Sitting of 30 November 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By Order)
Order for consideration read.
To be considered on Tuesday 7 December.
CITY OF STOKE-ON-TRENT TUNSTALL NORTHERN BY-PASS LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 1997
Ordered,
That the Committee appointed to join with the Lords as the Joint Committee to consider the Petitions of General Objection against the City of Stoke-on-Trent Tunstall Northern By-Pass Local Government Act Compulsory Purchase Order 1997 have leave to visit and inspect the site of the proposed by-pass, and other sites named in the order, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an Appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by their Counsel or Agent or other representative.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Local Authorities (SSA)
    Mr. John Healey: If he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for determining the standard spending assessment settlement for local authorities for 2000–01. [99006]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I was pleased to announce to the House last week that we have again provided a generous increase in grant for local authorities, which will enable them to continue to pursue with vigour their policies and the Government's priorities for action.
    Mr. Healey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is she aware that in authorities such as mine in Rotherham there is strong support for the principle of the three-year freeze in SSA changes and for the longer-term finance review? Will she give particular consideration in
    132
    that review to the treatment of capital financing? Will she condemn last week's comments by councillor Peter Chalke, leader of the Tory county councils network? He said that the
    "settlement demonstrates that the Labour Government is the enemy of the countryside."
    The average increase for all authorities in the settlement is more than 5 per cent. and the increase for Councillor Chalke's authority in Wiltshire is 5.6 per cent.
    Ms Armstrong: I think that Councillor Chalke, along with some Conservative Members, made his remarks before he had studied the settlement. There were no changes in methodology. The settlement showed, as Conservative Members ultimately had to agree, that shire counties got an above average rise. We have to work hard to move forward and ensure that local people understand the settlement, which should reflect the additional money that the Government are putting in so that local people know the priority that is given to public services at local level.
    Mr. Adrian Sanders: Does the Minister accept that authorities that find that the SSA formula does not reflect fairly on them have been disadvantaged in year one, disadvantaged this year and further disadvantaged next year? Surely that is unfair. They are having to put up their council tax above the Government's targets and cut services. Surely they deserve a better deal than being told that there can be no changes to the unfair formula for three years.
    Ms Armstrong: As I announced to the House last week, we have continued damping arrangements that mean that no education authority receives less than a 1.5 per cent. increase. All authorities knew what they were to get over the three years. It is easier for any organisation to have a three-year plan rather than a single-year plan to decide how money is to be used and how to get the best from that spending.
    Mr. Mark Fisher: On the long-term future of the SSA, does my right hon. Friend accept that the effect of the current formula is so bizarre and awry that a city such as Stoke-on-Trent receives hundreds of pounds per child less each year than areas of acute deprivation such as Surrey and Hertfordshire? Will she urge her working party to act as quickly as possible and will she undertake to be bold and radical in tackling a problem that has defeated government for the last 10 years?
    Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is right to point out that some of the effects of the current formula are difficult to justify locally. That is why we are having a root and branch review. We are working with authorities throughout the country in an attempt to find an alternative to the current SSA methodology. The overwhelming view that was expressed in the survey of authorities that we conducted was that SSAs are not working effectively. It is not just me but the authorities that have to be radical in

    133
    how they look at future funding. We need a system that is as fair as possible, but they must recognise that it is inevitable that not everyone will be fully satisfied.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Will the Minister confirm that support for shire districts has plummeted under this Government? They have had a cut of £220 million, or 28 per cent., on what they received in 1997–98. Kent is facing an £8 million cut in total grant next year. Does she accept that it is no consolation to such councils, mainly in country areas, as they face great unfairness, higher council tax and cuts in services, that they have what she calls stability for three years? They would far rather have had the chance to come to see her last year or this year to persuade her to change the methodology. Does she accept that in talking about generosity and stability, she is merely disguising the true position, which is that many of the councils are being treated unfairly by the Government not only in year one, but in years two and three, so that it truly is a case of this Government being the enemy of the countryside?
    Ms Armstrong: That is arrant nonsense. As the hon. Gentleman knows, shire counties have done better than average this year. No shire county—not a single one—is having its grant cut. Every county and every metropolitan authority is receiving a minimum 1.5 per cent. increase, which does not equate to a cut of £8 million. The hon. Gentleman can project what he would like to spend next year, and then say that a salary has been cut because it is not meeting his budget. That is what he is talking about, but that is not proper budgeting. Kent, along with other areas, is receiving the minimum protection, but Kent is doing better than that. If one adds up the amounts going to shire counties and shire districts, the amount going to the countryside is, to put it mildly, generous.

    New Deal for Communities
    Ms Margaret Moran: If he will make a statement on the progress of the new deal for communities in Luton. [99007]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I was delighted to announce that Luton is one of the 22 areas eligible to put forward proposals for the transformation of a deprived neighbourhood under the second round of the new deal for communities. I will ensure that local people, businesses and organisations get the support that they need to deliver real equality of opportunity and choice in that neighbourhood.
    Ms Moran: I thank my right hon. Friend for her wisdom in selecting Luton as one of the pilot areas for the new deal for communities. Is she aware that, in the centre of my constituency, young people from Bangladeshi and Pakistani households are four times more likely to be unemployed than the national average, despite educational attainments that are similar to the national average? How does my right hon. Friend see the new deal for communities working in conjunction with other
    134
    Government initiatives which Luton is pleased to receive to tackle that severe problem, so that all the youngsters in my constituency have an equal opportunity to find jobs?
    Ms Armstrong: The report that led to the launch of the new deal for communities pointed out that, in our most deprived neighbourhoods, it is much more difficult for people to find work, and that is particularly true for those from ethnic minorities. We should not tolerate that in our society, and we are determined to give local communities the tools to turn that around. One of the policy action teams has been looking at access to jobs, and another has been looking at skills. We are confident that we will be able to work with local communities to make sure that they are able to turn their areas around and to bring jobs, decent health standards, decent education and hope to those areas.

    Green Belt
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on protection of the green belt in Mill Hill and Totteridge valley. [99008]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): In most cases, this is a matter for the London borough of Barnet, though my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister expects the borough to have firm greenbelt protection policies in its development plan. My right hon. Friend will consider calling in planning applications that appear to conflict with greenbelt policies and deal with appeals in greenbelt cases in line with his commitment to green belts.
    Mr. Dismore: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's decisions on recent planning applications for an enormous riding centre at Belmont stables and a plan by Barnet football club for a 10,000-seater stadium on greenbelt land were very much welcomed by my constituents. However, is my hon. Friend aware that Barnet FC has come forward with a plan to put a 9,999-seater stadium at exactly the same location with virtually identical plans? Will the Secretary of State take a robust line, as he has in the past, to defend the green belt against such depredations?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments on decisions taken by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. My hon. Friend has indicated that a further application is apparently in the pipeline, so it would not be appropriate for me to make any comments about it, other than to reiterate that the application will be considered closely in line with the Government's stated policy on the green belt, as set out in planning policy guidance 2, and where there is a presumption against inappropriate development within the green belt.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: The statement today will be welcomed by Londoners, not only in the northern part of London to which the Minister referred, but more extensively, because the Government's record in preserving metropolitan green belt has been abysmal, especially at Stevenage and in Sussex. Can the Minister assure us that from now on, especially as aide-de-camp to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), he will be vigilant in ensuring

    135
    that the metropolitan green belt is preserved, because it is the heritage of Londoners as well as inhabitants of the communities in which it is located?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is not correct in his views about the green belt. As he knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) has just complimented the Government on their decisions in protection of the green belt in London. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that in the two and a half years since the Government came to power the amount of green belt has been extended by some 30,000 hectares, and we are clear about our commitment to the preservation of the green belt.

    Parks
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If he will make a statement about parks. [99009]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The House is well aware of my hon. Friend's commitment to improving access to areas of countryside and the parks. We welcome the recent report from his Environment Sub-Committee on town and country parks and we share its concern about the quality and future of our parks. We will publish our full response early in the new year.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that parks give many people much pleasure, but that the past 30 years have seen a tremendous decline in municipal parks? We must reverse that decline. If we want to stop the drift from the north and from the cities to the countryside, it is important to regenerate our cities. Parks could be one of the key elements in that regeneration and should be a key part of the Government's forthcoming urban White Paper.
    Mr. Prescott: The Government share the Committee's concern about the decline of our parks. Since we came to power we have done several things about the green belt and parks. For example, by tightening the controls, we have halted the sale of playing fields, which the previous Administration encouraged. We have also recently announced a new opportunities fund for green spaces, which contains £125 million for developing green spaces, funded by the national lottery. We are currently preparing our urban White Paper and my hon. Friend's report will be considered in that process.
    The report contains a powerful quotation from John Ruskin, which should be the guiding principle for the House:
    "The measure of any great civilisation is its cities, and the measure of any city's greatness is to be found in the quality of its public spaces, its parks and its squares."
    That is the principle that has governed the actions of Labour Governments and councils for many years.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If the Government feel that the New forest deserves more protection than it has already, why are they insisting on imposing the straitjacket of a national park on it? For many years the New forest has been protected by special
    136
    legislation. If the Government have no parliamentary time for special legislation now, why do they not wait until they can do the job properly?
    Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman properly represents the interests of his constituency—I understand that—but the country generally welcomed the announcement that we made about the two national parks, which followed what a Labour Government had done many years before. The parks policy is important and popular, and we are proud that we have implemented it 50 years after the first legislation to introduce national parks.

    Housing
    Mr. Tom Levitt: What measures the Government are taking to promote increased accessibility of housing for the elderly and disabled. [99010]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): My Department is taking a number of steps to promote better access to housing for elderly and disabled people. We have extended part M of the building regulations to improve accessibility of new housing to disabled people, we have highlighted the needs of disabled people in guidance this year on local authority housing investment programmes, we are increasing the resources available for disabled facilities grants by a quarter over three years, and we will shortly be issuing new guidance to local authorities on registers of accessible housing.
    Mr. Levitt: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that he will wish to pay tribute to organisations such as Scope, which has campaigned for so long for accessible housing, and to local authorities which promote the concept of the lifetime home, something that I hope he will encourage. Can my hon. Friend also tell me how the very welcome initiative of extending part M to domestic properties will be monitored and enforced?
    Mr. Raynsford: We certainly pay tribute to the work of the many voluntary organisations, including Scope and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, which advised us thoroughly and well on the procedures leading up to the extension of part M of the building regulations. We are delighted to have their support.
    I assure my hon. Friend that we will be reviewing the effectiveness of part M 12 months after the changes were introduced in October this year. In preparation, we have alerted local authorities and house builders so that they can keep appropriate records to enable us to carry out a thorough review.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: How does the Minister reconcile the answers that he has given so far with his party's abolition of the advance corporation tax dividend tax credit, which has had a serious effect on charities' receipts? Charities such as the Royal United Kingdom Beneficent Association—RUKBA—which help elderly and disabled people to obtain quality housing and give them the support that they require say that they have

    137
    suffered a marked reduction in income. Removing the ACT dividend tax credit sits ill with the Minister's answers today.
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is trying pretty hard, and stretching logic to an extraordinary extent, to make his point. I stress that the voluntary organisations which deal with disability have warmly welcomed the Government's actions. They applauded our action in extending part M of the building regulations which the previous Government had refused to do, despite the voluntary organisations' entreaties. It is sheer hypocrisy for the Conservative party to pretend that it is the friend of the voluntary sector.

    Bus Services
    Mr. Harry Barnes: What representations he has received concerning the operation of bus services in north-east Derbyshire; and if he will make a statement. [99012]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Three representations have been received regarding bus services in north-east Derbyshire since July 1999, two from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and one from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)
    It was clear from the bus summit earlier this month that the industry has begun to rise to the challenge of improving bus travel. We are determined to make further progress in ensuring that good-quality, reliable services are available across the country. The forthcoming transport Bill will help deliver this objective.
    Mr. Barnes: I could send my hon. Friend another 100 letters and two petitions about Stagecoach problems in north-east Derbyshire, but those have gone to the traffic commissioner. Will my hon. Friend agree that it pays to mobilise and organise where bus services are inadequate? Following his response to Thursday's Adjournment debate, there are signs that things are already improving for Stagecoach. The bus that I caught at a busy period on Monday morning was on time. Buses are being drafted in from Grimsby and London to tackle the problem. Is it my hon. Friend's view that as long an eye is kept on what takes place, matters will work out in the long run?
    Mr. Hill: I am delighted to hear from my hon. Friend that things are already looking up. I entirely agree with him that campaigning can lead to improved services. If I may say so, my hon. Friend has proved himself a doughty campaigner on behalf of his constituents and of bus users in the wider Derbyshire area. As a result of his efforts, the bus operator and Derbyshire county council are working together to secure what I am sure will be significant improvements in local bus services.
    Mr. Don Foster: Is the Minister aware that pensioners in north-east Derbyshire using the bus services benefit from a concessionary fare scheme, and that that scheme is funded by the local council? Is he further aware that since July 1998 the Government have tried to claim credit for the introduction of a Government-funded concessionary fare scheme for pensioners? Will he
    138
    acknowledge that there is no money in the Government's budget for the next two years to fund a pensioner concessionary fare scheme, and will he therefore stop trying to take credit for that initiative? It is one thing to wait hours for a bus but quite a different matter to wait years for a Government-funded concessionary fare scheme.
    Mr. Hill: I am fully aware that many Labour authorities provide concessionary bus fares, for which they deserve much credit. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government intend to introduce a national concessionary fare scheme as part of our transport Bill.

    Business Rates
    Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): What representations he has received regarding the level of business rates. [99013]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We have received over 270 responses to our consultation paper on a transition scheme to phase in large changes in rate bills, resulting from the revaluation due on 1 April 2000. The details of this scheme were announced on 25 November.
    We have also received representations from various businesses and special interest groups about the level of business rates.
    Mr. Ruffley: Is the Minister aware that some large out-of-town superstores in my constituency pay business rates equivalent to less than 10 per cent. of their profits, while some small retailers in the centres of Stowmarket and Bury St. Edmunds pay business rates equivalent to about 35 per cent. of profits? That is a huge burden on small business. Will the Minister explain exactly what she will do to reform the business rate regime to help small businesses in my constituency?
    Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman is a relatively new Member of Parliament, and so perhaps does not realise that the uniform business rate was introduced by the previous Conservative Administration, which he supported. The hon. Gentleman will also know from what I said on Thursday that the Government are to review how the valuation is conducted and how it kicks in. I look forward to his comments then. However, I remind him that, because of the impact on small businesses and to take account of the points that he has raised, we have introduced a transitional scheme that benefits small businesses more than large ones.

    Parish Councils
    Mr. Tim Boswell: What steps he is taking to cut the costs of auditing the accounts of parish councils. [99014]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): Although audit fees are a matter for the independent Audit Commission, the Government are aware of the impact that they can have on small parish councils. The commission is currently

    139
    piloting two exercises to see whether the cost of audits of parish councils can be reduced while the necessary level of assurance is maintained.
    Mr. Boswell: Does the Minister feel any sympathy for the parish clerk of Aston le Walls who has written to me to state that the parish council's audit fee for 1998 was only just under £500, plus value added tax? She is not the only one of my constituents in that position. The parish has a population of 350 persons, and a total precept of only about £3,500, so is not the audit cost totally out of line? Revenue must be safeguarded, but will the Minister urgently examine ways to introduce the necessary flexibility and a much cheaper audit process?
    Ms Hughes: The figures that the hon. Gentleman gives are completely out of line: a precept of £3,500 is below the threshold of £5,000, and the average bill last year for a parish council of that size was £160. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will write to me to confirm the figures that he gave, and I shall certainly look into the matter, as the cost that he quoted bears no resemblance to last year's average. However, I remind him that the regulations establishing the current fee structure were introduced by the previous Conservative Government. As I said, the Audit Commission is conducting studies to determine whether appointing local auditors would bring down costs even further, especially for small parish councils.
    Mr. David Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and am pleased to hear of the review. As a sitting parish councillor and an accountant, I have visited nearly all 25 parish councils in North-West Leicestershire. The impact of the audit fee is a common issue to be raised. Will she urge the Audit commission to look even more closely at the effect on the smaller community—typically with a population of fewer than 1,000—to find out whether there are ways in which the audit fee can be capped relative to precept as a proportion, or in relation to the volume of transactions? The commission is grappling with an important and difficult problem.
    Ms Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know of his work on parish councils and his commitment. A scheme exists already under which small parish councils can effectively roll three annual reviews into an audit. It is a triennial scheme and the councils can have an audit once every three years, thereby cutting their overheads substantially. I hear what my hon. Friend says. The Audit Commission is considering ways in which it can bring costs down, possibly by appointing local auditors and provided that the necessary levels of assurance can be guaranteed. I know that my hon. Friend will agree, however, that although we want to reduce the costs and burdens on parish councils, it is nevertheless important that they are subject to an independent audit, which is important for the protection of public money and for the protection of councillors, so that they are seen to be accounting properly for that money.
    Mr. Damian Green: The Minister seeks to reassure parish councils. Will she acknowledge that her right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, who is regrettably missing his second out of three departmental Question Times, although for reasons that I understand
    140
    today, originally put much fear into the parish council movement by saying that the Government were thinking of abolishing such councils? Will the hon. Lady confirm that that idea was just an embarrassing mistake? Furthermore, can she tell us when we will see the rural White Paper, so that we can see in black and white what further attacks the Government are planning on hard-working parish councils?
    Ms Hughes: We have no plans to abolish parish councils. The rural White Paper will be produced next summer.
    Mr. David Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer and register an interest. Like my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) I am a member of a town council and I spend many hours toiling over its problems. As the Vice-President of the National Association of Local Councils, can I ask my hon. Friend whether she will continue to discuss with the association this very issue? As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire said, it is by far the most important issue that small parish councils raise. I am sure that if we can find a solution to the problem, we will continue to have healthy local councils in many areas.
    Ms Hughes: Yes, I do hear what my hon. Friend has said. To put the matter in context, given the large number of parish councils in the country, the Audit Commission has received 75 complaints this year about the level of fees, in particular from small councils. It is not a problem of enormous significance, but I accept that it affects small councils disproportionately. We await with interest the results of the Audit Commission's exercise and will talk to it about how it can implement its findings to the best possible effect for small parish councils.

    Rural Rail Services
    Mr. David Heath: What his policy is on supporting rural rail services. [99015]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): We are determined to improve the railways so that they can offer an alternative to the car, not least in rural areas. The new rail passenger partnership scheme will provide additional funding for new or enhanced local and regional rail services that cannot be justified on financial grounds alone.
    Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but is he aware that the often inadequate service in the west country misses out enormous parts of the rural areas of Somerset, Devon and Cornwall? Is he also aware that the rail service could provide a much fuller contribution to rural public transport? That would require stations to be opened, reopened and refurbished. Who is to pay for that—Railtrack, the rail companies, the local authorities or central Government?
    Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman will recall that it will be a duty of the new Strategic Rail Authority to promote and develop the rail system. We certainly expect it to pursue that task where rural rail services are concerned.

    141
    Meanwhile, I am pleased to report that the shadow strategic rail authority has to date received 31 bids for funding under the rail passenger partnership scheme, which should follow through into further improvements in rural rail services.
    Mr. John Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that, as a direct result of the Government's policies, the reopening of rural rail links for passengers is being considered for the first time since 1964? In my constituency, there is a good chance that the Vale of Glamorgan railway line will be just such a service. That will not only provide transport for our commuters and relieve congestion on our roads, but provide direct access to Cardiff international airport and remove pressure from the InterCity line. When my hon. Friend next speaks to the Transport Secretary of the Welsh Assembly, will he tell him that the Assembly will have the full support of this House if it awards a passenger transport grant for that line?
    Mr. Hill: Yes, we certainly will.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does the Minister agree that the opportunities afforded to him by privatisation of the railways open up the possibility of developing the rural rail network? Will he correct the possible misinterpretation of remarks made by his predecessor in office, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)? She seemed to suggest that, in certain circumstances, rural railway lines could be replaced by buses. Will the Minister give the same commitment that we made, when the railways were privatised, that there will be no branch line closures?
    Mr. Hill: Let me make it entirely clear that the remarks of my honourable and beloved predecessor on that matter were subject to gross misinterpretation. I emphasise that we have absolutely no plans to replace loss-making rural services with buses. I remind the hon. Gentleman that key services are contractually safeguarded through the passenger service requirements. In rural areas, where services are heavily dependent on subsidy, PSRs are closely based on the timetable that operated prior to privatisation. Discontinuation of services on branch lines can occur only after comprehensive closure procedures have been exhausted. Those powers have been used only rarely; I do not expect that to change.

    Eurostar
    Mr. David Kidney (Stafford): What progress he has made in establishing regional Eurostar services north of London. [99016]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The provision of Eurostar services north of London is currently the subject of an extensive review, the results of which we expect to receive shortly.
    Mr. Kidney: When the decision whether to proceed is finally taken, will that decision be fully informed not only
    142
    by the Government's excellent transport policies but by their equally excellent policies for regional economic development and social inclusion?
    Mr. Mullin: The review has to take into account a wide range of factors, not least of which are the viability of the service and environmental, social and economic considerations. We expect to receive its report shortly.
    Mr. John Bercow: What assessment has the hon. Gentleman made of the technological impediments to the operation of regional Eurostar services? Will he favour us by providing a copy of that assessment in the Library?
    Mr. Mullin: When the report is available, all the technological aspects will also be dealt with, and the hon. Gentleman will be rewarded—he can spend many hours studying them.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: Does the Minister agree that there is no finer example of what the previous Government left us than the north-south divide, and the fact that the Eurostar service does not run north of London? That is despite the promises made in the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 and despite the fact that millions of pounds of public money were put into the project. Does he also agree that if Eurostar is to run a service on the west coast main line, that line must be upgraded? Is he satisfied with the work that Railtrack is putting in? Does he agree that if it is to cost £4 billion to upgrade the west coast main line, that would be money well spent.
    Mr. Mullin: I understand that agreement has been reached on upgrading the west coast main line; I am sure that that will happen in the near future. As a Member who represents a constituency that is almost as far north as that of my hon. Friend, I share his desire to see Eurostar running services to the north. However, that will depend on what the review determines; the service must be viable.
    Mr. John Redwood: Does the Minister understand that we are chronically short of railway capacity in this country, thanks to the Labour Government's policies? Was it not a great Labour lie to say that public transport would get better under this Government, when we all know that it is getting worse and is not providing the alternative that many want?
    When, therefore, will the Minister and the Secretary of State take decisions on Railtrack's ways of obtaining revenue? Why will they not allow more revenue to be given to Railtrack when they expand the network, and less for providing what is already being supplied? We have been waiting for a decision on that for months, but the Secretary of State will say absolutely nothing about it.
    Would it not be common sense to spend the money that Railtrack does have on improvements to expand the capacity of the railway network instead of on taking over the Circle and District lines? We want new tracks; we do not want Railtrack to take on things that could be organised better with private money coming from different sources. The Government are short-changing the

    143
    public; they are providing a bad service. It is high time that they woke up and brought in the money that is needed to do the job.
    Mr. Mullin: I have to say that, even by the right hon. Gentleman' s normal standards, that was an exceptionally cynical performance. Under the present Government, the number of trains is up by 1,000 a day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Passengers?"] The number of passengers is up by about 14 per cent.

