The word "temporary" is not defined in regulations. A statutory definition of the term could not reflect the range of circumstances under which students and their families may find themselves temporarily abroad. It would end up being more restrictive and would not work in favour of students in this category. We believe that the fairest approach is to allow LEAs to judge each case on its individual merit.
A number of speakers—the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Elles and Lady Young—have suggested that LEAs are indiscriminate and inconsistent. That is not our experience. LEAs are more constructive in the way in which they approach this problem than has been suggested; they use their discretion very sensibly.
Nevertheless, to help achieve consistency between LEAs, my department has offered authorities extensive advice on what they should take into account when considering whether a person is temporarily employed or absent abroad. The same criteria apply throughout the country. Perhaps I may read a paragraph from the guidance. It states:
"In reaching a judgement, the LEA will wish to satisfy itself that the period abroad arises from employment; judge whether or not the absence is temporary; and decide whether, but for the employment of the applicant … he or she would have met the ordinary residence and settlement criteria"
It goes on to say,
"In making its decision, the LEA may wish to take into account, among other things, the nature of the posting; the terms of any contract or employer's letter; the period of time spent abroad; the time spent in this country; and whether a residence has been maintained in the UK".
So, to come back to the point raised by the noble Baroness about contracts, that is something that the guidance suggests LEAs should look at.
My department also tries to provide clear information for every applicant for student support. Each year we publish a booklet, Financial Support for Students, which we ask LEAs to issue to all applicants. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, felt that it was a rather heavy read. In order to be comprehensive and cover all the different issues that could arise, it has to be rather complex. I accept that. On the other hand, if one has got as far as wanting to go to university, one probably should be able to get a grip on this. If one cannot, there should be teachers, parents and others who may give one help in doing so.
The booklet sets out the eligibility requirements for support, including the residence conditions I have mentioned. In addition—I hope this will be helpful—I have asked my officials to provide this information

297
directly to all British schools in the European Union in case there are some which may not have easy access to it.
All EU nationals—and this includes British nationals studying abroad—are, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, entitled to means-tested support towards the cost of tuition fees, provided that they have resided in the European Economic Area throughout the relevant three-year period. However, these students are not entitled to support for living costs.
We have an obligation to those applicants who are recognised as refugees by the Government. Those who are now ordinarily resident in the British Islands are exempt from the three-year residence requirement, as are their spouses and children. But that is a rather special category.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, we have received representations from the Independent Schools Joint Council asking for British nationals educated elsewhere in the EU to be exempt from the residence requirement. Similar representations have been made within the Service Families Task Force. That is a cross-Government body established to address the problems experienced by service families outside the control of the Ministry of Defence.
We have given very careful consideration to the arguments put forward. We intend to make a specific exemption from the three-year residency requirement for Armed Forces personnel and their families serving abroad. This will take effect from the academic year 2000–01. We believe that it is right that we make such an exemption. Armed Forces personnel are bound by military law to accept overseas postings. We therefore consider that this group of people are in a special situation because of the unique nature of their employment.
British forces serving overseas do an outstanding job in meeting our international commitments. They are increasingly taking the lead within NATO and the UN. We ask a lot of them and it is right that we extend this eligibility for support to them. These are rights they would have retained had they not been posted abroad. I should point out that our intention is that this exemption will apply only to regular military personnel; it will not include reservists, whose families are not posted abroad, or civilian personnel, who are not subject to the same disciplinary sanctions as regular military personnel.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Will this exemption apply also to diplomats, in the same way that some of the other exemptions have applied to both service personnel and diplomats? Will it apply in this case?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, no. This is specifically for the children of service personnel. Almost without exception, diplomats will get access to the student loan scheme in any case.
298
However, the families of the vast majority of British students being educated abroad choose to live and work abroad. Where this is short-term, the temporary absence provisions will meet their needs. Where it represents a decision to make long-term commitments outside this country, the Government believe that they cannot expect the British taxpayer to provide support. That is what would be involved here.
We do not routinely collect information on the number of British nationals who are educated at British schools in the EU. However, we do know that this year about 1,500 British nationals have applied to my department for tuition fee support under the arrangements for EU nationals that I have already mentioned. Some of these applications will have come from pupils from British schools in the EU. If loan support were extended to these students—this answers the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe—it would cost the taxpayer more than £4.5 million a year. It could also create considerable complications with our European partners, who could, quite reasonably, argue that we were in breach of EU legislation by treating our own nationals more favourably than nationals from other parts of the EU.
As I said, the current rules are both long-standing and clear cut. I have listened to the arguments but I am not sure that there are compelling reasons to change the residence requirements for these applicants. We do not believe that it is right to open up the student loan scheme to people, whether British or not, who have lived and been educated in other parts of the EU. We have therefore decided that the current arrangements for these particular applicants should remain in place.
However, as I explained earlier, if any British national educated at a British school elsewhere in the EU can demonstrate that he or she has a residential connection with the UK and meets the residency criteria, he or she can have access to student loans. That would apply to the grandson of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. Whether or not he is eligible, I do not know, but I wish him well and I hope that he gets his place.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I listened to what she said with great interest and I shall read very carefully the report of the debate. Although I completely understand and accept the case for the Armed Forces, can the noble Baroness explain to the House why she feels that members of other groups who help the United Kingdom—not, of course, in the same way as does a soldier under military discipline—through business, exports and other entrepreneurial effort, about which we hear so much, should be ranked as members of a kind of second-class category who have merely chosen to go to Europe? Many are sent over by their companies. I do not believe it is quite fair to say that it is purely a matter of choice.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Baroness that there may be some people in this category who are sent to Europe by their companies. However, I believe that such people have

299
some choice as to which company they work for. Under normal circumstances, if someone did not wish to move abroad, most companies would prefer to retain a valued member of staff and would allow that person to remain in the United Kingdom. For that reason, I believe that there is a substantial difference between a member of the Armed Forces who can be posted abroad for a long period and who has no choice whatsoever in the matter—a soldier who refuses to serve abroad is subject to court martial—and a member of another group.
300
I recognise that the noble Baroness may be a little disappointed with some elements of my response. I shall certainly check again the points that were made in the debate about the way in which LEAs deal with their discretionary powers in this area. I was surprised by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, when he said that LEAs are unhappy with this discretion and with the guidance provided by my department, because this issue has never been raised with us.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past eight o'clock.

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary: Appointment of Women
  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary: Appointment of Women
  Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct
  Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct
  Lord Chancellor's Department and National Assembly for Wales Concordat
  Lord Chancellor's Department and National Assembly for Wales Concordat
  Angola
  Angola
  Burma
  Burma
  James Mawdsley
  James Mawdsley
  Republic of Congo: Humanitarian Predicament
  Republic of Congo: Humanitarian Predicament
  Criminal Justice Act: Summary and Triable Either Way Offences
  Criminal Justice Act: Summary and Triable Either Way Offences
  European Union: Action Against Discrimination
  European Union: Action Against Discrimination
  Kosovo: Use of Depleted Uranium-based Munitions
  Kosovo: Use of Depleted Uranium-based Munitions
  START II: US and Russia
  START II: US and Russia
  Defence White Paper
  Defence White Paper
  Snowdon Award Scheme: Disabled Students' Allowances
  Snowdon Award Scheme: Disabled Students' Allowances
  Vehicle Records
  Vehicle Records
  Mersley Farm, Isle of Wight
  Mersley Farm, Isle of Wight
  Shahtoosh Trade
  Shahtoosh Trade
  Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Kerosene and Liquefied Petroleum Gas
  Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Kerosene and Liquefied Petroleum Gas