    Parish Councils
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: If he will make a statement on the future of parish councils. [99017]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I repeat that we have no plans to abolish parish councils. Our clear and consistent policy is that parish councils will continue to play a key role in many of our towns and villages.
    In our forthcoming rural White Paper, we intend to address further how we see parish councils playing their part in rural local governance.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and agree with her that parish councils play a vital and valuable role in our towns and villages. Can she confirm that the Government have created 33 new parish councils since they came to power, and will she join me in condemning the irresponsible scaremongering contained in a letter that was sent to all parish councils in Suffolk by the leader and deputy leader of the Conservative group, saying that parish councils might be abolished? Is not that a waste of the money of council tax payers, who had to pay for the paper on which it was written?
    Ms Hughes: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a waste of taxpayers' money, and that scaremongering is being supported by Conservative Front-Bench Members for their own political ends. Yes, the Government have created another 33 parish councils since May 1997, and we intend to create another 25 before elections in May 2000. That is our commitment to parish councils. We want them to play an enhanced role in rural communities and in local governance at all levels. Therefore, we intend to strengthen and support parish councils.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: At the Labour party conference, the Minister for the Environment said that parish councils should be replaced by something revolting called neighbourhood forums. Can the hon. Lady confirm that that is wrong, and that the proportion of elected members on parish councils will not be reduced?
    Ms Hughes: My right hon. Friend did not make those remarks. That is not our policy, and I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Conservative party, purports to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. I have made our policy clear—we support parish councils.

    Regional Development
    Mr. Ernie Ross: What assessment he has made of local strategies for regional development[99019]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I received regional strategies from the chairmen of the eight English regional development agencies on 26 October. We aim to respond to them by the end of the year.
    Mr. Ross: Does the Secretary of State agree that the regional development agencies in England, together with Scottish Enterprise, the Welsh Development Agency and the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland, have at last put coherence into the economic development policy in the whole of the United Kingdom? What does my right hon. Friend believe the consequences of the Tory party's policy to abolish them would be?
    Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend that the regional development agencies in the English regions have got off to a flying start. In their first six months of operation, hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created and many hundreds of millions of pounds have been invested. That is a matter of public record.
    As for whether the Opposition will abolish the regional development agencies, it is interesting to note that, although the Scottish Development Agency and Welsh Development Agency have been very successful, the Conservatives appear to want to deny such an agency for the English regions. However, it may be of comfort to my hon. Friend to learn that in 1979 the Conservatives promised to abolish the Welsh and Scotch—[Interruption]—the Welsh and Scottish Development Agencies. However, when they came to power, they failed to do so.
    Mr. Shaun Woodward: Yesterday, in London, the Prime Minister let it be known that there was, he felt, no such thing as a north-south divide. Just three days before that, on Friday, he was in his constituency in the north and said, "We are not happy with the north-south divide." Which is right—the answer that the Prime Minister gave in the north or the one that he gave in the south?
    Mr. Prescott: The right answer is the one that the Prime Minister has constantly given: he is concerned about growing disparities in the English regions. That is why the Government introduced regional development agencies to work on reducing the disparities between the English regions. After all, the Prime Minister spoke of concern for the many, and that is behind that policy.

    South East of England Development Agency
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: What impact the establishment of the South East of England Development Agency has had on the south-east region. [99020]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The agency has successfully brought together regeneration, skills and business development programmes and staff from four separate organisations to provide an integrated approach to the promotion of sustainable economic development. The agency has also led a highly effective consultative process to develop the first regional economic strategy for that region.
    Dr. Whitehead: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that, as a result of the inward investment that has already been achieved by SEEDA together with the championing of venture capital, proposals to abolish or amend the operation of SEEDA would be neither wise nor common sense?
    Ms Armstrong: I agree with my hon. Friend. We inherited significant imbalances between regions. However, within regions there are also significant pockets of disadvantage that need to be tackled. If we are to have sustainable economic growth across the country, we need a much more active regional policy, with organisations such as SEEDA properly consulting and working with the public and other organisations in their regions so that they achieve sustainable development that addresses regional imbalances.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Minister share my lack of surprise that the latest glossy publication to drop on my desk yesterday from SEEDA contained several pictures of its chairman meeting the great and the good? They would have done credit to the most egotistical prospective parliamentary candidate. One picture was of the chairman and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions opening not a new business in the south-east but another set of offices for SEEDA.
    Ms Armstrong: We know how low the Tory party's reputation has sunk with business. I remind the hon. Gentleman that all the development agencies are chaired by business people. They look for support from all parties and they are not party political. He may want to improve the Conservative party's standing given how little money the party now receives from the wider business community, so it is a pity that he is prepared to attack the holders of those posts in any way.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that SEEDA's plan not only identifies a north-south divide—if there is one—but a south-south divide and identifies the under-performance of areas such as Hastings and Rye? Its plan suggests that one of the essential things that could be done is the building of the Hastings bypass. Will that suggestion be pursued?
    Ms Armstrong: It is of course true, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), that there are imbalances within regions, and the Government are determined to take a holistic view of how to tackle those imbalances. Unlike the Conservative party, we are not prepared to put up with some people being able to get jobs while others cannot.

    Train Fares
    Mr. Norman Baker: What steps he is taking to encourage train operating companies to reduce fare levels. [99021]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): Increases in key fares have been restricted to below inflation increases for the second year running, with tougher caps placed on London operators to reflect poor performance over the past year. We look to train operators to consider whether increasing unregulated off-peak fares is the best way to attract new rail passengers.
    Mr. Baker: I welcome that answer, but does the Minister agree that one reason why people do not often travel by train is the astronomical cost of many train journeys, which is far higher than the equivalent cost of petrol mileage for the same journey? Will he help to end the mindset that money spent on roads is investment while money spent on trains is subsidy? Does he agree that it might be a sensible use of his Department's money to help to achieve a cut in train fares? Will he investigate that before his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State resurrects the environmentally damaging roads programme?
    Mr. Mullin: I certainly agree that price is very important if one is hoping to attract people on to the railways. On average, regulated rail fares across the network will rise by less than inflation for the second year running, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that. The key fares are capped at 1 per cent. below the rate of inflation until 2003. Connex SouthCentral, which serves Lewes, has again had its fares capped below the rate of inflation, and I hope that he will join me in celebrating that.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: Is my hon. Friend aware that since privatisation, the cost of subsidising the rail services between Loughborough and Leicester, which are subsidised by Leicestershire county council, doubled overnight simply because of the operating costs and profits built into the privatised system? Will my hon. Friend tell me what was the outcome of the review of the rail companies' operating costs and profits, so that the subsidy can be cut and the real benefit will be felt by the passengers, not the companies?
    Mr. Mullin: We shall in due course renegotiate the franchises, which will give us an opportunity to consider all the issues that my hon. Friend has raised.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister agree to meet a delegation from my constituency who are concerned about fare levels and standards of service on the railways and the tube, which many of them use on their way to work?
    Given that in his answer to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) the Minister referred to London operators, will he comment on the analysis by BBC television's "The Money Programme" of the claims made by the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the hon.

    147
    Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) that it is completely impossible to fund London underground's reconstruction by a bond issue because the New York bond issue had been a disaster? "The Money Programme" showed that those claims were completely inaccurate—the bond issue in New York was a huge success—and when the private sector was fully able to operate, we had a much better London underground system.
    Mr. Mullin: The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he sees on the television; that can be very bad for you. I did not see the programme in question so I cannot comment on it. I, or one of my colleagues, would, of course, be glad to meet a delegation from his constituency to discuss the matters that he mentioned.

    M4 Bus Lane
    Fiona Mactaggart: What assessment he has made of the impact of the M4 bus lane on average journey times. [99022]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): The M4 bus lane pilot scheme is being monitored by the Transport Research Laboratory. The results show that in the first three months following the opening of the bus lane, buses and taxis are saving up to nine minutes in the morning and evening peak periods, while other vehicles are saving up to six minutes in the same periods. The reduction in the speed limits which accompanied the introduction of the bus lane resulted in slightly longer journey times outside the peak periods, but the overall effect was a reduction in total travel time of 3,500 hours a week for those using the road.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I am confident that the reduction in journey times is good for business people travelling between Slough and London. However, will my hon. Friend consider taking one more step to speed up journeys even further? Many of my constituents and I travel on the motorway in the early hours of the morning and, as my constituent Angela Kirk puts it:
    "It is very annoying only being able to do 50 mph at 3 am when there is virtually no other car on the road."
    Will my hon. Friend consider restricting the hours during which the 50 mph limit applies?
    Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is right to represent the concerns of her constituents. I assure her that the matter will be considered as part of the continuing monitoring and review of the scheme, and especially the safety implications.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Why does the Minister not ensure that his measurements start from the place where the tailback begins, rather than from where traffic starts to move? Is it not true that no savings have been achieved and that, if it is measured properly, less traffic now uses the M4?
    Mr. Hill: The fact is that there are significant time savings for drivers. It is worth noting two further positive aspects of the scheme. First, on current performance, there
    148
    are benefits to the economy of £750,000 a year, which represents an excellent rate of return on an outlay of £1.9 million to cover the cost of the scheme. Secondly, although it is too early to draw firm conclusions, forecasts by safety experts predict a 20 per cent. reduction in accidents. The Metropolitan police, who manage the road, believe that the scheme has improved safety.

    Cleaner Vehicles Task Force
    Dr. Ian Gibson: When the cleaner vehicles task force is expected to issue a report on its findings. [99024]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): In July 1999, the cleaner vehicle task force published its first report, recommending practical measures to encourage the manufacture, purchase and use of cleaner, quieter, more fuel-efficient vehicles. The task force expects to publish another report in spring 2000. That report will take forward the key proposals and make further practical, cost-effective recommendations.
    Dr. Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that investigations into alternative fuels and their benefits could do much for the health of our nation, especially in terms of the incidence of asthma and cancer?
    Mr. Mullin: I certainly agree that that could make an important contribution to our constituents' quality of life. Two of the task force' s earlier recommendations have already been acted on: first, the development of a greener fleet certification scheme for company cars and, secondly, the launch of an internet guide to enable purchasers of new cars to find out their carbon dioxide emissions and air quality impact. In addition, the task force has contributed to the development of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders label. I am pleased to announce that, from tomorrow, every new car will carry the label, which will give details of emissions of local pollutants and carbon dioxide.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If the issue is one of quality of life and is worthy of an internet guide, why are the Government reducing the particulate emissions targets?
    Hon. Members: Help!
    Mr. Mullin: The House will be pleased to hear that help is on the way. There are difficulties with the European standards, but our finest minds are working on the problem.

    Local Transport
    Mr. Geraint Davies: What progress has been made in the development of local transport plans by local authorities. [99025]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Local authorities have produced 85 local transport plans covering the whole of England outside London. We are currently assessing the plans and will announce the allocation of resources in December.
    Mr. Davies: Will my hon. Friend give an assessment of the transport plans he has received covering the London area? Are any of them sustainable transport plans such as Croydon's, which includes tramlink and cycling measures? What consideration has he given to
    150
    park-and-ride schemes, to ease congestion resulting from retail developments? Will he discuss with his colleagues the possible redesignation of greenfield sites, with the aim of preventing environmental damage by major retail developments alongside transport links?
    Mr. Hill: Let me say at once that the Government's position on the green belt has already been clarified during these exchanges. All 33 authorities in London have produced interim transport plans, Croydon being one of them. We are assessing the plans and we shall announce the allocation of resources in December.

Beef on the Bone
3.30 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): With permission, I am pleased to be able to announce the Government's intention to lift the retail ban on beef on the bone. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hurrah!"] That seems to have gone down quite well. This follows further advice from the chief medical officers, who now collectively agree that it is possible to lift the ban on retail sales. I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health have accepted this advice. I am placing a copy of the advice in the Library today. Officials of my Department will later today be consulting on draft proposals to lift in England the ban on the retailing of beef on the bone. This includes lifting the ban on food prepared for direct sale to consumers in restaurants and other catering establishments. Similar consultations will be taking place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to lift the ban there also.
As recommended by the chief medical officers, the ban on the use of bones for manufacturing food products, including infant foods, which lies at the extreme end of BSE protection measures, will remain in place. This also has the effect of preserving explicit consumer choice.
This lifting of the ban has been long awaited and I am delighted that it can now go ahead. The announcement will bring a welcome boost to the beef industry in what continue to be difficult times. I believe that we need to move forward as quickly as possible with the consultation on the lifting of the ban. Therefore—[Interruption.] Opposition Back Benchers should listen to the end of the statement before condemning it. Therefore, subject to the consent of the House, I propose to use the accelerated procedure for making the regulations to allow retail sales to take place before Christmas. Consultation will start today, with the aim that the amending regulations will take effect on Friday 17 December. These proposals will take effect in England only, but it is intended that similar legislation will be implemented in the other parts of the United Kingdom to the same timetable.
I know that enforcement authorities will wish to take note of my statement and of the Government's clear intention to implement the lifting of the ban by 17 December.
Mr. Tim Yeo: I warmly welcome the statement and the very belated recognition by the Government that there is no justification whatever for a ban on beef on the bone.
I have five questions for the Minister. First, will he confirm that when the ban was imposed two years ago it was only one of three options put forward by the Government's scientific advisers, and that the first option was publication of the research findings and the risk assessment of beef on the bone so that consumer choice really could be preserved?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government's compliance cost assessment shows that the ban has cost the industry more than £170 million since 1997?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is 10 weeks since the chief medical officer advised that retail sales of beef on the bone could safely restart? During that period, the industry has lost another £15 million.
152
Fourthly, why does the Minister consider it safe to lift the ban today, when it was not safe to do so on 21 September when the chief medical officer reported? Has the Minister allowed Scotland and Wales a veto over whether English consumers can buy beef on the bone?
Finally, is the Minister aware that one month ago, the agricultural counsellor at the French embassy said that Britain's ban on beef on the bone at home was one reason why France was blocking British beef exports? Will the Minister now admit that his failure to lift the ban more quickly has seriously damaged confidence in British beef abroad, and has made the task of regaining our export markets much more difficult?
Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) for the unstinting welcome that he has given to my announcement. His judgment, or lack of it, on the issue is exceeded only by his failure to follow the debate. As I have said repeatedly in the House, the beef-on-the-bone ban has absolutely nothing to do with the date-based export scheme, because the date-based export scheme is, as everybody who has followed the debate knows, for deboned beef.
With regard to the advice given me earlier by the chief medical officer for the United Kingdom, not only did I say that I accepted it, as did the then Secretary of State for Health, but I put it in the House of Commons Library so that every hon. Member could see it. Most hon. Members took notice of it and could study the issue on the basis of professional advice.
We did not implement the advice just in England because the Government believe it right to proceed consistently throughout the United Kingdom. That is what we are doing today. It required the consent of others. We sought and obtained that consent, and now we are proceeding. There is nothing new in that. It has been the basis of discussion for several months, as the hon. Gentleman ought to know. As for the advice that was given to my predecessor, that has also been put in the public domain.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's question about compliance cost assessment, that is not the basis on which Government policy is being driven. The Government's policy is being driven by the overriding desire to provide proper protection for the public. The test of whether we are doing so is whether we are acting on the basis of professional medical advice. We are willing to do so and to put the interests of the public first. As the hon. Gentleman has said repeatedly in the House, the current Conservative party leadership is not willing to do that.
Dr. Gavin Strang: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress that he is making. Does he agree that if the Conservatives had won the last election, the likelihood is that the ban on our beef exports would have lasted for the duration of this Parliament?
On the BSE-linked controls on sheep carcases, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what prospect there is that the restrictions on the sale of carcases of sheep over one year old will be lifted? Does he accept that the resumption of the trade in whole sheep carcases would be welcomed in the Scottish industry and throughout the UK?
Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister has come to the House to make a statement about beef on the bone. I will

153
not allow him to answer questions in relation to other subjects. He has made a very restricted statement, and I hope that he will not stray from it when he answers the first part of the question.
Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend is right. The Government have consistently followed scientific advice, and it is difficult to see how the Opposition could get any of the restrictions lifted in the institutions of the European Union if they are willing to put the scientific advice to one side.
Mr. Colin Breed: We welcome the announcement that the ban will one day be lifted, and we hope that that will be on 17 December. We, like the farming community, would have preferred that to happen some months ago. I did not hear the Minister's answer to the question that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) asked about costs. Will he confirm that the set-up costs for the ban were approximately £25 million and that about £77 million a year has been spent on maintaining it?
Will the Minister also confirm that the Ministry received advice that suggested that it was not assured of success if challenged in the European Court? However, because of probable delays, the Ministry was happy to go ahead with the ban because a challenge was unlikely to be issued within an acceptable time scale. If that is true, why did the Minister allow prosecutions to proceed against many people who sold beef on the bone, especially Mr. "Beefy" Bowman of the Drover's Inn, Harrogate, whose case is on-going although it is currently adjourned? Does he believe—
Madam Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has many more questions? If so, perhaps he could make written representations.
Mr. Breed: I would be only too pleased to do so. Does the Minister believe that those prosecutions should be dropped without further ado, so that those who have cases hanging over them can get on with running their businesses?
Does the Minister agree with the Leader of the House of Lords that the ban was introduced for "purposes of European diplomacy"? If so, does he believe that £200 million has been well spent?
Mr. Brown: At least my correspondence section will be relieved that the hon. Gentleman managed to get all that out. European diplomacy has nothing to do with the ban. The Government have acted consistently on the advice of their professional advisers; we continue to do that.
On existing prosecutions, I emphasise that the Ministry is not the prosecuting authority. Cutting abattoirs are a matter for the Meat Hygiene Service and other issues are for local authorities to decide. They and the courts—not me—are responsible for enforcing the law.
Our policy is not cost driven. The Government's overriding priority is the protection of the public. The hon. Gentleman asked about the delay in lifting the ban. We have to go through parliamentary procedures to protect
154
the rights of the Opposition. If they want to throw those rights away, that will be an amazing revelation to my right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip, who will take careful note of it.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the ban will be lifted "one day"; it will be lifted on 17 December.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the news that the ban on beef on the bone will be lifted. That news will be welcome to small butchers in Chorley. When I go to Mr. Brown's shop every Saturday to buy my meat, he tells me that he hopes that the ban will be lifted. I can now give him that positive news.
Farmers as well as butchers in Chorley will welcome the news. They believe that agriculture is at the heart of Government policy and that the Government will support them through continued grants. We would welcome my right hon. Friend to Chorley; we hope that he will visit our farmers and ensure that we continue to support agriculture.
Mr. Brown: I hope to be able to visit my hon. Friend's constituency soon, once I have completed one or two other tasks. In the meantime, I know that the butchery trade will welcome the lifting of the ban, because the Government act on the best professional advice that is available to us and to other authorities in the United Kingdom. We are able to lift the ban throughout the United Kingdom, and thus ensure that the announcement is greeted with confidence by consumers as well as the industry.
Mr. David Curry: There is a serious business behind what is becoming a Whitehall farce. The Government legislated for devolution and under devolution it is expected that there should be different policies in different parts of the United Kingdom from time to time—otherwise, devolution would not exist. Was it thought necessary not to lift the ban in England—even though the Minister and his advisers were convinced that it should be lifted—because that was not acceptable in other parts of the United Kingdom? Will he ensure that he will not hesitate to act on behalf of the devolved interests of the English if a parallel case arises?
Mr. Brown: I am happy to act on the devolved interests of the English, as the right hon. Gentleman puts it, and I have asked the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), to act within the Department as the Minister for England, as well as carrying out her other responsibilities. We decided not to proceed on an England-only basis because it is clearly in the interests of consumers, as well as the industry, to have a uniform pattern of regulation throughout the United Kingdom on this particular issue. Although it may be possible to act differently on a particular subject, that does not mean that one should seek to do so—especially if it is more rational to act together—and my discussions with my colleagues in the devolved Assemblies have been very mature on all these issues. Those discussions have gone well and we all agree that it is right to act, if we can, in the same way and to the same timetable across the United Kingdom.
Mr. David Drew: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has achieved and urge him to ignore

155
the comments of Conservative Members—we would not be anywhere near this far along the line if we relied on their approach. I remind him that the ban on beef on the bone was imposed because of infectivity in the dorsal root ganglia and possible infectivity in the marrow. Can he assure the House that that has not been proved and that that is why he has been able to lift the ban?
Mr. Brown: I am able to raise the ban on retail sales and sales through catering establishments—direct sales—because that is the professional advice I have received. That advice is for all to see, because I have placed it in the Library today. My hon. Friend refers to the attitude of the Opposition, who seem to want to welcome the announcement and jeer it at the same time. They need a more mature strategy for dealing with those issues than merely jeering from the sidelines; and given how these circumstances were brought into being in the first place, a little humility might be appropriate.
Sir Peter Emery: We are not jeering from the sidelines; we are condemning the Minister for having had the advice since September and doing nothing about it for England. If he is thinks that his logic about having to have uniformity for the whole of the United Kingdom makes any sense for my constituents in Devon, he is talking nonsense. Will he therefore give this country an undertaking that, if a similar situation arises, he will not be vetoed by the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly?
Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman should now take a deep breath. The different authorities in the United Kingdom are acting in concert not because we have to, but because we want to.
Mr. Mark Todd: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement, which is consistent with sound scientific advice and administrative common sense. However, what guidance will he give the enforcement authorities in the consultation period until 17 December? He has correctly drawn attention to the fact that the Ministry is not the enforcement authority in these cases.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. I have asked the enforcement authorities to take careful note of today's statement and, in particular, of the fact that it is the Government's clear intention to have the ban lifted across the United Kingdom, in concert with the other authorities, by 17 December.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the Minister of Agriculture apologise to the House? Once again, we find that the House is being informed a long time after the press has been briefed on these matters, and it is a contempt of the House for the Government repeatedly to make announcements outside before making them to Members of Parliament.
Mr. Brown: I take that as a welcome for today's announcement. If the House is due an apology, surely it should come from those who presided over these circumstances in the first place.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity once and for all to explode
156
the myth that was being peddled as the Conservative spokesman traipsed the radio and television studios this lunchtime in advance of this parliamentary announcement? He said that the beef-on-the-bone ban has hindered the lifting of the beef export ban. Is not the opposite the case? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we would not have got the beef export ban lifted if we had ignored our official scientific advice? Does that not show that the Conservative party has learned nothing since it gave us BSE?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The date-based export scheme and the beef-on-the-bone ban are not related, because of the nature of the export scheme. This is a national interest and should not be a party political point. It does our country no favours to wander around the studios suggesting that there is a connection when there clearly is not.
Mr. David Maclean: When will we get the truth from the Government, which is that two years ago they introduced an unnecessary ban when they had an option not to do so, because that was part of the chief medical officer's advice? When will they stop blaming the chief medical officer for their own lack of judgment? When will we get an apology from Ministers for wasting two years with an unnecessary ban that has caused damage not just to farmers, but to restaurateurs, hoteliers and caterers? Will Ministers be prepared to make reparations to the people whom they unnecessarily damaged?
Mr. Brown: I have complete confidence in the professional advice that I receive from the UK Government's professional advisers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not act on it?"] I am acting on it. The right hon. Gentleman asks when we will know the truth. I think that we will know the truth about the BSE tragedy, inasmuch as anyone ever can, once the inquiry reports.
Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons the British public are eating more British beef than they did before BSE is that they now know that the Government will properly protect the consumer and will take sound medical advice, rather than play every food issue for petty party advantage?
Mr. Brown: Of course my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government's priority is to protect the consumer, and we do that by acting on professional advice.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Today's announcement is a bit late, but most welcome. Will the Minister concentrate on giving the Meat and Livestock Commission sufficient resources to ensure that it can work hard to recover the market that we have lost?
Mr. Brown: I agree with that. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I are meeting those most directly concerned with beef exports tomorrow to discuss the way forward.
Mr. Andy King: It is rich of Conservative Members to demand an apology from the

157
Minister on this issue, which he has handled with enormous skill that is worthy of the support of the House. He has done remarkably well. I have not heard an apology from Conservative Members for BSE the whole time I have been in the House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House should receive an apology from Conservative Members for their mishandling of the BSE crisis?
Mr. Brown: I think that I can modestly agree with that. As for the apologies, we shall await the outcome of the BSE inquiry.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: Has the Minister no sense of urgency? Does he not realise that farmers in Bedfordshire, whether they are producing beef, poultry or pigs, are dying on their feet and watching him doing nothing week after week? We welcome this statement at last, but others who are watching their businesses go down the drain are looking for action. Please will he take it?
Mr. Brown: Farmers are indeed getting action today because I am lifting the ban. There is a parliamentary procedure to go through. We have such parliamentary procedures to protect the rights of the Opposition, which I would have thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be keener on now that he is that side of the House. The procedure that I am adopting, which I assume has the House's consent, is an accelerated procedure. I have also specifically drawn today's statement to the attention of the enforcement authorities.
Mr. Michael Jack: I welcome the lifting of the ban, but will the Minister acknowledge that it caused serious damage to the reputation of the finest beef in the world—British beef? It also exposed a dangerous rift in Government over how questions of risk should be dealt with.
Now that the ban has gone, what steps is the Minister taking to re-examine the operation of the over-30-months scheme, particularly in respect of beef herds in which there has been no incidence of BSE, and in which the animals are fed on grass and are slow in maturing?
Mr. Brown: The first step is to receive advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, and I expect to receive it soon.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the lifting of the ban, but I fundamentally disagree with his point about damage to the beef industry. I believe that real and sustained damage would be done to the industry
158
if the public could not have confidence in the public protection measures that enable me to say with confidence that British beef is among the safest in the world.
Sir Robert Smith: As one who voted against the ban, I obviously welcome its lifting; but can the Minister reassure farmers in my constituency, especially given the falls in their incomes? He said in his statement that he continued to envisage difficult times, and, although it was a morale-boosting statement, there is a long way to go before the tragedy of BSE and the crisis in agriculture have been dealt with.
Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the statement. The right way forward for the beef industry is for it to provide a product that its customers want, and in which they can have confidence. That is why, given the tragedy of BSE, public protection measures are so important to consumers, and therefore to the industry itself.
Mr. Peter Luff: Does the Minister agree that there is more joy in heaven when one sinner repenteth, no matter how belated that repentance may be? Will he give an assurance on the subject of uniformity? This is something that I simply do not understand. Will he assure us that there will never again be a veto over English agricultural policy by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly?
Mr. Brown: Theology is not my strong point, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the different authorities in the United Kingdom are acting in concert, because we all believe that it is right to do so. It is in the interests of consumers, and in the interests of the United Kingdom beef industry.
Mr. Yeo: The Minister says that the two-week delay in the lifting of the ban is intended to protect the rights of the Opposition. May I say on behalf of the Opposition that, in the interests of British consumers, we are willing to forgo those rights and approve the necessary order this afternoon?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman was not the leading or significant opposition that I had in mind. There may be real opponents of what I have announced today, and they should be given some time in which to have their say.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
The right hon. Michael Denzil Xavier Portillo, for Kensington and Chelsea

Points of Order
Dr. Brian Iddon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you able to clarify for the record exactly what the broadcasting procedures are for the Westminster Hall debating Chamber? This morning, the broadcasting proceedings were unavailable to other Members, or to our staff. Is it expected that they will be available, particularly on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings?
Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the report, which records what the broadcasting should be. I would myself like to see the debates on our internal monitors. I am taking steps to find out whether we can have that for next week.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had a request from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to the House today, given the shocking and, perhaps to some, distressing news that the euro is now worth only 99.04 US cents?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that anyone from the Treasury is seeking to make a statement on that, or on any other issue today.
Mr. Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told you whether it will be sending a Minister to the Tea Room because, in today's evening paper, we were regaled with the headline:.
"Beef on the bone ban is lifted"—
implying the past tense, half an hour before the statement to the House?
Madam Speaker: To the Tea Room? Is it to have a nice beef sandwich? I hope that if anyone is sent to the Tea Room for a beef sandwich, one will be sent to me in Speaker's House when I leave the Chair for a cup of tea.
Do I have another point of order? No? What a pity.

Points of Order

  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)),
  That the matter of the Government's legislative programme as outlined in the Queen's Speech and the Chancellor's Pre-budget Report as they relate to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Representation of the People Bill
  [Relevant documents: The Fourth Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, on Electoral Law and Administration (HC 768), and the Government response published in the Committee's Fourth Special Report, Session 1998–99, (HC 856).]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.2 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  It gives me great pleasure to bring before the House this Bill, which aims to modernise our electoral procedures. Much of our electoral legislation dates from the 19th century. The Bill will help to ensure that the procedures are suitable for the next century.
  Let me tell the House something about the genesis of the Bill. Following every general election, the Home Office carries out a review to see what, in terms of electoral processes, went well and what could be improved. Previously, that has been purely an administrative exercise, but, following the 1997 general election, I decided that something more fundamental was needed.
  Accordingly, I invited my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), then the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, to chair a working party to review all our electoral arrangements and to produce recommendations which

  "will lead to more open and fairer electoral procedures, command the trust of the electorate and contribute to the democratic renewal of the United Kingdom."
  The working party on electoral procedures, or the Howarth working party as it came to be known, included representatives of all the principal political parties, electoral administrators and representatives of local government. I am pleased to say that the working party was able to proceed by consensus and that, with a single exception, all its recommendations were agreed unanimously by all the representatives, including those of the three political parties. I hope that a similar spirit of co-operation will characterise our deliberations over the Bill. Electoral law is so fundamental to our democracy that changes to it should, wherever possible, proceed by consensus.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: How can we take the Home Secretary seriously on that point when we warned him that the system of election for the European Parliament that he was introducing would lead to an abysmal turnout? We were right. He ignored that advice, despite the measure being sent back from the Lords on numerous occasions, and we saw the lowest-ever turnout. How can we take the Government seriously about the turnout at local elections?
  Mr. Straw: The Bill deals with the procedures for elections, which include the way in which we draw up the

  161
  register, the way in which people are able to cast their vote, arrangements for absent voting, the positioning of polling stations and matters relating to eligibility for voting. There is a difference between those issues and questions relating to electoral systems, which, as the hon. Gentleman and others will recall, we debated on six occasions. When I woke up this morning and heard reference to the d'Hondt system, I thought that I had gone back to a year ago. I am pleased to learn that d'Hondt's fine work last century has been put to even better effect in the arrangements for Northern Ireland than in the arrangements for the European elections.
  It is difficult to argue that the changes to the voting system for the European elections led to an increase in turnout. I do not argue that. On the other hand, it is equally difficult to argue that a first-past-the-post system automatically leads to high turnouts. The by-elections at Leeds, Central and at Kensington and Chelsea—safe seats for Labour and the Conservatives respectively—had turnouts below 30 per cent.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will always, without exception, give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am deeply honoured that my right hon. Friend should be so kind, and I am very humble. Why does he not change back to the old first-past-the-post system for European elections to see whether that produces the result that we want?
  Mr. Straw: I am not a one-Member Parliament. We live in a democracy. It is for humble Ministers such as me merely to make propositions and for this House and the other place to dispose of them. As I told the House during the passage of last year's Bill, we are reviewing the working of the system used for the European elections, and a report will be produced in due course.
  Sir Robert Smith: When the right hon. Gentleman analyses those statistics, it might be useful for him to look back to the European by-election in North-East Scotland, which took place just over six months before the European elections. That was conducted under the first-past-the-post system and the turnout was about the same.
  Mr. Straw: I accept that point, which I was trying to make. Some people suggested that the change in the system for the European election would lead to an increase in turnout. I do not think that it is possible to argue that any more. I have never believed that the differences in turnout between us and continental countries are principally to do with the electoral system. They are to do with other factors.
  Mr. John Bercow: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while it may seem attractive in principle to impose restrictions on the commercial use of the electoral register, the danger of clause 9 as it stands is that individuals who are excluded from that commercially
  162
  available register, albeit by their choice, might find it difficult to obtain credit, as credit reference searches will be unable to locate them?
  Mr. Straw: I shall come to that point. If the hon. Gentleman has more questions when I get to it, I shall give way again.
  Mr. David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the system used in the European elections served one useful purpose of which we should take note? It taught us that under no circumstances should such a system be used for elections to this House. We have learned a very good lesson and I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees with it.
  Mr. Straw: That is a persuasive point that needs to be borne in mind. The argument in favour of proportional representation for Westminster seems to be pursued with slightly less evangelism than before. I am not clear why that is the case.
  The Howarth working party delivered its final report to me in October. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East and to all members of his working party for the thorough, informed and positive report that they have produced.
  It may be helpful if I deal with the so-called reasoned amendment, tabled by the Opposition. It states that the House should decline to give a Second Reading to the Bill because
  "the Government has failed to undertake a sufficiently comprehensive public consultation on such important and far-reaching changes to the conduct of elections and the publication of electoral registers".
  The amendment claims also that.
  "Members of this House have had no time in which to consult with local authorities and interested parties in their constituencies".
  This is one of the most disingenuous reasoned amendments that I have seen for a long time.
  It may be helpful if I set out the extent to which we have engaged in consultation—not embarked on it—not only with the public, but with the Opposition. The working party, established in 1997, included a representative of the Conservative party, and that representative worked, and co-operated, with the working party.
  In July 1998, the working party produced an interim report—which I published—which set out the provisional lines along which it was going and included most, although not all, of the issues raised in the final working party report. These included: rolling registration; disabled access to electoral procedures; electoral forms management; absent voting procedures; registration of parties; returning officers' fees and charges; broadcasting issues; and responses to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions consultation paper "Local Democracy and Community Leadership".
  The report went on to explain other changes that the working party was to introduce, including a rolling electoral registration system; polling aides for the disabled; pilot schemes for voting anywhere in an electoral area; mobile voting; early voting; changes to voting hours and days; all-postal ballots and electronic voting.

  163
  Almost every issue in the final report was flagged up in the interim report. In addition, I remind the Conservative party that, alongside the Howarth working party, the Select Committee on Home Affairs sat at about the same time and held its own inquiry into electoral procedures. The Select Committee reported in September 1998, and its report has been available for public consultation ever since.
  Conservative Front Benchers seem to have the most extraordinarily short memories. That may be because they keep changing—I am now on my fourth shadow Home Secretary in less than two and a half years. Written evidence was put into the Select Committee report, which went through a wide variety of issues—exactly those that are before the House today. In addition, the noble Lord Parkinson, of blessed memory, who was at the time the Conservative party chairman—
  Mr. Bercow: A great man.
  Mr. Straw: A very great man. Greater love hath no man for his party than to chair the Conservative party in the wake of its historic defeat in 1997 and still keep cheerful.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: And its great victory in 1983.
  Mr. Straw: I pay tribute to that historic victory in 1983, from which we learned something. Lord Parkinson gave oral evidence to the Committee. For the fourth-time-around Conservative Front Benchers now to say that we have not entered into public consultation on the issue is simply nonsense.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: On the subject of consultation, and further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), is it not the case that the working party did not include any representatives from the commercial or charitable sectors and that the problems raised by my hon. Friend would probably not have occurred had such representatives been consulted? Is it not the case that all those sectors were allowed to do was to make written representations?
  Mr. Straw: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that question, because I was about to point out that, on the issue of the sale of the register, which is unquestionably one of the more contentious matters—but on which the Conservatives' representative agreed with the recommendations of the working party's report, which were the subject of considerable deliberation—the working party published a consultation paper in summer 1998 and invited representations on it. The working party received representations from the credit companies and other commercial interests, together with 90 letters written in response to a campaign run by the Daily Express against the free sale of the complete electoral register. No one can seriously argue that the possibility that changes would be made in the arrangements for the sale of the register were not fully the subject of public debate more than 15 months ago.
  Mr. Bercow: The Home Secretary is not universally renowned for his competence, but he is known for his unfailing charm and courtesy. Therefore, within the
  164
  privacy of the Chamber, I wish to ask him a simple question. Will he agree to a request from the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, which comprises 300 member companies and a spend of more than £3 billion on media advertising, to a meeting at which it can air its concerns and release him from his state of ignorance on this important issue?
  Mr. Straw: I take the half-compliment that the hon. Gentleman paid me in the spirit in which it was made. He is under a misapprehension, because it is not that I am in a state of ignorance but simply that I take a position with which he disagrees. The two are different, but it is the error of mistaking disagreement for ignorance that led the Conservatives to the historic defeat of which we spoke a moment ago.
  Mr. David Drew: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the influence of Professor Bernard Crick's advisory group on education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy, which shows the importance of consultation. The group's report showed the need for change to re-engage young people, and there is no better example of the need for the changes proposed in the Bill.
  Mr. Straw: Before I deal with my hon. Friend's point, I wish to answer the direct question put by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I cannot give an undertaking to the organisation to which he referred that I will be able to meet its representatives, but my hon. Friend the Minister has already met representatives of several commercial groups and will be available to meet those of that organisation, should we receive a request from it.
  I shall now summarise for the House what the Bill contains but, before I do so, I shall just mention what is not in it. Hon. Members will be aware that there will be another piece of electoral legislation this Session—the political parties, elections and referendums Bill. That Bill will give effect to the Neill committee recommendations on party funding and, very importantly, create an electoral commission. A draft Bill for that was published in July.
  The working party recommended legislative changes in three main areas—electoral registration, absent voting and pilot schemes—that are covered in the Bill before us today, and I will deal with them in turn. Much of our legislation governing electoral registration dates from the end of the first world war and while, in general, it has served us well, it no longer reflects the needs of modern society. The rules were drawn up when only a minority of the adult population were eligible to be registered and when, for the most part, people lived in one place for most, if not the whole, of their lives.
  We now have a very mobile population with up to a tenth of people moving house in any one year. It is plainly absurd that someone who moves to a new address just after the 10 October qualifying date has to wait 16 months—until February of the year after the next year—before being able to vote in respect of their new address. That can only have a harmful effect on turnout. People are prevented from voting for the local authority in the area where they live and have little interest in voting for the local authority in the place where they no longer live.
  That is why, on the working party's recommendation, we are introducing a system of rolling electoral registration. This will allow the register to be updated

  165
  constantly, so that people can be added to the register and deleted from it as soon as they move. The aim is to ensure that not more than about six weeks elapse between the date when people move and inform the electoral registration officer of their move and their inclusion on the register.
  There will still need to be an annual canvass and safeguards to ensure that nobody is disfranchised by being left off the register. That change should ensure that every future election is conducted using a much more up-to-date register. I hope that the whole House will welcome this measure.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: We certainly welcome it, and pay tribute to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who has, rightly, pressed this case for many years.
  Will the Home Secretary consider a proposition that relates specifically to the proposed annual registration period? There is a good biblical precedent for the date of the census being one that people are reminded of publicly. A census is taken every 10 years; will the right hon. Gentleman consider having a co-ordinated national strategy for advertising annually the desirability and opportunity of registration? This happens locally, and there is some advertising, but as it is a bit piecemeal and half cocked, it does not often achieve its objective.
  Mr. Straw: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). If he had not talked about the need for a rolling register for so long, and with such cogency, this proposal might not now be before the House.
  I take the hon. Gentleman's point that publicity arrangements have not been particularly well co-ordinated. It is not passing the buck to say that we will look at the matter before the electoral commission is established but, once it is established, one of its important functions will be to upgrade the way in which the opportunities to vote, and therefore to register, are drawn to people's attention.
  Mr. Christopher Fraser (Mid-Dorset and North Poole): Will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to apologise to those hereditary peers who were thrown out in the other place and disfranchised in the recent by-election in Kensington and Chelsea, given that the right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance in the House that they would have the right to vote?
  Mr. Straw: I am not going to apologise for that. We are trying to have a serious discussion about electoral registration. It did not seem to make a huge amount of difference to the result.
  Mr. Fraser: That is not the point.
  Mr. Straw: It would have been the point if it had done—the hon. Gentleman can rest assured of that.
  166
  We considered very carefully whether it was possible to introduce the arrangements in time, and it was not. That was the only reason.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: I wish to make some progress, and I will give way later.
  The Bill will also make it easier for the homeless, remand prisoners, mental patients—other than those detained as a consequence of criminal activity—and service personnel to register. All such people are entitled to vote, but our rigid and cumbersome registration rules can make it difficult for them to register. That is an important point to bear in mind.
  Partly to overcome that, the Bill introduces a new concept, a "declaration of local connection", which will enable people to register in respect of an address with which they have a connection. Remand prisoners and mental patients will also be permitted to register in respect of the address where they would otherwise be living.
  I know that the Conservative representative on the working party had reservations about the proposals for the homeless. That was the only one of the working party's representations that did not secure unanimous support. I do not believe that our approach will lead to electoral fraud or to improper registration. I am sure that we will discuss this in greater detail in Committee, and hope that we can find a solution that will be acceptable to all parties. I did note that, in the Conservative party's written evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the idea of allowing homeless people to register was not ruled out altogether. Instead, the suggestion was that, to ensure that homeless people were not deprived of their right to vote, pilot schemes should be tested in a number of areas.
  From that, I take it that no huge issue of principle exists between the Conservative party and other parties about whether homeless people should be entitled to vote, and that the issue is one of practicality and the avoidance of fraud. I hope that that matter can be considered in Committee.
  Mr. John Greenway: Does the Home Secretary accept the working party's view that the proposal could be open to abuse? Is he satisfied that the Bill is strong enough to deal with potential abuse, or is he saying that he will welcome amendments to strengthen the likelihood that there will be no abuse of the provision?
  Mr. Straw: I have never come to the House to say that a proposal in a Bill is the last word and is not capable of being improved. I do not do so now. As I said, no issue of principle exists between the parties. The question is whether the safeguards will work. Parliament would not be doing its job if such questions were not examined in great detail. If the Opposition table amendments to strengthen the Bill, we will be happy to consider them.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am sure that the Home Secretary will agree that the principle of trying to extend the franchise and of ensuring that it reaches homeless people unites both sides of the House. However, evidence that is more than anecdotal suggests that personation takes place with regard to people who, for example, are temporarily resident in hostels. We are

  167
  worried about the difficulty that might arise if the franchise were extended to the homeless, not about the principle behind the Government's desire to ensure that everyone entitled to a vote has one. I am sure that all parties share that aim.
  Mr. Straw: I understand that. There is a separate problem of personation in respect of people residing in hostels, and of some other people. The working party made no recommendation that proxy voting be facilitated, but the Bill proposes to facilitate postal voting, which offers fewer opportunities for fraud.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his generosity in giving way to me a second time. He mentioned earlier that 10 per cent. of the voting population is in the process of moving home at any one time. By a rough calculation, I estimate that that proportion amounts to about 4 million voters. How would the right hon. Gentleman convince the House that multiple voting or personation would not take place as a result of so many registrations being made over such a short period?
  Mr. Straw: There is every opportunity for multiple voting at present.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will not the Bill make that worse?
  Mr. Straw: I do not think so. Multiple voting is a dangerous practice, as the chances of being caught are fairly high.
  Mr. Fabricant: Two areas are involved.
  Mr. Straw: I am aware of that, but the same person has to be on the register in both areas. Moreover, that person—or someone personating him or her—then has to go and vote. A further criminal offence would be committed if that person voted on behalf of someone else.
  Many people are registered in two places at once, including most Members of Parliament. I know that we are honourable, but I want to answer the question seriously. I am not aware of any serious suggestion—or evidence—that the fact that people can be registered in two places at once has led them to commit the abuse of voting in two places at once.
  I do not believe that the rolling register changes will produce the abuse that has been suggested by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). If he wants to make suggestions to improve the process, he should table amendments in Committee.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The Home Secretary is right to say that various people are able to register in two places, including Members of Parliament and students. What sort of cross-checking is done after an election to determine whether a person has voted in two different places?
  Mr. Straw: I personally have not entered into any such cross-checking. Like all hon. Members, I am aware of concerns about personation in respect of proxy votes in certain constituencies and council wards. Generally, if
  168
  there is some abuse, we become aware of it. I am not aware of problems with people being registered at two different addresses and voting twice.
  A number of hon. Members have mentioned the recommendation of the working party, which was agreed unanimously—including by the Conservative representative—that the full electoral register should no longer be made available for general sale and use.
  As the law stands, anyone may buy a copy of the electoral register for any purpose. The Home Office and electoral administrators receive more complaints about that than any other subject. People are unhappy about the large amount of unsolicited mail—junk mail—from companies that have obtained their details from the electoral register.
  Perhaps more worryingly, the advent of powerful CD-Roms compiled from the electoral register, which allow for searching by name, means for example that abusive spouses can trace their former partners with considerable ease using a single CD-Rom. People who feel threatened in that way may simply not dare to register.
  All of that, together with the requirements of the European Union data protection directive, which was signed and agreed by the previous Administration and, generally, of the right to privacy, led the working party to conclude that it was wrong that people should be under a statutory obligation to provide their details for electoral registration purposes and then have no say about whether that information could be used for other unrelated purposes.
  The working party recommended that there should be a box on the electoral registration form and people should be given the right to opt out of having their names included in the register that is for sale. In effect, there would be two versions of the register: a full one, which could be used for electoral purposes and would also be available for law enforcement purposes; and, an edited version, which would be for sale and would contain only the names of those who had not opted to be excluded from it. Clause 9 allows for regulations for that purpose to be made.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan rose—
  Mr. Straw: I will continue if I may, as I have given way a great deal.
  At the same time, we are conscious that the banking and finance industries make extensive use of the electoral register for money laundering and identity checks and that it is also an important factor in deciding who should be granted credit. In drawing up the regulations, we shall clearly need to balance the needs of those industries with privacy and data protection concerns.
  I can, of course, assure the House that a full regulatory impact assessment will be made to accompany those regulations. We will also be able to discuss that in more detail in Committee.
  Mr. Robathan: There is also the question of security. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned abusive spouses, but many people do not want their names on the register for other reasons. Indeed, as he will be aware, some hon. Members do not want to be on it because of terrorism.

  169
  Under the proposed arrangement, will it be possible for anyone to gain access to the register without buying it? I see that there is some mention of people being able to study the register, so will they be able to study it at the town hall if they so wish?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, that would be possible. There is no perfect balance in these matters. The full register, which is published for electoral purposes, would be available in town halls. Moreover, as would be expected, we plan to make the full register available to political parties—we are bound to. Therefore, the full text will be available. At the same time, our proposal—subject to the House agreeing the Bill and, later, the regulations—is that the full register should not be commercially available for sale, and that is right and proper.
  We are seeking to square the circle, by ensuring that full copies of the register are available to banks to check on money laundering and to credit rating agencies so that they can check whether people are living at the address that they claim.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will make progress, as many hon. Members wish to speak.
  On absent vote arrangements, again much of the thinking that underpins our procedures dates back to a different age, when it was reasonable to assume that every registered voter would be in the constituency on polling day and, apart from the physically infirm, would be able to get to the polling station in person. That may have been possible before the war, but in the busy, mobile society of today, that clearly is not the case. We have all noted, when on the doorstep, the fact that a high proportion of people are away on the day of an election, and have not been able to make arrangements for an absent vote. Our absent vote arrangements should reflect modern reality—currently, they do not do so.
  Following the recommendations of the working party, the Bill offers proposals for the modernisation of absent vote arrangements. It makes it possible for people to apply for an absent vote for a defined period; that should be of use to someone who, for example, takes up a three-year posting involving much travel.
  The working party made several recommendations in relation to postal votes that we intend to adopt. As I pointed out earlier, I refer only to postal votes—not to proxy votes, where we are concerned about the potential for malpractice. The Bill will allow for postal votes on demand. Anyone who wants a postal vote will be able to receive one, without having to satisfy any particular criteria.
  We intend to simplify the rules governing the issue and return of postal ballot papers. As someone who has a postal ballot, even I sometimes find it a challenge to decide into which envelope I should put which bit of paper. Some of my hon. Friends may find that task easier—[Interruption.] However, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) —the intelligence and perspicacity of Whips goes before them—tells me that the matter is complicated. It should not be
  170
  complicated, but it is—the forms look as though they have not been redesigned for 60 or 70 years. If the process is irritating—the modern phrase is challenging—for Members of the House, we should realise how much more difficult it is for someone who is not used to such form filling or whose eyesight is not good. People become muddled and confused. At every general election, some postal votes are disqualified because the forms have been put into the wrong envelopes, or because some other minor error has been made. We intend to simplify the rules for the physical process of the postal ballot.
  This is a good opportunity to mention one group of absent voters—those registered as overseas electors. Schedule 2 replaces the existing provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1985 that provide for the registration of overseas electors. However, the only changes to be made are those required to reflect the fact that, with the introduction of rolling electoral registration, there will no longer be a single annual qualifying date. Accordingly, the new measures retain the existing provision that a person may be registered as an overseas elector for up to 20 years after leaving the United Kingdom.
  I am well aware of the fact that some people think that the period should be reduced—not least the members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The Committee's fourth report on electoral law and administration contained the unanimous recommendation that
  "we take the view that the twenty year maximum period within which a British citizen overseas may retain the right to vote is excessive and that the earlier limit—five years—should be restored."
  However, the Bill is intended to implement the recommendations of the Howarth working party and, as I pointed out earlier, the working party was agreed on all particulars except the practical issue of the registration of homeless people.
  I want the Bill to go through the House with as great a consensus as possible, and as quickly and smoothly as possible. I point out to those of my hon. Friends who may want to table amendments on registration that there will be much more vigorous discussion of that matter when we introduce the political parties, elections and referendums Bill—parts of which will be more contentious than this Bill, not least because the issue of how long a person may remain on the register is obviously closely tied to that of who may make a donation to a political party. Amendments on that matter can be tabled to the political parties Bill. Meanwhile, as the 20-year arrangement was introduced in 1989 with all-party consensus, I hope that discussions can be held between the parties to determine whether there is a consensus for change. I do not say that the Government would proceed only if there were consensus, but I do say that, obviously, it would be better if there were.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when the overseas vote was first introduced, when I was shadow Home Secretary, it was not done at all on the basis of consensus? The Conservative Government imposed it on us. It was opposed—
  Mr. Greenway: We have the Hansard report—the right hon. Gentleman is wrong.
  Mr. Kaufman: I was shadow Home Secretary at the time. The hon. Gentleman does not need to tell me what

  171
  I lived through. It was imposed, and the five-year period was incorporated only because I protested against the seven years.
  The introduction of the 20-year period did not take place on the basis of consensus, either. The Conservatives wanted 25 years, and the Opposition managed to whittle them down. What we had was salami tactics in reverse. I simply do not understand why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will not accept the amendments that I shall certainly move and, if necessary, press to a Division.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that.
  Mr. Greenway: That will be helpful.
  Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend is always helpful—on this. I certainly do not think that the Bill is the appropriate vehicle for that change, because we want to get the Bill through as quickly as possible, and the Bill has the discrete purpose of giving effect to the proposals of the Howarth working party.
  On the other changes that were made, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) mentioned, I have before me the report of the proceedings in July 1989, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling)—now Secretary of State for Social Security—moved an amendment to reduce the period from 25 years to 20 years. That was at a time when, I believe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton was not shadow Home Secretary but shadow Foreign Secretary. Those changes were made. As I said, if we can proceed by consensus, we will. If we cannot, the Government will consider the matter further.
  I shall now discuss the working party's recommendations for pilot schemes. We all have pet theories as to what might improve turnouts, such as weekend voting, all-postal ballots, mobile polling stations, electronic voting and other wheezes. The simple truth is that none of us knows what, if anything, will make a difference. Therefore, the working party set great store by pilot schemes.
  Under clause 10, local authorities will be able to apply to run pilot schemes of innovative electoral procedures.
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: The Home Secretary is no doubt aware that one idea that does not increase voter turnout is mobile polling stations. He will be aware that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions conducted an experiment in my constituency in the London borough elections in 1998. It placed a mobile polling station in a polling district in Purley ward. In that polling district, turnout dropped from the highest to the lowest in the ward. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Straw: I did not hear that quip, but it may have been on account of the candidates.
  Ms Claire Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the innovative ideas require a national approach and significant investment in technology, and that local authorities, which would be required to cover the costs of pilot schemes, may not feel that they are a priority, given that they have to cover so many other
  172
  areas—generous though the Government have been to local government on these issues? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the issue is so important that the Government must take a lead, by saying what they can do nationwide, and perhaps even by considering the use of national lottery terminals? That would benefit my constituency, where Camelot and GTech are based.
  Mr. Straw: GTech also owns an important company in my constituency, so we have a joint interest in that matter.
  A great many of these changes would not involve any great cost. Weekend voting would involve some additional overtime. All-postal ballots would not incur a huge cost. Mobile polling stations might work. There was great concern in my constituency when a mobile polling station was removed, because that left the area without a polling station, so turnout certainly decreased there.
  On electronic voting, it is probable that the commercial firms that are interested in selling equipment and software to local authorities may wish to loan them as part of the pilots. As ever, resources are limited, and I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) that we shall have to make hard choices. I dare say that, in the event, local authorities will not find that lack of resources is a huge impediment to running pilots if they decide to do so.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: The Home Secretary mentioned weekend voting. Will he elaborate on where the pilot schemes will take place? Will they be run by local authorities? He should be aware that, in many areas, especially in my constituency and in the highlands and islands, Sunday voting would not be welcomed. We must be careful of going down that road.
  Mr. Straw: I am very conscious of that point. Piloting weekend voting will be a matter for local authorities. If weekend voting ever became part of the national arrangements, we would have to ensure that it took place on both days. There are members of the Jewish community who would not wish to vote on a Saturday and there are members of other communities, including the one that the hon. Lady represents, who have strong feelings about the observance of the Sabbath. Sunday voting would not be acceptable to them. I understand the point that she makes.
  I wish to make progress and to draw my remarks to a close. I have mentioned some of the ideas that could form the basis of pilot schemes. However, let me make it clear that there is not a prescribed list. Local authorities are free to suggest any innovation that they want and all well-thought-out proposals will be considered.
  Local authorities will need to demonstrate that they have made proper plans to run the pilots and that the integrity of the poll is properly preserved. They will also have to show that they have in place plans for a full evaluation of the pilot scheme. Such evaluations will need to assess the turnout in the authority where the pilot is running as compared with previous elections and with similar authorities where pilot schemes are not running. They will also need to seek views on the success or otherwise of the scheme from candidates, parties and, most importantly, the electorate.
  Clause 11 provides for any scheme that has been successfully piloted to be rolled out nationally. Any such changes will be made by orders, which will be subject to

  173
  the affirmative resolution procedures in both Houses. It is, as I have made clear, the Government's hope that the Bill will receive a fair wind in its passage through Parliament. If it does, it should be possible to run the first pilot schemes at next May's local authority elections.
  The Howarth working party was rightly much concerned with the problems faced by disabled voters. It made a number of recommendations on that subject, several of which do not require legislation. However, the Bill makes three important innovations. The first is that returning officers should be required to display a large print version of the ballot paper in the polling station. Secondly, blind and partially sighted electors should be able to vote using a template. Thirdly, in addition to blind voters having the right to be assisted in voting by a companion, we shall extend the facility to cover all voters with physical disabilities that are such that they cannot vote unaided and to aid those who are unable to read.
  Finally, I should mention the one provision in the Bill that does not arise from a recommendation of the Howarth working party. However, I do not anticipate it to be controversial across the Chamber. It relates to the problems that arose in the European parliamentary elections earlier this year when allegations were made that some candidates deliberately gave false addresses on their nomination papers. I cannot comment on the substance of those allegations, but the legal advice that I have received is that people who provide false particulars are not, as the law stands, committing a criminal offence. That seems to me to be plainly wrong, so we propose to close that loophole.
  I do not believe, and I am sure that no Member of the House believes, that the Bill will arrest and reverse the decline in turnout at all levels of election. Whatever the electoral procedures are, people will vote only if they are interested in the body being elected and feel that it is worth while to vote. So long as we do not have compulsory voting, people in our democracy have the right not to vote as much as they have the right to vote. Nevertheless, this is an important Bill. We need to ensure that it is as easy as possible for the public to vote and that our electoral procedures are compatible with modern life styles.
  We were elected with a clear mandate to modernise our constitution and the Bill forms an important part of that programme. The Bill may not appear to be as exciting as devolution, human rights or freedom of information, but I suggest that it is just as important. Fair and free elections are the centrepiece of our democratic structures, from which everything else flows.
  The Bill will help to achieve modern, effective electoral procedures, and I commend it to the House.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Representation of the People Bill because the Government has failed to undertake a sufficiently comprehensive public consultation on such important and far-reaching changes to the conduct of elections and the publication of electoral registers, because Members of this House have had no time in which to consult with local authorities and
  174
  interested parties in their constituencies, because only one month has elapsed since the publication of the report of the Home Office Working Party on Electoral Procedures whose recommendations the Bill is designed to implement, and because more careful consideration of the costs and long-term implications of the measures contained in the Bill is required."
  The Bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Its principles may seem benign and unobjectionable, but the devil is in the detail. The Bill could have far-reaching consequences beyond those intended by the working party whose recommendations the Bill seeks to implement. Indeed, the Government propose that the House should write the Home Secretary a blank cheque to amend the rules not only for local elections but for future parliamentary elections. The Bill could therefore pave the way for changes to the conduct of a general election about which there has been no discussion on the Floor of the House or in the wider community, which would be affected.
  I should point out to the Home Secretary that the recommendations published by the working party on electoral procedures in July referred only to pilot schemes at local elections. The word "parliamentary" arises nowhere in those recommendations. It was only when we received the final report, which was published only a month ago, that the question of rolling out the changes to parliamentary elections first arose.
  On top of that, the way in which the Government seek to implement some of the working party's recommendations increases the prospect of electoral fraud, impersonation and undue influence on the outcome of an election where it is conducted over several days.
  There appears to have been no discussion with religious communities about voting on days of religious significance—a point raised by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) in an intervention on the Home Secretary a moment ago. Yet the Home Secretary will recall the debate a year or so ago, during proceedings on the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, in which many Members on both sides of the House said that they regarded with great distaste the prospect of voting on a Sunday in the European parliamentary elections.
  Furthermore, although well intentioned, the proposals to restrict the legitimate use of the electoral register by businesses and others, including charities, political parties and, on occasion, Departments, will lead to increased social exclusion from financial services and increased cost to British business and commerce. The Government have completely failed to address that cost by neglecting to produce a regulatory impact assessment.
  Only a few minutes ago, I was handed a copy of a written answer, received today, to a question tabled to the Prime Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). He asked the Prime Minister if the Home Office had been given an exemption from his instruction to all Departments to undertake and publish a regulatory impact study of the financial and other effects of all proposed Government legislation, with particular reference to the Representation of the People Bill. With characteristic clarity, the Prime Minister replied that he will reply to the hon. Member shortly. So, on Second Reading, the Government cannot even tell us when they even gave thought to the need for a regulatory impact assessment.
  For those reasons, and others, we believe that, before asking Parliament to approve the measures, the Government should have initiated a comprehensive public

  175
  consultation on the working party's recommendations; that, in turn, would have allowed right hon. and hon. Members the fullest possible opportunity to discuss the implications of such far-reaching proposals with the people they represent: local government, local electors and businesses in their constituency. Over the past 10 days or so, since the Bill was published, I have asked colleagues on both sides of the House whether they realise what the Bill contains. It is fascinating to hear their short, sharp, clear answer: no. When they discover the Bill's contents, they will realise that its effects are more far-reaching than the Home Secretary has implied.
  The Conservatives are not opposed in principle to the concept of ensuring that more people have the opportunity to vote and electors are encouraged to vote, whether by making changes to the technicalities of registration or by introducing more flexible voting arrangements. In that respect, the intention underlying the working party's report was well directed. Our problem is with the Government's decision to transpose those ideas, in only a few short weeks, into detailed legislation. In his intervention, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) implied that, by tradition, such proposals have required detailed negotiation between parties, so as to achieve consensus before proceeding with a Bill.
  I am slightly surprised that the Home Secretary did not mention the matter I am about to raise—perhaps it is to his credit that he did not. He has said that he wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in September—in fact, he referred to that matter during a recent Opposition day debate—but he has accepted that my right hon. Friend did not receive the letter. We received a faxed copy of the letter late last night, but the date on it is 20 September, not "months and months" previously, as the Home Secretary claimed on 23 November.
  Mr. Straw: Of course I accept the right hon. Lady's assertion that she had not seen the letter—plenty of letters sent to me are received by the Home Office but not seen by me. However, the right hon. Lady might not know that my office phoned her office more than once to ask for a reply, only to be told that a reply would be forthcoming in due course. It was not that we wrote and simply left the matter at that; I was genuinely interested in the response.
  Mr. Greenway: I do not want to labour the point. The purpose of mentioning the letter will become clear shortly.
  Mr. Straw: What is it?
  Mr. Greenway: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman in a moment—he must be patient. However, in response to his explanation, I should point out that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald says that her office asked the Home Secretary's office for a copy of the letter, but copy came there none, until the faxed copy was received last night. Overnight, we have examined the letter with some interest.
  The letter merely restates the objectives and conclusions of the working party; it does not mention the detail of the Bill. Therefore, even had we received the letter, it would hardly have constituted a thorough consultation. The importance of the letter is that we can
  176
  deduce precisely from it the Government's intention of making changes to the conduct of general elections. That is clear where in the letter the Home Secretary states that he would like
  "the first pilot schemes … to be run in the May 2000 local elections. This would make it possible for any innovations which prove to be particularly successful to be in place nationally in time for the next general election."
  The timetable for the next general election is clear. If we did not already know that the Prime Minister had already pencilled in the election for 2001 from his behaviour—standing down many aspects of Government policy that are proving unpopular with voters, from speed limits to the number of houses to be built in the south-east—the Home Secretary's letter certainly lets the cat out of the bag. He wants to have pilot schemes in place for May 2000.
  Mr. Straw: That is stretching it.
  Mr. Greenway: We are not stretching it at all.
  Applications from local authorities will have to be lodged by 17 January. The measures contained in the pilots will then be extended to the general election in the following year. We do not need to pose the question why the Government are proceeding with such unseemly haste; their mind is already made up.
  Ms Ward: It is bizarre that the hon. Gentleman is objecting to sensible measures to move forward quickly. People are entitled to have every opportunity to vote as soon as possible. Only a Government who were not interested in increasing voter turnout and increasing opportunities for voters would delay any longer on those matters. If the hon. Gentleman had any sense of purpose as a member of the Conservative party, the previous Conservative Government would have introduced such measures a long time ago.
  Mr. Greenway: The hon. Lady has walked straight into the trap that my comments had set. At this juncture I intended to ask the Home Secretary whether he agrees with the letter that was sent to all hon. Members today by the Local Government Association, with a briefing. I am sure that all hon. and right hon. Members will have studied it with great interest. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the association that there should be
  "proper independent evaluations before experiments are rolled out to all authorities"?
  That recommendation relates only to local elections, not to parliamentary elections.
  If we have misunderstood, perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us what time scale he has in mind for the implementation of some of the proposals at a general election. His letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald makes it abundantly clear that we are talking about giving him the power in clause 11 to extend to parliamentary elections within the next 18 months or so arrangements which were first proposed by a working party as being effectively for local elections, with no proper evaluation of what is required. In her earlier intervention on the Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) said that local authorities have no money to carry out the pilots in any event, which adds to our concern about what the Government have in

  177
  mind. That explains why we are sceptical about the Government's unseemly haste. There needs to be more informed consideration.
  Mr. Fabricant: As for the evaluation of the pilot schemes, was my hon. Friend as surprised as I was to learn from the Home Secretary that no audit is carried out after a general election to ascertain whether there has been multiple voting in different areas? If no such work is done after general elections, given the importance of those elections, what can we expect from the pilot schemes?
  Mr. Greenway: I am delighted that my hon. Friend intervened because he makes a telling point. In a way, he has anticipated my next point. A much more important development to which the Home Secretary referred, which in our view should inform the attitude to the Bill, is the proposed creation of an electoral commission. In his belated response to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the right hon. Gentleman said that that would be the body

  "to highlight any deficiencies in electoral law and administration"—
  my hon. Friend's point is valid—
  "and to make recommendations for improvements."
  Surely it would have been sensible to wait for the electoral commission to be established and allow it the opportunity to undertake a comprehensive review of all electoral arrangements, and not take the piecemeal approach that the right hon. Gentleman has adopted. As it is, if the Bill is enacted in its present form, many changes will have been made by the time that the commission is in business and the door will be closed after the horse has bolted.
  Another matter that we want to raise with the Home Secretary is his attitude to the Home Affairs Committee, which he mentioned in respect of overseas voters. He knows that the Bill is not entirely on all fours with the recommendations of that Committee. For example, the Committee recommended that electors with dual registration should be required to specify where they intended to vote. That could well be relevant to the proposal for a local declaration.
  It does not need much imagination to work out that somebody could be on an electoral register with a fixed address in one part of the country, and subsequently end up on the electoral register in another part because of a local declaration, yet the Government remain to be convinced.
  The Home Affairs Committee thinks that a rolling register needs improved information technology. We know that IT systems are not the Home Office's strongest point or its top-drawer performance. The Government's response, none the less, is typically woolly.
  Because the Home Secretary has decided to adopt a piecemeal approach, and because the Bill pre-empts any work on those topics by the electoral commission, the process is wide open to hon. Members on all sides to advance amendments in respect of their own pet ideas.
  The Home Secretary referred to the report that his hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) had one such amendment in mind, and he prayed in aid support
  178
  from the Home Affairs Committee in that respect. However, the Home Secretary must explain why he agrees with the Select Committee only when it suits him.
  The Home Secretary was referring to the time limit for overseas voting. He stated in a letter, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald did receive, that he was considering reducing the time limit for overseas registration to just five years, which is what the hon. Member for Battersea has in mind. The Home Secretary said that if he was persuaded of the merit of such a measure—which still leaves the question open—he would introduce it in the forthcoming Bill on party funding.
  We welcome the strong hint that the right hon. Gentleman gave at the Dispatch Box during his speech that he does not believe that this Bill is the right vehicle for such a measure. We urge him to make a firm pledge to that effect. I am sure that he would accept that including such a reduction in this Bill would undermine the attempts on both sides to reach a consensus on the proposed changes. I am delighted that we have that on the record.
  Mr. Martin Linton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. When he and his hon. Friends received the letter about the possible reduction for overseas registration from 20 years to five years, did they express an opinion? Did they oppose the proposal at that stage, or have they simply decided in the past few days to oppose it?
  Mr. Greenway: I shall come on to that. It is remarkable how the interventions anticipate my next point.
  Before the Home Secretary finally makes up his mind, may I ask him to reconsider the attitude of his party when the 20-year rule was agreed in 1989? The Official Report clearly shows that the 20-year proposal was introduced not by Conservative Ministers, but by his right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), who was then a shadow Home Office spokesman and is now a senior Cabinet Minister. He was supported, in the vote as well, by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar), then shadow spokesman for Scotland and now its First Minister.
  The right hon. Member for Gorton was shadow Home Secretary at the time. His recollection seems to be that the measure was forced upon the Opposition and was the best that they could do, but that is not how the Hansard report reads. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said:
  "We believe that a period of five years was unduly restrictive, especially as it is now clear that a number of people will leave this country perhaps to take up work in Europe or in other parts of the world but will still maintain a lively interest in the affairs of this country."
  He went on to say:.
  "I believe that 20 years is a sensible compromise".—[Official Report, 5 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 411.]
  I could not have put it better myself.
  Mr. Kaufman: I was not shadow Home Secretary at the time; that post was held by my noble Friend Lord Hattersley. I opposed even a five-year period; my noble Friend accepted a 20-year period before he rediscovered socialism.
  Mr. Greenway: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for ascribing the wrong job and the wrong views to him in opposition. The effect of returning to the Back Benches is amazing; hon. Members can make up their own minds there. I am sure that his views will not find favour with his Front Benchers; they certainly do not find favour with Conservative Members.
  The views of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, which I have just quoted, were right. What was true in 1989 remains true. I heard the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) being interviewed on the "Today" programme at the end of last week. He said that Baroness Thatcher, who was Prime Minister in 1989, had not forced the decision on the House, and there had been all-party consensus about it.
  Mrs. Llin Golding: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: In a moment.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey should reflect on the words of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), who was in favour of no limit, not even 25 years. That view has some merit. Many British people work here all their lives and have families here, but retire abroad for health reasons. They draw their pensions from Britain and maintain a keen interest in the politics of this country.
  Mrs. Golding rose—
  Ms Ward rose—
  Mr. Greenway: I shall give way in a second.
  The case that was made 10 years ago remains valid. No case has been made for a reduction, which was not a working party recommendation.
  Mrs. Golding: I was the Opposition Whip when the issue was debated in 1989. I told Labour Members that the choice was between 20 years or 25 years, which the Tories wanted. That is why Labour Members went into the Lobby when many, including me, did not want to vote for the 20-year rule.
  Mr. Greenway: It is amazing—we are hearing about all the jobs that hon. Members held in the past. The Government of the day would not have proceeded with the Bill without all-party agreement on all the issues. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said in 1989 that 20 years was a sensible compromise. He and the right hon. Member for Anniesland voted for it, but the majority of Labour Members abstained.
  Mr. Robathan: Does not my hon. Friend find it strange that Labour Members, who are extremely principled, were persuaded into the Lobby by the weak argument that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) advanced?
  Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend makes a telling point.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: I am enjoying this, but I gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is correct that, at a time when I had a job that I do not even remember—
  Mr. Evans: It was the same one!
  Mr. Hughes: No, it was a different job. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is right that my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) argued for no limit in 1989. Liberal Democrat Members agree with the hon. Gentleman that, whatever our view—and there are good arguments for different views—the House should not be bounced into making a decision. We should consider the matter properly before we legislate.
  Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  I now want to move on to other matters because we have given all that a good airing.
  Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
  Mr. Greenway: I shall gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I shared a happy week in Ghana in August.
  Mr. Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that some opposition was expressed in the House when the Bill extending the right to an overseas vote to 20 years was discussed? Six votes took place and two Members—Dave Nellist and myself—voted against anything to do with that extension on each occasion. A number of other Members joined the rebellion and expressed their views. I have consistently adhered to that position and do so now.
  Mr. Greenway: That is the most honest intervention I have heard in the House for a long time and the hon. Gentleman has given a good reason why I so enjoyed his company when we were members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation to Ghana.
  Before we move on, I want to ask the Home Secretary whether he has given any thought to how many people will be disfranchised if the time limit on overseas votes is cut. Does he agree with the then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, now Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who chaired the working party and told the Home Affairs Committee, which the Home Secretary has prayed in aid, that 3 million British citizens live overseas? As I pointed out in response to an intervention, it is significant that the working party, whose report we are asked to implement through the Bill, made no recommendation on that or the franchise in general.
  We think that the lesson from all that is clear: the Home Secretary picks and chooses which bits of the Select Committee recommendations he wants to adopt, but Ministers who have to rely on Select Committee recommendations to endorse controversial measures that

  181
  were not proposed by working parties established by their own Department or in a White Paper are skating on thin ice.
  Ms Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: No. I have given way to the hon. Lady once.
  Although we welcome the Home Secretary's reassurance that he does not intend to introduce the measure on overseas voters in the Bill—that is vital for progress—I hope that what we have said today will influence his judgment on whether he wants to seek the same degree of consensus on the party funding Bill and the implementation of the Neill recommendations, which he knows Conservative Members are willing to endorse and incorporate in full in a Bill. I remember saying precisely that from the Dispatch Box when we debated the Neill report.
  We shall look with interest—
  Mr. Linton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: I shall give way once more, then I must make some progress.
  Mr. Linton: I asked the hon. Gentleman whether he would kindly enlighten the House about the stage at which he and his colleagues changed their view on overseas voters. His colleagues on the Select Committee supported the reduction from 20 years to five. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote to the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues asking them for their views and I asked what they replied and when, but he has not answered. Can he enlighten us? Did his colleagues come out against that reduction only when it suddenly dawned on them that it might cut off their access to funds from Mr. Michael Ashcroft?
  Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman is flogging a dead horse, but let me deal with his point and that made by the Home Secretary. In the spirit of unanimity, three Conservative Members agreed to a detailed report and accepted the five-year recommendation, but that in no way binds the remainder of the Conservative party. Those events tell us that when Conservative Members attend Select Committee meetings to consider reports they are free to make up their own minds about what they believe to be the right policy to recommend to the Government. They do not look to their pagers to be told when to put their hands up and to which bits of reports to agree. Our argument is that if the Home Secretary wants to rely on the Home Affairs Committee report, he should implement its recommendations—three of which I have outlined and all of which would strengthen the Bill—in full.
  While we are at it, on Tuesday of next week the Home Secretary will hear similar comments from Conservative Members about Select Committee recommendations on the Freedom of Information Bill. I suspect that one or two Labour Members will be in agreement with us on that occasion. In fact, I underestimate how many: I think that there will be quite a few.
  182
  We shall examine with interest the proposals for a rolling electoral register, the details of which need careful consideration. We shall support measures to improve facilities for voters with disabilities. As the Home Secretary knows, we have serious concerns about the proposals for the declaration of local connection. That is an important issue. Those concerns were expressed at the time of the working party, and he graciously acknowledged that the Conservative representative on the working party communicated that concern.
  To remind the House, the working party said:
  "We recognise that this could be thought to open the system to abuse if a candidate or political party sought to use such declarations to falsely register supporters in the electoral areas immediately before an election."
  From my reading of the Bill, I do not believe that those concerns have been addressed in the legislation. That makes our point. We are not arguing that there was not a working party and that there were no recommendations. Our argument is that putting those proposals into legislation leaves open the door to abuse.
  When the Under-Secretary winds up the debate, will he please tell the House whether the arrangements for a declaration of local connection operate anywhere else in the world? He might like to tell us that now, because I am not aware of any other example. What estimate have the Government made of the number of persons who are eligible to make declarations of local connection? Does the Home Secretary intend that individuals should not be permitted to have more than one declaration of local connection at any one time? If that is the intention, we could easily produce an amendment that would provide for the Bill to say that.
  We are surprised—I say this with a heavy heart—that the Government think that a sufficiently large number of people will be living indefinitely on our streets to justify the measure. We are not opposed to a mechanism enabling displaced and homeless people to vote, but that must not be used for electoral fraud or for people to pick and choose where they vote, such as in marginal constituencies and at by-elections. We believe that the Bill needs significant strengthening in that respect, and we shall table constructive amendments to achieve that.
  We are also concerned about the Government's proposals on the commercial use of the electoral register. The opt-out box, although well-intentioned in principle, is fatally flawed in practice. Does the Home Secretary agree that the denial of access to the full register by credit referencing agencies would increase social exclusion from financial services? That has been the subject not only of a report commissioned by the Treasury from the Director General of Fair Trading, but of comment from the Economic Secretary. The all-party insurance and financial services group, which I chair—some members of that group are present—has expressed grave concern about low-income households and young people not being able to get a bank account or access to competitive lending and credit facilities.
  Does not the CBI strongly oppose the proposals? Submissions to the working party argued that any limiting of access to the register would lead to job losses, increased costs, reduced competition and reduced access to financial services by voters. We believe that the Government should think again about the provision, but if they insist on an opt-out box, we will address those concerns by tabling amendments that would provide a workable solution.

  183
  On the question of security for people in public life, it is fair to say that the dreadful murder of Jill Dando is a lesson to all of us that if people can find out where those whom they wish to stalk live, the consequences can be tragic. We are willing to work with the Government to find a solution enabling those who feel that they are potentially exposed to such violence, or to stalking and the like, not to be on the electoral register, because we consider that important.
  As for the proposals for pilot schemes, we have no objection to experiments involving innovative forms of voting, including, in principle, early voting. We are, however, concerned by the Government's failure to propose safeguards against the exit polling of early voters, which itself could influence voting on polling day. The Home Secretary should address himself to that. If people are allowed to vote on the Monday and the Tuesday when the majority are voting on the Thursday, and they are polled as they leave, there is a danger that the result could be influenced.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Greenway: I will, just once more.
  Mr. Brady: As the Home Secretary has specifically mentioned the possibility of voting on Saturdays and Sundays, he should clearly address himself to what my hon. Friend has said.
  Mr. Greenway: That is true. We think that it is one of the factors that should have been clarified much more fully during consultation.
  We are also concerned about the absence of a specified limit to the number of days on which early voting can take place. That would add to the problem.
  All those points were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) during the passage of the Bill that became the Greater London Authority Act 1999, but so far the Government have chosen to ignore them. We will press them again in Committee.
  The remaining question for the House to consider is what form the Committee should take. On 20 November 1995, when his party was in opposition, the Home Secretary told the House that "careful scrutiny" was
  "one of the best guarantors of good legislation".—[Official Report, 20 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 339.]
  We agree with that. As we speak, however, the Government remain to be convinced that the Bill should be considered by a Committee of the whole House. We believe that it should: precedent dictates that constitutional Bills of this nature should be taken on the Floor of the House, so that Members have an opportunity to contribute. The Representation of the People Bills that became the 1985 and 1989 Acts were so considered; why should the Government seek to deny the same opportunity now, unless they wish to deny effective scrutiny of this Bill?
  The Opposition's reasoned amendment gives members of all parties a chance to ask the Government to reconsider all these matters. A Representation of the People Bill reforming electoral procedures should be uncontroversial, and supported with unanimity and consensus throughout the House; the Government, however, are attempting to
  184
  push the measure through Parliament with unseemly haste, with inadequate scrutiny, and with no attempt to organise serious public consultation. That is the mark of a Government who see clinging to power as their overriding priority. We have grown used to the Government's treating the House and the country with contempt, but in the case of this most important issue we should tell them to think again. I commend the amendment.
  5.28 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: It is a novel concept that a Government with a 30 per cent. lead in the opinion polls should be clinging to power, but the speech of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) contained a number of novel concepts. One was the interesting notion that consensus consists of the Government's accepting all the views of the Opposition but none of the views of their own Back Benchers. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is far too sensible to accept such a definition of consensus from a party which, after all, will show its respect for consensus by voting against the Bill at 10 pm.
  I am entirely satisfied that my right hon. Friend is taking measures—swift measures—to make it easier for people to vote and to give them greater opportunities to vote. I certainly agree with one observation made by the hon. Member for Ryedale: the ability to vote in elections is indeed the most precious attribute that any citizen of a democracy can have. The difficulty that we still have is that it is not a right to vote. It is not easy to vote. Obstacles are thrown up in front of people who wish to exercise the right to elect a Member of Parliament or a councillor. If the Bill can make it easier to vote and increase the turnout at elections, it will have been worth while.
  My misgivings about the Bill are not about what it proposes, but what it does not; I hope that by the time it has reached the statute book, it will propose those things. Everything in the Bill relating to enhancing the opportunities for the franchise has my support, but let us consider, for example, the references to postal votes and absent votes for sickness and to late applications. In this electronic age, I can see no reason whatever why there cannot be applications for such votes right through to the eve of poll.
  A constituent of mine discovered that he was ill only two or three days before the last general election. He was heartbroken that he was not able to vote. I hope that the use of electronic means for voting will encourage the Home Secretary to place the deadline for applying for absent voting much nearer polling day. I go further—I hope that, in considering means of advancing votes and making it easier to vote, he will look at different ways of absent voting.
  Last night, I was discussing with the people who organise telephone voting for the Labour party's national executive committee the way in which that can be used as an alternative to postal voting. In NEC votes, people can vote either by post or telephone. There are secure ways of ensuring that there is no fraud on the telephone. It will make it much easier for people who have applied for a postal vote if they can vote by telephone. They could even do that on polling day itself.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I ask the right hon. Gentleman a practical question. If a vote were cast by telephone, would not that negate the privacy of the ballot box because someone at the end of the telephone would know how the vote was cast?
  Mr. Kaufman: No. I assure the hon. Lady that the way in which the vote is cast in NEC votes can preserve privacy. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) would prefer voting for the London mayoralty candidate to be by telephone because it might preserve privacy, of which he is a new-found adherent.
  Caroline Flint: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as we can ascertain who the pensioners on the electoral register are, one way to enfranchise them—for example, if they are ill just before the election—is to send them all a postal vote, which they can either send in, or relinquish at the ballot box?
  Mr. Kaufman: There are safeguards against duplicate voting. Indeed, they are referred to in the explanatory notes to the Bill. It may be that what my hon. Friend proposes can be followed through. In examining voting, we need to find out how to make it easier. I am encouraged by the way in which the Home Secretary has suggested that the school, the public building or the library, which are the repositories of polling stations, are not necessarily the only places. Places such as supermarkets, citizens advice bureaux, clinics and many others can be available.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: I should like to pursue my argument a moment or two longer. Such places can be available because electronic means of voting are possible. I have referred to voting by phone. My right hon. Friend wishes to make provision for applications for postal votes by fax. That is well and good. I very much hope that he will consider the possibility of voting by fax or e-mail. I could go further.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: Telepathy.
  Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend is one of the few people in the House who, I accept, can cap any attempted witticism of mine.
  In this computer age, there is no reason why it should not be possible for those who are on holiday to go into a polling location wherever they are and register their vote by computer rather than having to apply for a postal vote beforehand.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: I now have two people to give way to, but knowing my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's attitude of self-abasement to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I shall give way to her first.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Where does this tremendous faith in computers come from? As the new House of Commons system is busy eating my e-mails as of this week, I do not have the same faith in electronic equipment.
  Mr. Kaufman: There can be few locations in this country with as much disruptive building work going on as the House of Commons. Other places are likely to be a good deal safer. There is no reason why someone on holiday in Cornwall could not go to a polling station there and be logged through to a polling centre in their own constituency to vote. The point about democracy is giving people the chance. I agree that the security of the ballot must be maintained and hacking must be prevented. Problems have been noted in the United States in that respect.
  It is right that my right hon. Friend should consider pilot schemes, but I hope that when we get to the next election, whenever that may be—sooner or later, it makes no difference to the Opposition—we shall have brought pilot schemes into national use. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) in hoping that my right hon. Friend will not limit himself to local authority pilot schemes, but will institute such schemes himself so that we can have the widest possible participation in elections by the time of the next general election.
  Mr. Bercow: I offer an heretical thought. Should not an able-bodied person be expected sufficiently to value our democracy as to be prepared to take the modest trek to the polling station to cast their vote in person?
  Mr. Kaufman: That is highly desirable. A great many people set great store by going to the polling station, which is one reason why I applaud my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's provisions on access for people with disabilities. I have constituents with disabilities who do not want to vote by post. They regard it as their right and privilege to be able to go to a polling station and put their cross next to my name—which is an almost universal desire in my constituency. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not make one of his references to my modesty. I am ready to talk about my modesty myself without any support from my right hon. Friend.
  Ms Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the increased use by the public of telephone banking systems means that they are used to gaining information, inputting personal identification numbers and dealing with computerised telephones? Therefore, it would be easy to open up our electoral system through this form of voting—among others, as my right hon. Friend has mentioned.
  Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend is, as always, accurate.
  I must tell the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that it is certainly desirable and part of the social aspect of this country that people should make their way to a polling station. However, sometimes they do not have the opportunity. A mum with three kids who is waiting for her husband to come home from a late shift can miss her vote. Someone working on shift duty can miss her or his vote. There are many reasons why people are unable to vote when they want to. I am simply saying that it does not matter how one votes so long as one votes. That is the participation in democracy that I seek.
  Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam): Does the right hon. Gentleman share my view that electronic means can enhance the security of the voting procedures, as the current procedure of walking into a polling station and

  187
  simply saying who one is and where one lives is insecure, and is protected only by the fact that people do not seem to want to cheat? Is he encouraged by the fact that we have a system with more than 20,000 access points which manages to register preferences in a lottery within half an hour of the closing point twice a week, and that that seems to work with almost universal reliability?
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Although this is a remarkably incorrupt society, we have no knowledge of the amount of personation that goes on at elections. I remember early in my candidature in Manchester, a constituent of mine—from which group of electors I will not say—stopped my car and said, "Mr. Kaufman, we have 21 names on the register in our house. They have all gone home. Can 21 others vote for them?" With deep regret, I had to say no. That does not mean that such things do not happen.
  Mr. Evans: May I bring the right hon. Gentleman back from cyberspace to earth for a moment? There are certain aspects of absent voting where we could use technology with which everyone is confident to make progress. I was disappointed to see that the number of days necessary for the issuing of absent ballot papers is to remain the same, although there will be greater flexibility in terms of when they can be given. Surely there could be consensus on reducing the number of days to five working days, or perhaps four. The Royal Mail is very good, so why should we stick to eleven working days?
  Mr. Kaufman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I ask him not to deride cyberspace. Some 10 million people are surfing the internet now, and there will be more by the time of the election. We should not be carried away by the idea, but there are many ways in which we can increase the level of polling, and I hope we will. There is one area in which I do not wish to increase the level of polling, and where I wish to reduce it. Indeed, there is one area in which I wish to eliminate polling.
  Before I explain that, I wish to refer to a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) about an election a few days ago in a north Staffordshire parish council. Despite the fact that some votes were lost, the matter has to go to the High Court for resolution. I put it to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that while it may be right to apply to the High Court for a new election in the case of a contested parliamentary election, some less burdensome way should be found of resolving a dispute over a parish council election. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when he winds up the debate, will refer to that issue.
  I deal finally with the question of the overseas vote. I had the dubious privilege of having to negotiate with Leon Brittan over that matter. Anyone who has ever negotiated with Leon Brittan over anything will know that it is something that one wishes to draw to an end as quickly as possible. On that occasion, I was involved in hectic negotiation with him on the question of earlier representation of the people legislation, during which he advanced many preposterous proposals, including ending polling in general elections at 9 pm. I had to reach a compromise with him in order to stop some of his wilder feats of imagination.
  Leon Brittan wanted a seven-year rule to apply to the overseas vote, which was an innovation at that time. I was totally opposed to any overseas vote of any kind, because
  188
  I believe in the simple dictum of no representation without taxation. I was opposed to it entirely but, as part of the compromise over the Bill, I accepted a reduction to five years. I did not like that and I made it clear that I wanted it reversed as quickly as possible. I simply do not know what was going on in the head of my noble Friend Lord Hattersley when he agreed to 20 years as a compromise.
  It is clear from the statistics that there is no great enthusiasm for that form of voting. At present, some 13,677 people are on the register of overseas voters, compared with 34,454 in 1991. It is not a privilege whose mass aspiration would be trampled down if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary decided to get rid of it. On the other hand, small as the number is who take it up, the effect on the potential Government can be significant. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) was defeated in the 1992 election by 19 votes, with the number of overseas votes being considerably larger than the majority against him. If the election had been tight nationally, the composition of the Government could have been affected by the votes of people who had no stake in it.
  Small as the number of people with the overseas vote is, it contains a distinct bias in its distribution around the country. Although the representation of the Conservative party in the House is one quarter, one half of the constituencies with 50 or more overseas votes have Conservative Members of Parliament. In so far as the overseas vote benefits anyone, it benefits the Conservative party.
  When the Conservatives introduced the overseas vote, to their credit all they were hoping for was a straightforward political fiddle. Now, however, they are using it for a further political fiddle to justify considerable donations to their party from people who have no stake in this country. The overseas vote is undemocratic and unrepresentative and it should be abolished. We now have a situation in which the sole justification for political donations from people such as Michael Ashcroft, who wants to represent some other country at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and who is an ambassador of that country—but who nevertheless is the treasurer of the Conservative party and without whom it would fall into financial as well as intellectual bankruptcy—is his presence on an overseas voters register. Although that was not my original reason for opposing that fancy franchise, it is a conclusive reason for getting rid of it.
  If the Conservatives do not vote against the Government tonight, their claims to want a consensus can be taken as having some veracity. The moment Conservative Members walk through the Division Lobby to vote against the Bill, even on a reasoned amendment, they are breaking any kind of consensus. That being so, my right hon. Friend should take the road of clean, pure democracy, which I know appeals to his heart and has done in the very many years that I have known and loved him, and accept what his hon. Friends want. I therefore support the Bill as it stands, but hope that I will be able to give it even more support on Third Reading.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for restricting the vote of absentee voters still does not rid my

  189
  mind of the idea that electronic voting will enable him to phone in his vote from Ibiza at the next local government elections, when he happens to be away on a Select Committee visit. The picture of the right hon. Gentleman on the beach, participating in democracy, can be imagined by us all.
  Let me say to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that I am not sure that the best argument for the Bill is that we should seek uncontroversial and agreed legislation. Legislation on the representation of the people has not, in the history of Parliament, been uncontroversial. Some of the best has also been the most controversial. I did not learn until a couple of years ago that the Reform Act 1832 was passed by a majority of only one. Seeking consensus is wonderful, and my party tries to do so more often than some, but we must get the legislation right.
  The key question that the Government are rightly asking is how British people are best represented. How can they vote most easily, how can they participate most fully, and—the Government's unasked question—how can their wishes be reflected most accurately? Although my hon. Friends and I have deliberately not tabled a reasoned amendment on the third issue, hon. Members will not be surprised if I spend a moment on the element of representation that is noticeably absent from the Bill.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), who was here earlier but is now in his constituency. He has done a great deal of work on these issues, and the hon. Member for Ryedale said that he had made a case for the right to vote to be linked to citizenship, not length of absenteeism. I am glad that the Bill will set up an electoral commission. An independent body should consider these matters regularly and make proposals in a non-partisan way. I hope that the commission will have the power to make recommendations not only on elections but on referendums too. Sooner rather than later, we need a structure for holding referendums as well as elections. Whatever our views about the single currency or electoral reform, it will be far better to get the rules about referendums established independently rather than tying them to the subject of the referendum. The rules should apply to all referendums, whatever the subject; separating the subject from the structure will be to everyone's advantage.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman may know that I take a particular interest in the matter, having introduced the Referendums Bill in the last Session. The Government's new referendums Bill, or whatever it will be called, provides for an allowance of £5 million to be spent in a particular campaign. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is rather bizarre, and may be linked to a particular campaign?
  Mr. Hughes: I agree that it is rather bizarre, and the hon. Gentleman knows that in general I support some of his initiatives. I hope that when we come to that debate, we will try to reach a settlement about holding referendums that is in the interests of people, not parties, and in the interests of the best system, not a particular result.
  190
  I welcome the working party on electoral processes, which was chaired by the then Home Office Minister, now the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). I thank him for his work and pay tribute to the work of my colleagues, Chris Rennard—now Lord Rennard—who gave evidence to the Select Committee on behalf of our party, and David Loxton, who was our member of the working party and participated in trying to achieve the best consensus.
  We welcome the rolling register proposal. I repeat my tribute to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who rightly pressed us on the matter. I hope that there will be a greater effort to introduce an annual reminder for people to get on to the list. A summons once a year to go somewhere, fill in a form and register to vote would be far better. In my constituency, the forms normally get delivered in August, for a date of registration in October, to make sure that they are in on time. But a huge spread of time focuses the mind less, not more. People are less likely to vote without an incentive to register or a reminder to do so.
  Secondly, we welcome the proposals for increased residential qualification. Mental patients who have not been convicted should of course have the right to vote; it has been a scandal that so far they have not. Remand prisoners who have not been convicted should of course have the right to vote; it has been a scandal that so far they have not. People who are homeless should of course have the right to vote, and it has been a scandal that so far they too have not. It is also right that service personnel should be able to name their place of residence.
  I was once canvassing in a by-election and found three names on the register. The person who answered the door was not on the register. I said, "Excuse me, sir, why aren't you on the register?" He said, "Well, I'm a service voter." I said, "May I ask which service?" He said, "It's not far from Portsmouth. You will probably guess that I mean the Navy." So I said, "I'm sorry to be inquisitive, but what job do you do?" After a pause, he said, "Well, I run the Navy." People in the services—whether in the most humble or the most senior post—may want their vote where they live, and they should be allowed that right.
  There are several arguments for revisiting the proposal in clause 9. Many people are clearly perturbed about it—indeed, I have received more representations on this proposal than on any other. Secondly—and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) knows more about this than I do—it is a fallacy to suppose that the proposal is the best way of trying to protect people from direct mail. There are other ways of doing that. If we do not want to receive unwanted post, the remedy should be applied generally, not particularly to the electoral register.
  Thirdly, there is the serious issue of how such a proposal will affect people for whom the electoral register is used to determine creditworthiness. In constituencies such as mine, many people are out of work. Their appearance on the register confirms that they have an established residence; it gives them the right to receive services that they would not otherwise receive. We must ensure that accepting new proposals will not advance social exclusion rather than social inclusion.
  Mr. Allan: The concern is that people will ask to be excluded because they think that they will no longer receive junk mail, but they will subsequently encounter problems regarding creditworthiness, as my hon. Friend mentioned. The question is how to balance the two important data protection principles: not using data collected for one purpose for something else, and ensuring that such data are accurate. Bodies will be able to find data in another way but it will not have the state authorisation of the electoral register, which is believed to be trustworthy, especially when it comes to credit scoring.
  Mr. Hughes: I hope that we heed that sort of argument and take a proper, rational, considered view. It is not just the Confederation of British Industry that has made representations. I have had letters from the Stroke Association and Marie Curie Cancer Care. Cancer organisations, I gather, stand to lose about £2 million if we change the rules and make them pay the full commercial price. So I say to the Minister, not in a strident way, that I hope that we can try to reach consensus on this matter.
  Mr. Bercow: All the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised are cogent, but does he agree that the threat in clause 9 to impose an additional cost on business should be averted, if at all possible?
  Mr. Hughes: I do agree, and think that the matter would be suitable for consideration of the type undertaken in a Special Standing Committee. However, I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the idea that we try—behind the scenes and in the Committee Corridor—to work together to get the matter right.
  I wish to raise two other points in this section of my speech. Of course it is right that people in general public life, or private people who are threatened—by domestic violence, for instance—should be able to vote without being made more vulnerable. Such people are usually female, but occasionally men come into that category. I shall not elaborate, but the House will be aware that I have some knowledge of these matters.
  I do not believe, however, that such privacy should be available to people who are candidates or elected public representatives. I consider that the electorate should know where their councillors and Members of Parliament live, and that those people's addresses should appear on the register and ballot paper. Where electoral candidates live in the community—or whether they live there—is an important and relevant piece of information for electors. The hon. Member for Ryedale rightly cited the case of Jill Dando, but matters are different for people such as Members of Parliament.
  I turn now to the issues surrounding the conduct of elections. We support the pilot scheme idea of looking at different ways of extending opportunities for elections. We want to make sure that the pilot schemes are evaluated, and I underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the leader of our party in Scotland, is sitting beside her just now. Many of us want to make sure that voting at a time that is against the
  192
  wishes of the community could take place only if the community agreed to it.
  I remind the Minister that, in Wales, there used to be local voting—a referendum—on Sunday opening every 10 years. I have not consulted in detail on the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute, but the way forward might be to combine district or local authority area votes in the area for a referendum. By that means people could decide when they wanted to vote. I hope that my hon. Friend's point will be heeded.
  As for absent voting, the right hon. Member for Gorton made the self-evident point that people must be allowed to vote wherever they are, as modern technology allows them to plug into the electoral system from all over the world. In addition, people living in the United Kingdom should be able to vote by post on a permanent basis. The evidence that I have seen shows that electoral turnouts are considerably higher in countries where people vote only by post than in those where people vote mainly in person. We must reflect on that, even though it may cause the electoral process and campaigning to change, as votes may be cast two weeks before the final date.
  A whole set of considerations affect people living abroad, and they have been mentioned already. Clearly, the considerations affecting UK citizens will be different from those affecting people who can vote here because they are Irish, Commonwealth or European Union citizens. It is important to realise that these distinctions exist. Another issue is the need to decide whether the link should be defined according to citizenship, or citizenship and tax liability—a perfectly proper combination—or something else.
  I now think that 20 years is probably too long, although I voted against limiting the period to that length of time when it was proposed some 10 years ago. I also think that five years is too short a period. For example, my brother lived in Cyprus, having been sent there by his employer. The posting was not permanent, and although he was there for more than five years he retained strong links with this country and has come back here to live. My point is that we must be careful about people who live abroad only because they are obliged to. We must not act in haste and repent at leisure. That is what the worst legislation leads to, and it still happens far too often.
  I understand the temptation to react to the Michael Ashcroft affair and to conflate party funding issues with the provenance of votes. I hope that Ministers resist that temptation. There are legitimate questions about who funds political parties, and it will be quite proper to have that debate. However, like the Home Secretary, I hope that we discuss that matter in a measured and considered way and come to an agreed view about how parties should be funded and about how much people should be allowed to spend in that regard.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam made the point that our methods of checking whether the person who presents the polling card is really the person on the electoral register leave much to be desired. No one knows how much fraud is committed. The injunction "vote early, vote often" is probably followed sometimes—although no hon. Member in this House would know anything about that, of course.

  193
  People are thoroughly confused about the use of polling cards. Many do not vote because they think that they need a polling card. Disabusing people of that misapprehension would help, as the delivery of polling cards is often even less efficient than the organisation of the register.
  Mr. Kaufman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that replacing the polling card with a personalised swipe card would render fraud much more difficult to commit and would permit votes to be cast from any part of the country, or from abroad?
  Mr. Hughes: I support working towards a system that allows people to vote electronically. As has been noted, people increasingly make use of personalised, 24-hour banking services, have their own personal identification numbers for telephone use and employ swipe cards in other contexts. We must be positive about the appurtenances of the modern age, but we must not devise a system that is easy for the clued-up 21-year-old but difficult for the 91-year-old. Some people late in life are not going to take up the use of swipe cards and complicated PIN numbers on their telephones.
  I turn now to people with disabilities. I welcome the proposed changes to allow people to have help when they vote. However, I hope that the Government will consider going further, by regulation if not by legislation. There is merit in offering, to all who are registered disabled or who are in sheltered and residential accommodation, help that is independent of the people among whom they live.
  It is always a worry that a residential home may deliver a block vote because its frail, elderly and confused residents have been organised by someone in the home. Ensuring that such residents were independent would allow us all to relax and trust the system more.
  In very many polling stations, the ballot box is still kept about half a mile from the street entrance. That is often the case when schools are used. People with disabilities are often deterred from voting because the journey through the building is longer than the journey to the building. That is clearly a nonsense.
  The Home Secretary spoke of the challenge that we face of revitalising democracy. I do not think that there is a crisis in democracy. Electoral turnouts were often very low in the past, but things can only get better. Sometimes turnouts are abysmal, as happened at last Thursday's election in Kensington and Chelsea. Another dire turnout was recorded in the earlier election at Leeds, Central which, given its many and historic problems, has at least as great a need for proper representation as any area in the country.
  Any Representation of the People Bill must pass certain tests. We should seek to produce maximum turnouts at elections, but Liberal Democrat Members are not persuaded that compulsory voting is the answer and consider that other avenues should be explored before we even think of introducing compulsion. Making people vote in a free society appears to be a contradiction in terms.
  We must also accept that the result of an election has to reflect the views of the electorate as expressed through their votes. All parties can benefit from the distorted way in which results are determined at present. For example,
  194
  in the 1998 Newham council elections, Labour won 57 per cent. of the vote and secured all 60 of the available seats. Again, in the 1995 vote in Cheltenham, the Liberal Democrats won 49 per cent. of the vote and secured 93 per cent. of the seats. Hon. Members will know that, in the House and in local councils, one party will often get a majority of votes but another will get a majority of seats.
  We will not persuade people that voting matters unless outcomes reflect what they want when they go to the ballot box. We made a bad mistake in June this year. By not linking the voter with an individual candidate in the European elections, we took away the incentive for many people to vote. Those of us who argue for a different and proportional voting system want a system that links to individuals, not merely to a party list.
  Whatever we may think of the genesis of the Jenkins report, it makes the best proposal, which is linking constituencies and fairness. I hope that the House remembers that, whatever we think about it, the Government are committed to putting that question to the country. There must be a decision by the country—not by us—as to whether to keep the present first-past-the-post system or to implement the Jenkins report. That was the Government's pledge. It was in the manifesto and it should be honoured.
  The reality is that people will vote most if they think that they have a chance of influencing something most. If Parliament is more powerful, people will vote more often in parliamentary elections. If local government has its chains taken away, people will vote more often in local elections. If those institutions are restricted,
  "cabin'd, cribb'd, confin'd, bound in",
  people will ask, "Why bother? It won't change anything." That is why in so many parts of Britain the voting culture reflects that of the one-party state. We have all heard people say, "It doesn't matter whom you put up. Nothing will change." That culture has to be changed and the one-party state mentality has to go.
  Young people are the test. They often say that they will not go on the register or vote. We must support all who have been working with the British Youth Council, Operation Black Vote and others to encourage young people to think that they are the people in whose interest it most is to vote. The more they vote, the more this place will reflect their interests and aspirations. Civic education, mock Parliaments and Hansard Society initiatives must all take place too.
  This Bill is a beginning. It will do some of the technical things and it is welcome, but it is not the end of the story. Building up communities and making voting easier are important, but—to vary a phrase used this weekend—we need not just reform, but the whole reform and nothing but the reform. If we are to have electoral change, we need, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), not only the Monty but the full Monty and nothing but the full Monty. That means reforming the system of voting as well as the procedure. The sooner it happens, the sooner people will vote.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Stephen Pound: I speak with some trepidation, on a number of grounds. First, many right hon. and hon. Members have shared with the House their experience of the high office that they held when this matter was last debated. At that time, I was the second

  195
  substitute on the London borough of Ealing nuclear disarmament working party, which was sadly not conspicuously successful, but would certainly have been taken into consideration were the Ilyushins ever to have approached us.
  I am also loth to criticise any aspect of what is an excellent Bill. For example, this is not a case of opening the Christmas present to discover with a cold feeling of horror that one has been given a Jeffrey Archer novel. It is rather that, within the vast body of the Bill—the detail is excellent—there is one small area that gives me ground for concern. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench will allow me to deal with clause 9 and the access to credit for people in my constituency, who have a great deal in common with the constituents of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
  I am concerned that commercial and charitable organisations will not be allowed access to the electoral roll for credit purposes. As has been said, that could easily be costly and counter-productive. Certainly, there are problems, but it is not beyond the will of this House or the Standing Committee for those to be dealt with, and resolved, without causing severe difficulties for many of our constituents.
  The role of businesses and charitable organisations has been mentioned. The credit industry is a particular concern. There is only one national database of this type. The electoral register is, as we all know, utterly unique, as has been recognised by the Office of Fair Trading. I will pray in aid some esoteric sources later to confirm the validity of that statement. The point about the register's uniqueness is that there is no substitute. It is not a question of this mechanism or another. It is all well and good to say that credit checking companies could discover alternative mechanisms. We do not yet have a national identity card or any comparable national database.

  When the working party considered the matter—it has been said that a possible weakness of the working party is the lack of representation on it of the commercial or charitable sectors, although they certainly submitted views in writing—it stated that there was anecdotal evidence that people were concerned about receiving junk mail. Far be it for me as a member of the London Labour party to comment on unsolicited mail at the present time, but is the problem really the fact that we might get a few of those appalling letter from the Reader's Digest stating that, if we buy dozens of copies of some book, we may be entered in some spurious grand draw that at some stage may solve all our problems? Is that such an awful difficulty? Is it so terrible that the honest postal worker delivers that junk mail and the householder looks at it and throws it away—or, in the case of the correspondence to which I referred, reads it, appreciates it and takes the action suggested?
  Ms Ward: Does my hon. Friend accept that, while junk mail is frustrating for those of us who receive it, a more important issue is the security of individuals who are, for example, escaping domestic violence and who want the right to vote and register, but who do not believe that that information should be put in the hands of the public at large and of commercial companies in general, as their pursuers might be able to trace them through it?
  Mr. Pound: I thank my hon. Friend for another cogent and telling intervention. I entirely agree—obviously, I would not dare to disagree. I was not suggesting that we should go for what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey described as the full electoral Monty by forcing everyone to reveal themselves on the register. At present, electoral registers contain classifications of people—not merely those who are not entitled to vote in a local government election or who are entitled only to vote in a European election. Additional electors are listed at the end of each category. They appear now. Their names appear on the register, but their addresses do not. Every electoral register in the country has such names. It is not a problem. In many ways, by concentrating on those issues, we could produce a far better clause 9, although my natural obsequiousness prevents me from saying that as overtly as I would do otherwise.
  Earlier this year, an NOP survey, which was almost certainly funded by the credit companies, asked whether people would tick the proposed opt-out box when registering to vote and 64 per cent. said that they would. However, when the follow-up question was asked about their credit status, the figures changed dramatically. The problem is that people will tick the box without realising how it will affect their credit status.
  Mr. Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the junk mail issue is a distraction and a red herring when we are discussing the electoral register? Junk mail is dealt with by the mailing preference service, whereby people say that they do not want such mail and if anyone mails them, they can be prosecuted. Junk mailing services can find names from 100 different sources.
  Mr. Pound: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We should consider the mailing preference service; that is certainly a possibility. However, my concern—like that of several other Members—is about access to credit for those who could not otherwise achieve it. Banks and other financial bodies tend to be cautious lenders. If people's credit standing is reduced by their opting out of the version of the register that is available to credit agencies, those people will be added to the socially excluded.
  At present, there is a mechanism for lending money to people on the boundaries—on desolation row—and we all know what it is. We all know about the loan sharks who prey on our constituents—the people who take child benefit books and accompany mothers to the post office on a Monday morning, cash the benefit, give half the money to the mother and keep the rest. We know about their interest rates, which double, triple and quadruple. Yes, there are possible alternatives, such as credit banks and credit unions—by all means, let us have more of them. However, the immediate, practical alternative to the loan shark is a line of legitimate credit, attested to by one's presence on the electoral roll. If people are council tenants, have just moved to a council property or do not have a job, they do not have any other credit guarantee to offer. I wholly acknowledge the understandable and laudable concerns of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government, but we must revisit that matter.
  Of course the problems of money laundering, fraud and other abuses of the electoral register must be dealt with; I hope to outline a way of doing so later in my speech.

  197
  However, I want to draw the attention of the House to the newsletter of the Hampstead and Highgate Conservatives, advertising their autumn bazaar, which, sadly, took place last Saturday. From the perspective of Ealing, we are awed by the Hampstead and Highgate Conservatives, who offer as raffle prizes cars, 25 televisions and videos and a £5,000 ocean cruise—the newsletter does not tell us whether we can nominate a member of the Conservative party to take that cruise. There is a free champagne draw.
  In the corner of the document is the headline, "Not a Conservative supporter?"—oddly enough, there is a question mark—under which is the statement:
  "We work off the electoral role".
  Hon. Members should note that spelling. Doubtless, it is a tribute to the thespian ambience created by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)—long may she continue. The newsletter states:
  "If you do not want to receive further mailings from your local Conservatives please let us know … by E Mail, agent@ham-high.tory."
  The Conservatives realise that there are occasions on which one can make a principled decision as to whether to be included on a database. I have deleted my name from the database.
  In January 1999, the Office of Fair Trading produced the report of the director general's inquiry into vulnerable consumers and financial services—an important document.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman told us a most amusing story. Will he confirm that he lives in Hampstead and Highgate and not in Ealing?
  Mr. Pound: Although it is possible to register overseas, I live in my constituency; my name appears on the electoral roll there—sadly, only once, but not through lack of trying. None of my domestic pets appears on the electoral roll in my constituency—again, not through lack of trying. However, on the principle of inclusion, I occasionally try to add myself to the lists of Conservative associations—just to see what they are up to. Of course, the possibility of a £5,000 sea cruise may also have influenced me slightly.
  Paragraph 302 of the OFT report states:
  "there are four financial services that stand out as those which most of today's consumers are likely to regard as essential: money transmission, home contents insurance, short-term consumer credit, and long-term savings."
  I repeat, "short-term consumer credit" because that is exactly what we are talking about.
  In September 1998, the Prime Minister presented to the House "Bringing Britain together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal", Command 4045. Under the heading "Action Team 14: Financial services", the document states:
  "people living in poor neighbourhoods often have to depend on very expensive forms of credit, including 'loan sharks'."
  Action Team 14—with whom I am not personally acquainted—point out that its goal is
  "to develop a strategy to increase access to financial services for people living in poor neighbourhoods."
  198
  Sadly, the measure that we are discussing would not help.
  Coming to the end of the information that I pray in aid, I draw the attention of the House to a letter from Islington council. Before Conservative Members leap to their feet, I point out that I have never lived in Islington, although I should be quite happy to do so. The council's electoral registration document, sent to all residents and dated November-December 1999—the council wisely allowed two months for delivery—states
  "Dear Resident
  Final Reminder to Register to Vote—Mayor and Assembly Election."
  The letter does not suggest for whom one should vote—sadly. It contains the statement that
  "to avoid difficulties with banks, credit companies, building societies, and libraries, who often check the register before providing services, it may be useful to provide this information."
  In November-December 1999, a London council is telling its electors that, in order to receive credit, to open a bank or building society account, or even to borrow a library book, they need to be on the electoral register.
  Many of us will remember Sheila McKechnie, who used to run Shelter; she is now the director of the Consumers Association. She asked the House
  "to focus on the potential increase in social exclusion caused by a restriction on access to this data … This proposal could create further barriers to obtaining credit for vulnerable consumers. Namely, those who do not have passports, driving licences or utility bills … for whom the present system works well."
  I had not given this matter much thought until one of my constituents, Pauline Jones, spoke to me about it. She works for Equifax—one of the two major data-collection companies. Ms Jones told me of her concerns, not just as a loyal member of that company, but as someone who is genuinely worried about the law of unintended consequences. I cannot believe that anyone—save, possibly, a few Conservative Members—could object to the main thrust of the Bill. However, one of the unintended consequences—I am sure that it is unintended—of the restriction of commercial availability of the electoral register is that the sort of people with whom my constituent works and whom I represent will suffer.
  There are alternative proposals. The Direct Marketing Association has already suggested an additional form of restriction on availability of the roll. There are other ways of dealing with the matter. Sadly, the current baby-and-the-bath-water system will not serve the inclusive, joined-up governmental aims of the Administration in relation to social exclusion.
  I thank the House for its tolerance and indulgence; the subject is one of great importance. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department sums up the debate, I hope that he will tell us that it will be possible to reconsider the matter. I thank him and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for being so courteous and so generous with their time as to talk about the matter with me before the debate. I hope that we can discuss it further in Committee and deal with it. The rest of the Bill is Christmas come early; it is wonderful. I have no problem with it.
  6.29 pm
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), and I am fascinated to know of his

  199
  connections with Conservative associations. I am afraid that the Epping Forest Conservatives' Christmas bazaar is already past, but I should like to check that the hon. Gentleman has received his invitation to the Epping Forest Conservatives' Christmas party. I hope that he will let me know if he has not, as it is obviously an oversight on the part of my computer. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I did not hear the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Pound: I am sorry; I merely said that I would be reluctant to attend the soirée at Epping Forest with my wife if the previous Member was present.
  Mrs. Laing: I do not know whether that is a compliment. I shall be more careful in giving way in future.
  Mr. Bercow: What does the hon. Gentleman's wife think?
  Mr. Pound: She is keen to go.
  Mrs. Laing: The Bill contains much that is good. Any measure that improves the democratic process is to be welcomed, and should be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Some measures in the Bill would make the ballot box more accessible to people who are in some way disadvantaged, which can only be good. As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, voting is a very precious right—the most precious right in the defence of a free society—so he is absolutely right to welcome most parts of the Bill.
  I wish to draw attention to some aspects of the Bill. First, I am worried about the idea of a declaration of local connection. It is hard to understand how that could work well, and how it could improve the democratic process. Would it mean, for example, that the gypsies—it may be more politically correct to say travellers, because I know that some genuine gypsies do not like to be confused with travellers—who have recently moved into my constituency for an unknown length of time would, in some circumstances, have the chance to be registered and to vote? If they could do so in my constituency at present, could they do so again, in a few weeks, in another constituency? Would they be able to declare a local connection in more than one place at once? If one need not be permanently resident in one place, surely it is theoretically possible to have a local connection with more than one place at a time.
  I appreciate that many of us can be registered to vote in more than one place; indeed, many Members of the House are because of our respective residences in our constituency and, during the week, in London. However, we exercise our adherence to the law in voting only once. Not everyone in the country can be trusted to be quite as scrupulous in their adherence to the law. I am very uneasy about that.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend has just conjured up an extremely worrying scenario. Does she agree that if people were free simply to hop, skip, jump or traverse by other means all over the country at short notice and be entitled to vote, we would be faced with the electoral equivalent of flying pickets?
  Mrs. Laing: As ever, my hon. Friend eloquently illustrates a difficult point. He is absolutely right; we could indeed have flying local connection voters. We could certainly have itinerant local connection voters, and modern technology makes it possible to move quickly around the country and vote very many times.
  Mr. David Taylor: It is probably true that the largest single group of people who appear on two electoral registers is university students, of whom there are probably 500,000 or more in the United Kingdom. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that, as a group, they are not worthy of trust?
  Mrs. Laing: Certainly not. I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question. I was a student, and I was registered in more than one place, but I do not believe that university students or other students who have a home address and a temporary term-time address, or those who have a temporary work address—such as nurses—fall into that category. As I understand the Bill, they would not be required to declare a local connection. They have a permanent, although not always occupied, position in a student hall of residence or a hospital, for example, so there is no problem. The problem would occur with people who deliberately wanted to vote more than once. That could happen. It is our duty, in passing laws, to make electoral rules as watertight as possible, but I can see gaping holes in the legislation. It is not watertight and its provisions must be more closely addressed.
  Secondly, I welcome the rolling register. It is a good idea, and modern technology will allow the register to be updated more than once a year. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) drew attention to the fact that peers who were formerly Members of another place lost their right to a voice in Parliament, and the next day were not given a right to vote. Many of them lived in a constituency where there was an imminent by-election, in which they were not allowed to vote. They were disfranchised. The Minister will say that that was only temporary, but a temporary departure from an important principle is as bad as any other departure from an important principle.
  A Labour Member said that, even if those peers had been able to vote, it would not have made a difference to the by-election result. It might have. All those peers might have voted for Miss Whiplash; she might not have lost her deposit. We do not know, and it is not up to us to know, but it is up to us to defend their right to cast their vote. That is what counts.
  Thirdly, the introduction of new technology worries me. I share, of course, the Home Secretary's wish to give greater access to the polls to people who are disabled. The very last thing that my mother did before she died, a few weeks ago, was to go out to vote. It was very difficult for her to do so because she could not walk up the front steps of the polling station—a back door of the building had to be opened for her. It took a whole day's organisation to enable her to get into that polling station to cast her vote. She was determined to do so. It would have been much better if she could have retained her right to vote without having to be practically carried to the ballot box.
  I am well aware that, in that situation, most people who were not of the character and determination of my late mother would not bother to vote. Therefore, anything that

  201
  we can do to improve accessibility, especially by developing new technology, must be welcomed. However, let us not go too far. The right hon. Member for Gorton painted a picture of voting systems that entirely depend on pressing electronic buttons. So much can be done by telephone, by e-mail—if one can work out how to get into the e-mail—by computer or by other electronic means. However, as a society, we should be careful about that. If everything is done by electronic means, we shall soon lose all social connection. People will never meet each other. They will not go shopping; they will log on to the internet and click on the Tesco website, although I find that that takes longer than going to the supermarket.
  Ms Ward: I fully understand the hon. Lady's point about social connection, but does she not agree that the chances of meeting someone in a voting station and having a decent conversation are very small unless one is a politician looking for votes?
  Mrs. Laing: I often agree with the hon. Lady, but I disagree on this occasion. On a sunny morning in my constituency, people like to go out to vote and they meet each other. Groups of people who have not seen each other for ages are able to talk because they have all gone to the same place at the same time on the same day. It is a social function to go to the polling station to vote. I do not suggest that people enjoy voting as a recreation in the same way that they would enjoy going to a coffee morning. However, we must be careful that we do not do everything electronically and lose all social connection.
  My fourth point is about compulsory voting, which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned briefly. In Australia, voting is compulsory, but the system of proportional representation used there is complex. I visited Australia two years ago and was shown the ballot paper. It was bigger than me or the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward). It would be hard to deal with such a ballot paper and it would take ages to fill in.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Lady should not undervalue the advantages of proportional representation. In New Zealand, the system is so complicated that it has guaranteed no real Government for some years.
  Mrs. Laing: I am delighted that the hon. Lady has made that point. I was broken hearted at the result of the New Zealand election last weekend. I am afraid that my first reaction was, "Well, there we go again—the wrong result under proportional representation."
  Mr. Pound: No, Labour won.
  Mrs. Laing: Some Labour Members might consider it to be the right result under PR. Whether one thinks the result in New Zealand was the right one or the wrong one, it is the wrong system.
  In Australia, it is not surprising that the Government had to make voting compulsory. As many people in the House know—I think that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will agree—the best way
  202
  to encourage voting is to keep it simple and to make it meaningful. We do not want people to go to the polling station to spend an hour in there reading the ballot paper. It should be simple for people to cast their votes and to know that the way in which they cast their vote will have an effect on the result of the election.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey seemed to agree about the complexity of the system in Australia and about the undesirability of introducing compulsory voting. I hope that he will also come round to the sensible view that changing the voting system in this country will be bad for democracy and will discourage people from voting. We saw that happen in the turnout for the European elections a few months ago.
  The central issue in the Bill is how one is qualified to vote for this Parliament and other democratic institutions in our country. The Home Secretary said that he hoped that there would be a consensus on the measures for overseas voters. However, I listened to the right hon. Member for Gorton and I am certain that such a consensus is unlikely. I would find it difficult to agree with the right hon. Gentleman on this point. He was dangerously close to suggesting that we, as Parliament, should adopt a clause that would give electoral advantage to one party or the other. I hope that no Member would ever vote for party advantage rather than for a point of principle. The right hon. Gentleman said that only 13,000 people from overseas voted and that the vast majority of them voted in what are currently Conservative constituencies, but so what?
  That does not matter.
  I am aware that the right hon. Member for Gorton is not present to respond to my points, but I would gladly give way to him if he were. However, it does not matter how those overseas voters vote; we are discussing a matter of principle.
  Mr. Greenway: Someone said—I think that it was the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—that there should be no representation without taxation. Is it not a fact that many of the 13,000 people who voted pay income tax in this country on their pensions and their investments?
  Mrs. Laing: Yes, it certainly is a fact; I agree with my hon. Friend. Those voters also pay national insurance in this country, because they intend one day to return to live here and they want to benefit from their national insurance contributions in later years. They have not severed their connections with the United Kingdom; they are merely absent for some time. Five years' absence is a short time in most people's careers.
  Mr. Bercow: As usual, the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) have prompted a thought in my mind. Would my hon. Friend not agree that the principle applies the other way round as well? Perhaps there should be no taxation without representation. Does she not agree that the people in Kensington and Chelsea who were wrongly and monstrously disfranchised by the administrative incompetence of this Government have reason to feel aggrieved? They paid their taxes, but they did not get their representation.
  Mrs. Laing: Once again, my hon. Friend eloquently makes an extremely good point. I am always aware of the

  203
  problems of the Exchequer, so I would not venture to suggest that the people to whom he referred should be exempt from taxation. That would leave a large hole in the Exchequer's receipts.
  I was discussing qualifications to vote, and there are two inconsistencies in the Bill. The first inconsistency relates to new section 4(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 proposed in clause 1, which states that a resident who is
  "a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland"
  has a right to vote. I do not object to that; it has been the case for some time. However, that provision is inconsistent with schedule 2, which refers to the right of United Kingdom citizens resident abroad to vote in UK elections for 20 years—an issue to which the right hon. Member for Gorton referred.
  The Bill will allow people who live in this country, however temporarily and who are not citizens, the right to vote. However, the right hon. Member for Gorton expressed his intention to table an amendment to shorten from 20 to five years the period in which UK residents overseas are allowed to vote and the Home Secretary said that he would turn his mind to that subject later during the Bill's passage through the House. If such an amendment were accepted, there would be ridiculous imbalance. A citizen of the Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland who is resident in this country, however temporarily, would be able to vote, but British citizens, who are temporarily not resident in this country and who may have a far greater stake in the future government of the United Kingdom, would not be able to vote. That would simply be unfair.
  The second inconsistency concerns the matter that I mentioned a few moments ago—the possibility of someone who does not have a permanent base in a constituency in this country making a declaration of local connection. Could a British citizen who resides overseas temporarily, but for more than five years, make a declaration of local connection in, for example, my constituency, and have a vote? If the Minister wants to answer that question, I will gladly give way to him.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien)indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Laing: No, he does not.
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Lady knows that I will, in closing, deal with many of the points raised in the debate.
  Mrs. Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his assurance that he will do so. I appreciate that I am springing on him a matter that may not previously have been raised. However, it will be inconsistent if people who do not have a permanent home have a right to vote but people who are temporarily away from Britain do not. It is very worrying that another huge loophole in the system will be created by introducing a declaration of local connection.
  Mr. Robathan: When my hon. Friend was speaking, she may not have heard the calls of "Belize" from Members on the Benches opposite. Does she think that those who want to change the 20-year rule may have a
  204
  specific motivation, and that it may be a petty-minded, vindictive motivation against one person, pursued in a rather pathetic partisan and political manner?
  Mrs. Laing: My hon. Friend makes an outrageous suggestion. Who could believe that the Government would want to change a point of principle in a Bill of such constitutional importance as one concerned with representation of the people for the sake of one individual? No, my hon. Friend must be wrong because his suggestion is utterly preposterous; nevertheless, I thank him for making it.
  Mr. David Heath: I shall take the hon. Lady away from the dangerous shoals of Belize for a moment. Is she really saying that if citizens do not have a fixed abode in this country, they should lose their right of citizenship in this country, and that they should not have a vote if they do not have a household? Are we to return to the householder vote?
  Mrs. Laing: Not at all, and if I have given that impression, I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to correct it. I certainly do not believe that. In my constituency there is a hostel for homeless people which often houses a large number of people who are waiting for council accommodation. I would not suggest for one moment that those people should lose their right to vote. I utterly defend their right to vote. The intention to give people who do not have a permanent home the right to vote is correct, but I question whether the mechanism set out in the Bill is the right way to do so.
  Mr. Barnes rose—
  Mrs. Laing: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, although I appreciate that I have been speaking for some time because I have taken many interventions.
  Mr. Barnes: Is the hon. Lady not aware that homeless people in hostels often do not qualify to vote because to do so one must have a residence? That is the problem with the existing law. The declaration of location would allow those people to be put on the register, as well as those who are sleeping on park benches.
  Mrs. Laing: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The matter requires, and will no doubt receive, greater consideration when we examine the Bill in more detail.
  I shall give two examples of people who live outside the United Kingdom but have substantial connections with this country. If the period of overseas residence after which absent citizens can no longer vote is changed from 20 years to five years, the people in those two examples will lose their right to vote.
  The first example is a gentleman aged over 80, who until recently spent his whole life in this country. He worked for over half a century, paid tax and made great contributions to the community and society in which he lived. He fought during the whole of world war two and was wounded in action, commissioned on the field and awarded the distinguished conduct medal. You will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the person whom I

  205
  am describing has devoted his entire life to this country, and he did a lot of good work—including charitable and political work—for well over half a century.
  The gentleman now lives in Spain, because of ill health and to be close to his family since the death of his wife. He has lived in Spain for almost five years. I told him yesterday that there is a danger that he might not be able to vote at the next general election and, not surprisingly, he was appalled. He considers, naturally enough, that having devoted his entire life to this country and its good, he should have every right to be involved in the country's future and in decisions about who should be its future Government. One day, he will probably come back to the United Kingdom. Why should he lose his right to a say in the government of this country?
  When I pointed out the situation to the gentleman, he said, "I don't understand that. I'm living in the European Union, so my vote at the next election will determine the Government of the United Kingdom. That Government will have considerable determination in the running of the European Union, and that is how I shall be able to influence, in my small way as a voter taking part in the democratic process, the future of the European Union in which I live.".
  For those two reasons, I ask why that gentleman should lose his vote. That is a very serious matter, and I hope that the Minister will address it in his remarks.
  My second example concerns employees of British companies who are posted abroad. They may well still be paying tax and national insurance in this country, but one way or another they will be contributing to the success of companies that are British-based. At the very least, their efforts on behalf of those companies will contribute to the companies' profits and therefore to the tax that the companies pay in this country.
  My example is more precise: I have in mind someone who lives in Gibraltar. At best, the Government ignore Gibraltar, and at worst, they victimise it. They seem to wish that it simply did not exist. Gibraltar is British. Its people voted quite recently, and they have shown again and again that they want to remain British. They do not have a vote in European Union elections, even though they are part of the European Union. In that sense, Gibraltarians are already disfranchised.
  In the debate on the Bill, however, I want to address the problems not of Gibraltarians but of British people who live in Gibraltar. The particular person whom I have in mind works for a British company and therefore contributes, in the way that I have just described, to the British economy, the welfare of the United Kingdom, the welfare of Gibraltar and the way in which Britain supports Gibraltar.
  If the Government want to support Gibraltar, they should be aware that, if the Bill is amended to limit entitlement to an overseas vote to those who have been absent from this country for less than five years, rather than 20 years, it will be yet another insult to Gibraltarians and other people who live in Gibraltar. The Government will have once again disfranchised the very people who support British interests in a place where those interests ought to be supported. I hope that the Minister will take that matter seriously.
  206
  When making laws, we in this Chamber should focus not on individual cases or on party advantage, but on principles. I appreciate that the general intention behind the Bill is good—to make it easier for people to vote and so improve the democratic process. I wholeheartedly agree with that intention. However, certain parts of the Bill will not achieve their intended result. I am pleased that, the Bill being an important constitutional measure, its Committee stage is to take place on the Floor of the House, and I look forward to more detailed consideration of its provisions in days to come.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Martin Linton: I speak as a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, both in support of the Committee's report on electoral law, which is listed among the documents relevant to the debate, and in support of the Bill itself. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), now Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on his work. Having seen some of the many reports he commissioned when he was a Home Office Minister, I commend not only his thoroughness but, more important, his timing.
  A Bill such as this has to come in the third Session of a Parliament, for that is late enough for the lessons of the last election to have been learned but early enough for changes to be made before the next election. Of course, the purpose behind the Bill must be to make changes that can be applied by the time of the next election. In addition, the third Session of a Parliament is early enough to avoid the pre-election period when hon. Members on both sides are more concerned about party advantage than about taking a constructive, cross-party approach to the shortcomings of our electoral system.
  In its report on electoral law and administration, the Committee noted that.
  "the current electoral arrangements by and large work well".
  I must confess that that statement strays into hyperbole, for there are many failings in the operation of our electoral arrangements. The system can be impossibly bureaucratic: there are at least seven different forms with which one can apply for a postal vote. In addition, the system can hardly be described as efficient when there are, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) pointed out in his evidence to the Committee, an estimated 4 million people who should be on the register but are not, and about 7 million who, by the end of the electoral year, are on the register where they should not be. I hope my hon. Friend will elaborate on that point if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  That is why I welcome the Bill's three main provisions: the rolling register, continually updated throughout the year; postal voting on demand; and pilots of early voting, electronic voting, out-of-area voting, weekend voting—you name it, there will be a pilot of it. Those are all measures that the Home Affairs Committee asked for and that the Bill delivers. In fact, the Bill delivers some reforms for which the Committee did not ask: giving the vote to remand prisoners—a matter the Committee overlooked; piloting electronic counting and voting, of which the Committee was, not without reason, somewhat wary; piloting postal-only elections, which have worked extremely well in other countries, dramatically affecting turnout; and offering electors an opt-out from the electoral

  207
  register sold commercially, which is opposed by the Confederation of British Industry but popular with many voters.
  However, there is a far longer list of reforms for which the Committee asked but the Bill does not deliver, and I owe it to the Committee and the House to mention those matters, the first of which relates to dual registration for parliamentary elections. The Committee accepts that people should be able to register in a second seat as a local elector, and peers and European nationals can already do so. However, people should be able to register as parliamentary electors in only one seat. Under a system whereby votes are likely to make more of a difference in some seats than in others, giving people a choice of constituency gives an unfair advantage. Once postal voting is given on demand, those who genuinely split their time between two constituencies, such as students, should have no problem voting, wherever they are when the election happens.
  That is the view not only of all three parties represented on the Committee, but of the representatives of all three major parties—Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat—who gave evidence to the Committee. It is also the view of many of the smaller parties. However, it was opposed by the Home Office with the comment that there was "no enthusiasm" for such a change among members of the working party. To be frank, if we acted only when the Home Office was enthusiastic, we would never get anything done.
  The second point of difference relates to anonymous registration. The Committee proposed to allow a few people to register anonymously—that is, without their name appearing in any public version of the electoral register—in exceptional circumstances, such as vulnerability to domestic violence. The working party decided that that required further study, but the Committee does not agree: we think it could be granted now. The working party has proposed an opt-out from the commercial version of the register, but that will not satisfy the requirements of, say, a woman who is vulnerable to domestic violence.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that several more enlightened councils have introduced a procedure whereby people can register under a nom de plume, so that no one can discover where an at-risk person lives but that person does not lose his or her vote?
  Mr. Linton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. There is currently little latitude for electoral registration officers to exercise such discretion, and it is good that some feel confident that they can do so. However, it is important for the Government clearly to set out in legislation the parameters for all electoral registration officers.
  On the question of early voting, the Bill's provisions are rather tentative. A pilot scheme is proposed, but my view of early voting is that it should enable people to vote not only in a different part of their local authority area but in different parts of the country. Early voting is supposed to help those who might suddenly be called away on business or for a family emergency but who still want to vote.
  While the Home Affairs Committee report was being written, I was on holiday in Sweden, where an election was going on, and I asked the electoral authorities there
  208
  how they dealt with early voting. I was amazed to learn that, in Sweden, on producing one's polling card and some other form of identification, one can cast one's vote at any post office anywhere in the country throughout the two weeks preceding polling day and up to 5 pm on polling day itself; the post office then conveys the vote to one's own polling station by 8 pm on the day the polls close. More than one third of Swedish voters exercise their vote in that way, perhaps because they are away from home or because it is simply more convenient than going to the polling station.
  I also learned of the Swedish arrangements in the event of an elector changing his or her address. In this country, if a person who has changed address rings up the town hall to ask whether his or her electoral address can be altered, the response is, "I'm sorry, but no. Phone back on 10 October next year and we'll think about it." In Sweden, such a person simply goes into a tax office and types the new address into a keyboard; the following morning, the address is valid as that person's electoral address and for all other public services.
  In many ways, we are not beginning to use the advantages that the computer age gives us to change electoral registration. We are still insisting that it should take two weeks as a minimum. Early voting pilot schemes in a single local authority area will not test the real purpose of early voting. However, I hope that they will be rolled out quickly before the next general election so that we can use early voting for what it is really intended, which is to replace much of what is postal or proxy voting.
  Thirdly, we have to apply for postal votes 11 working days before polling. The Committee believes that that deadline could be much later. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) suggested that it should be up to the eve of the poll. In Sweden, as I have recounted, it is up to three hours before the close of the poll. It is rather disappointing to read in the working party's report that the advice received from electoral administrators was that there should be no change from 11 days. I think that we can do better than that.
  The franking of ballot papers is a ridiculous and outdated requirement. Its only practical effect was to disqualify 2,500 voters at the 1997 election because the official mark had been left off the papers by mistake. However, the working party's response is that franking still "requires reconsideration". I think that we could get rid of franking straight away.
  The Bill could afford to be much more decisive on the qualification of candidates.
  Mr. Grieve: If the franking of ballot papers is to be dispensed with, how will an identifying mark be provided to prevent the stuffing of ballot boxes if non-electronic methods continue to be used?
  Mr. Linton: The Select Committee suggested that there should be a security device, but not one that relies on the memory of the election agent in stamping each ballot paper before it is given to the voter. Security needs to be maintained.

  209
  The Select Committee suggested an increase in candidates' deposits from £500 to £700, which thereafter would be index linked, and an increase in the number of assentors from 10 to 50. The response was that there is a serious case for increasing the deposit. Who could doubt that after the Kensington and Chelsea by-election, in which Lisa Lovebucket received fewer than 100 votes. She was one of about 15 candidates who received fewer votes than the deposit level. The working party's report suggested that increasing the number of assentors would place a significant additional burden on electoral administrators. I do not believe that counting up to 50 assentors places a serious burden on administrators. However, it might be a serious burden on no-hope, joke candidates, who would have to find 50 people prepared to sign their nomination papers.
  There are no proposals in the Bill to lift the disqualification of ministers of religion, a subject on which my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) has introduced a ten-minute Bill. One would think that the Bill provided an opportunity to clear up that legal mess.
  The same is true of the Select Committee's proposal that candidates should be nominated only under names by which they have been known for some time, and usually the name by which they are registered on the electoral register. Given the experience of all parties in this place, surely that would be a self-evident reform. Another consideration is the name of the party—we have had the literal democrats and the conversatives—although that is taken care of in the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. However, someone with the name Roy Harold Jenkins stood in Glasgow, Hillhead; and someone renamed himself Sir Nicholas Lyell in an attempt to stand against the Member of that name. That attempt failed only after an expensive court case.
  The Select Committee's proposal that 100 per cent. grants should be available to local authorities to make polling booths more accessible to the disabled was turned down on the ground that it might lead to a substantial increase in the level of claims against the Consolidated Fund. This is hardly an issue of resources; it should be a matter of principle that the costs of the changes that need to be made to polling stations to make them accessible to the disabled should be refunded.
  The proposal in the report that may have caused most publicity is that the 20-year maximum period within which a British citizen overseas may retain the right to vote is excessive and that the earlier limit of five years should be restored. That was agreed unanimously by the representatives of all parties on the Committee, as was the entire report. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said soon afterwards in his response that he would consider the proposal sympathetically and consult other parties. It may be that the issue is better dealt with next month or whenever the political parties, elections and referendums Bill is published. I do not
  210
  think that anyone has an interest in rushing the issue. I heard my right hon. Friend's assurance that amendments can be moved to exactly that effect when we consider that Bill. I raise the issue now because the recommendation could be implemented most logically by an amendment to the Bill before us.
  It was first provided in the Representation of the People Act 1985 that overseas voters should be allowed to vote in elections for up to five years after they had left the country. In the Representation of the People Act 1989, that was extended to 20 years. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) might like to know that before those Acts the rules for registration in parliamentary elections were very similar to the rules of residence applied by the Inland Revenue. There was almost an exact correlation between being a resident taxpayer and having the vote. That is an important principle which is still relevant.
  Representation of the People Acts have been something of a disappointment. The overseas vote could have been claimed by up to 3 million people and was expected to be claimed by about 200,000. The highest figure was 34,000 in 1991, and it has now dwindled to 13,000, an average of 21 votes per constituency. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton is right when he says that overseas voters are biased towards the Conservative party. I know that there are many Labour voters among them who are members of the Labour International branch or the Labour New York branch. However, the concession goes to some people who have only a tenuous connection with Britain. Indeed, they may have the vote under a different nationality in their home countries. The vote goes also to many tax exiles who have deliberately left the country to avoid paying our taxes.
  Mr. Brady: On a point of information, I wonder whether the Select Committee took evidence to ascertain what proportion of the 13,000 people overseas who voted had been overseas for more than five years, and what proportion would still be eligible to vote under the five-year limit.
  Mr. Linton: That is an interesting point. I am seeking the answer to it. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire knows the answer. However, I know that the great majority of overseas voters come within the five-year rule; there are very few such voters between five and 20 years. I think that it is wrong in principle for someone who does not pay tax in this country to have a hand in deciding how much tax the rest of us should pay.
  Mr. Grieve: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He seemed to suggest that there was something wrong if someone had the right to vote in two different states at once. I am sure that he is thinking through the implications of that, because there are millions of people in this country in that category, who happen to reside here and also have a vote in, for instance, the Republic of Ireland. Many people have the right to vote here who also have the right to vote in other European states. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on that. It seems to be the weakest part of the argument that he is advancing.
  Mr. Linton: If that forms the subject of an amendment to the political parties Bill, there will clearly be an opportunity to debate the matter further. The position of voters from the Republic of Ireland is recognised as anomalous, and springs from the historical relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. The position of European nationals is different. They can vote in the United Kingdom in local elections and in European elections, but not in parliamentary elections. Commonwealth citizens can vote in this country if they are resident in this country, and many of them exercise that right, but they usually lose their right to vote in their country of origin, depending on the laws of that country.
  Different countries have different approaches to the matter, and we must decide what our approach should be. I am suggesting that an important principle in our approach should be that those who do not pay tax should not have a hand in deciding the tax that the rest of us pay. That applies particularly to tax exiles, because by moving abroad to escape our taxes, they have forfeited the right to interfere in UK elections and, in my view, to bankroll UK parties.
  Mrs. Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is advancing a dangerous principle. There are many hundreds of thousands of people in this country who do not pay tax, for a variety of reasons. Almost every single one of them has, and should have, the right to vote. Was not that the reason for all the fuss about what I call the community charge, and the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends call the poll tax?
  Mr. Linton: I thank the hon. Lady for that point, but does she really believe that there are many people in this country who do not pay tax? Will she not reflect on that? Does she not realise that the poorest people in the country pay the highest level of tax proportionate to their income because they pay value added tax on most of what they buy? She forgets the levels of tax paid by poor people in the UK.
  However, the point would be just as well made if I had said "eligible to pay tax." That is the test—not the amount of tax that has been paid, but the liability to pay tax. The House is not yet in a position to take a final decision on that, because it raises many difficult issues about the relationship between citizenship, liability to tax and residence, which require reflection. I am happy to have that debate in the context of the political parties, elections and referendums Bill when it comes in the new year. I am happy to concede that if the Government believe that it would be the best way to proceed.
  I hope that the Government, in turn, will be helpful and flexible on some of the points that I have raised—fairly small proposals from the Committee, which have not yet found their way into the Representation of the People Bill but could be inserted before the Bill receives Royal Assent.
  7.23 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I was impressed by the detailed knowledge of the electoral system displayed by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), which taught me a little. I was less impressed by the hon. Gentleman's prescience. I note that four years before the 1992 election—on the result of which I won some
  212
  money—the hon. Gentleman wrote a pamphlet entitled "Labour can still win." Of course, Labour did win in 1997, but I should not like to wait nine years before the hon. Gentleman got everything right.
  I take issue with the hon. Gentleman on the same point as did my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). He said that people who do not pay taxes should not have the right to vote, but that even the poorest people pay VAT. If I have a property in the UK, I pay property taxes, although I may not be resident. Many people who may have been abroad for 20 years still pay income tax on their pensions, and tax on the property and investments that they have in the UK. The hon. Gentleman's argument does not hang together. He may be able to develop it in other ways, but not now.
  I do not intend to reiterate all the excellent points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Epping Forest, so I shall not detain the House as long as I might otherwise have done.
  The Home Secretary said that he hoped that the so-called reforms would command the trust of the electorate. Having studied the Bill closely, I am more worried that it may debase the entire process of voting. The Bill makes me uneasy. It contains some good points on which the House can agree—points about access for the disabled, and proposals for making postal voting and other methods easier. I am all for that.
  My first taste of the electoral system after being a candidate was in 1990 in Hammersmith and Fulham. I tell the story because it brings out the potential for fraud that exists throughout the system. In 1990, some of the counters in Hammersmith and Fulham were wearing T-shirts bearing the words "Stuff the poll tax," which suggests that they gave their political allegiance to one particular department.
  That was more noticeable when I saw two bundles of votes being counted. I noticed the two bundles of votes going under two red stickers indicating Labour party votes. Underneath, too, were 48 Conservative votes. I do not suggest that the only people who might defraud the system are Labour party supporters, but that is what happened, and it was critical in two council seats which would otherwise have gone the other way. We should be wary of the possibility of fraud in our present system.
  What is the purpose of the Bill? As I understand it, it is designed to increase participation. The problem is that people are not especially interested, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest said. How do we interest them? It is a failure of current politics that people are not interested. We should analyse that.
  I am sure that hon. Members on both sides tell their constituents, as I do, that it is important to vote. We have all met people on the doorstep who say, "I'm not voting in the election. Don't believe in it." I tell them, as I hope others do, that people around the world are still dying for the vote, many have died in this country in the past, and they should vote. Needless to say, I hope that they vote Conservative. I believe that everybody should exercise his right to vote if he can, and I say that in schools as well. I trust that we would all agree.
  I find that in the Bill we have abandoned the KISS principle—keep it simple, stupid. Some of the provisions make the process more complicated. Thirty-two years ago, I did British Constitution A/O-level, and I remember that lunatics, criminals and peers were not entitled to vote. That has now changed.

  213
  In reverse order, I shall deal first with peers. After the by-election in Kensington and Chelsea, Viscount Montgomery of Alamein said:
  "During the passage of the Lords Reform Bill, assurances were given that departing peers would be re-enfranchised immediately. To add insult to injury, this has not happened. Once again we see an overpowering Government which talks about democracy but does not practise it."
  He was on the electoral register, but was turned away from the polling booth because it had not filtered down that he was, indeed, allowed to vote as he had been disfranchised in the House of Peers.
  On criminals, I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). It is a bizarre suggestion that people currently residing at Her Majesty's pleasure in a remand centre should be allowed to vote. If someone is locked up because it is considered that he should not be on the streets, he should not be allowed to vote.
  We no longer speak about lunatics, but people with impaired mental health should surely not determine who governs the country. An article in The Times on Monday 22 November stated:
  "The extraordinary proposal to grant the vote to people who are, in common parlance, mad, undermines the foundations of representative democracy. That system, for all its imperfections, is based upon the idea that adults are rational individuals capable of making conscious choices. By suggesting that mental patients are as well qualified as those of sound mind to participate in the political process, Mr. Straw's proposal degrades the entire electorate and democracy itself."
  That is about right.
  The homeless have been disfranchised, often through no fault of their own. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale made the serious point that great care must be taken when enfranchising the homeless—to which I do not object—to avoid increasing the possibility of fraud. Those who have more knowledge of such matters than me, including members of the all-party group on homelessness, of which I am a member, say that many people who are on the streets have been discharged from mental hospitals. Again, we must be careful whom we enfranchise. I am sure that the Minister has taken that into account.
  I want to reiterate a point that several of my hon. Friends made. Before we make changes that can facilitate fraud, we should establish a system that can check on multiple voting. If students vote twice, we should know that; if Members of Parliament vote twice, we should also know that. Such a system should be practised before we make it easier to commit fraud.
  I want to draw attention to another possibility of abuse that relates to fraud and postal voting. I am sure that many hon. Members have visited residential homes for the elderly during election campaigns. I do not intend to do that again under the same circumstances as my previous visit. I was encouraged to go to such a home, where there were some fine people. However, I am not sure whether they knew who I was.
  Mr. David Taylor: That is because the hon. Gentleman is never in Blaby.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman claims that I am never in Blaby. I must tell my neighbour that I spend a
  214
  great deal of time there. I know that candidates from other parties visit residential homes and I am sure that they have had the same experience as me. Postal or proxy votes can be abused, and the system should be more stringent. Someone who cannot make a decision should not continue to be enfranchised. Postal votes are not a panacea. The Minister should consider that.
  Unlike most Members of Parliament, I have voted as a service man. While I welcome changes that make voting easier for the services, the system is currently fairly easy. It was a problem to persuade service men to make a service declaration and register to vote. Service men are usually young men—and women nowadays—who are between 18 and 23 and they have other matters on their minds. Traditionally, few in that age group vote. However, it is easy to do so. In 1979 and 1983, I helped to return a Conservative Government by voting in person; in 1987, I was able to vote by proxy because I was abroad. It was easy.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) made good points about clause 9 and the electoral register. I want to approach the matter from the point of view of security. Some individuals, including Members of Parliament and former Ministers in both Houses, have a serious problem with security against terrorism. Many of my hon. Friends have said that they do not wish to be found through the electoral roll—I am sure that that also applies to other hon. Members. For that reason, I have registered in Westminster only recently, although I have lived there for eight years. It should be possible to register anonymously. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said that he was willing to discuss providing for special cases with the Government. The Select Committee on Home Affairs envisages making very special cases.
  The anxiety about Irish terrorism continues; I hope it will disappear soon. A bomb was placed under Airey Neave's car outside his flat in Westminster; Ian Gow was blown up outside his constituency home. Both were traced through the electoral roll or publications such as "Who's Who". A famous case occurred in Bristol in 1985, when a university lecturer went through an electoral roll and identified various members of the services, and others, whom an IRA active service unit wanted to target. I hope that the Minister will address that important issue.
  Linked with my previous point is the need to register one's address on a ballot paper. I know from his contribution that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will disagree with me. I have lived in or on the borders of my constituency since I was selected as a candidate. I confess that I live 100 yd outside my constituency, but I can throw a stone across the border—[Interruption.] My neighbours would take a dim view of my throwing stones, but there are no neighbours between me and the river Avon, which marks the border. Many Labour Members would be embarrassed because they do not live in their constituencies. I am not sure whether the Home Secretary spends much time in Blackburn, but he is not here to defend himself, so I shall not ask. The Minister for the Environment has three houses, and I do not know which one he counts as home. However, I make a serious point about security. There may be a security problem on account of terrorism, lunatics or stalkers.
  We should examine carefully the proposal in clause 10 for pilot schemes under which voting can take place on more than one day. It is worth considering the history of

  215
  electoral reform. Various electoral reforms took place in 1918 after the great war. The Representation of the People Act 1918 increased the electorate from its pre-war figure of 8 million to 21 million, granted the vote to men over 21 and women over 30—a discrepancy that would be considered ill judged on both sides of the House nowadays. The Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918 allowed women to become Members of Parliament. Countess Markiewicz was the first woman Member of Parliament. She was elected in Dublin for Sinn Fein, but never took her seat. The Redistribution Act 1918 increased the size of the House of Commons and adopted the principle, with which we all agree, of equal constituency sizes. The first general election that was held on only one day took place in 1918—elections had previously been held over several days. If we intend to change that, we should study history and ascertain whether it has served us better to hold elections on only one day. There is no advantage to voting on more than one day.
  Lack of interest is a genuine problem. As politicians, we are all interested in politics. However, it does not grab the attention of others in the same way. I am sorry about that, and we should consider how we can interest others. We care, others do not. That has nothing to do with the difficulties of voting; it is not difficult to vote in this country. I accept that some people are disfranchised. However, although hereditary peers were disfranchised for one day last week, I admit that I do not believe that that was the end of the world. It is generally easy to vote and easy to register.
  Abstention is a respectable political act. The Bill's attempts to persuade people to vote in supermarkets or mobile voting stations are patronising and nannying. Everyone knows that they can vote if they want to do that. If the Government made politics and Parliament more important, people would vote in local elections. The previous Government reduced the importance of local authorities over several years; that was not necessarily a good thing.
  Mr. David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman voted for it.
  Mr. Robathan: I believe that it was before my time. However, the Government reduce the importance of Parliament by making announcements outside Parliament; by appointing the first Attorney-General from outside the House of Commons for many years; by appointing unelected cronies such as people who shared a flat with the Prime Minister; and by appointing a Lord Chancellor who was the Prime Minister's pupil master. That cannot be right or good for democratic politics.
  There are also unelected regional development agencies—in my case, the East Midlands development agency.
  Mr. Andrew Love: The hon. Gentleman says that certain things are not good for democracy. Does he accept that a third of the electorate not participating in the previous general election was not good for democracy
  216
  and that anything we can do—including the implementation of the measures in the Bill—is bound to improve that situation?
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right: 71.5 per cent. of the electorate voted in the previous general election.
  Mr. Love: The figure that the hon. Gentleman produces relates to those who are registered to vote. It is estimated that about 91 or 92 per cent. of the population are registered, so a third did not turn out.
  Mr. Robathan: Nevertheless, that does not change the point. People may make a genuine decision to abstain or, for all sorts of reasons—the hon. Gentleman will know what they are—determine that they do not want to be registered; some may relate to criminal activities. It is easy to register and vote in this country; it just requires a bit of effort. Whatever Labour Members may think, the British public are not that stupid—they are quite capable of registering and voting—and Members of Parliament are living examples of how easy it is to vote, because we manage to do so weekly.
  To return to the east midlands and regional development agencies, the East Midlands development agency is unelected—as is the regional assembly—and such organisations do not bolster Parliament. Conservative Members believe, and many Labour Members know in their hearts, that the Government are undermining and ignoring Parliament and taking power from the representatives of the people, which is why people may think it not worth voting. I would like politics to be made more relevant to people, both locally and nationally, and the importance of Parliament and county and other councils should be stressed. To answer the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), that is the way to rebuild confidence and to increase participation. Allowing people to vote at supermarket checkouts is not the way to increase participation and make Parliament and other elected Assemblies more relevant.
  7.43 pm
  Caroline Flint: I am rather saddened by the contribution of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), because we have heard plenty of examples of why people, through no fault of their own, do not vote. Although our system—compared with many others world wide—offers people many opportunities to vote, major obstacles still prevent them from taking up their democratic right. I agree with him that merely modernising the way we vote will not increase the turnout at elections. The way in which we all carry out and talk about our politics and communicate to our electors what we are doing as constituency Members of Parliament, as well as the way in which they represent their views and attempt to influence us, are all part and parcel of giving politics in this country a good name. We must encourage people to think that voting in elections is worth while.
  I was disappointed in the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who is unfortunately no longer in his seat, because he talked about delaying the progress of many of the radical ideas and modernising ways forward presented to us in the Bill. That is no surprise, because Conservative forces have not been at the forefront of

  217
  extending suffrage or the reform of our electoral system; they have been dragged to it by the prospect of turmoil in the country caused by the majority being disallowed to take part in a system that they were entitled to use. Conservative forces also have no credit to their name in respect of women being given the vote.
  On a more positive note, I welcome the cross-party collaboration on the working party, which was chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). I made a submission to it and have also written to Home Office Ministers on issues surrounding election campaigning and representation. Despite the Bill being somewhat technical, it holds a seed of a revolution in British political participation. As we prepare to enter the new century, it is apt that we are reviewing a system that has remained fundamentally unchanged for years and years. That review, along with consideration of the way in which we present politics and the plans for citizenship lessons in our schools, will go some way to increasing participation in elections.
  At present, the register disfranchises people through no fault of their own. I have to admit that this year is my 20th in the Labour party and I have been a campaigner all those years. [Interruption.] It is true.
  Mr. David Taylor: My hon. Friend must have joined the party when she was in playschool.
  Caroline Flint: If my hon. Friends want to make interventions they should stand up and do so; I should be happy to take them.
  Hon. Members, whatever political party they represent, will all have met constituents who had moved into their area but could not vote because they had missed the magic point at which the register was drawn up. Furthermore, how difficult do we make voting for people who were registered within a borough, constituency, ward or European boundary, but moved house in the period between registration and polling day? They have to go back to a polling station in the area in which they were living when they went on the register. Such things happen not because people do not want to vote—I hope that the hon. Member for Blaby is taking note of this—but because they are prevented from voting or obstacles are put in their way.
  According to Home Office studies, there are huge inaccuracies in our electoral registers, with up to 7 per cent. of names wrongly allocated to particular addresses, duplication of electors and registers being out of date before they are even in force. The provision of a rolling register is a very welcome innovation and I look forward to the day when a family can move into my constituency and register to vote as easily as it can sign up to pay council tax or set up direct debits to pay electricity, gas and water bills.
  On pensioners, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) gave a most poignant illustration—I send my condolences to her on the loss of her mother—and there could be no more vivid illustration of the situation. Many pensioners rightly say that they do not want a postal vote because they want to vote at the polling station. I understand that, but regardless of pensioners' desire to
  218
  vote in person, we are locked into a system that does not take account of circumstances—caused by infirmity, increasing age or sudden illness—that can prevent them from taking up that choice.
  We should give every pensioner two options on postal votes: they should all be sent a postal voting form that they could either send in or relinquish at the polling station. That would ensure that those who cannot rely on having good health from one year to the next could vote. It would be quite simple to put such a provision in place: those over a certain age could tick a box on the registration form and it would automatically come into force. There is no reason why that should not happen. I have met many pensioners who want to vote at the polling station, and if they were given those two options they would not feel that they had to make a concession to advancing age by having to apply for a postal vote. Considering any measure that would make the postal vote application system simpler—not only for pensioners, but for the many people who do shift work or take holidays at election time—would be very worth while indeed.
  I am particularly attracted to the opportunity provided by the Bill for establishing different pilot schemes for helping to increase participation in voting. It is right to establish such schemes because there is as yet no evidence to suggest that holding elections on Saturdays or Sundays or using different ways of voting will make a difference. That is why I am pleased that each of the pilot schemes will have to report back to the Secretary of State. Not only that, they will have to publish in their locality, so that the public have access to it, clear data and information on turnout, problems that came up and how any innovation was received by the general public.
  My submission to the working party proposed an extension of the polling period from one day to a week. I shall explain that in more detail. In each ward, the returning officer could designate a popular site that is accessible to the whole community in the week running up to polling day. It may be a supermarket, a post office or a library. On polling day itself, people would be able to vote in the normal polling stations in every district. That would enable people to vote in the traditional way on polling day at polling stations in their residential area, but would also give them the chance to vote during the rest of the week at their supermarket, library or wherever is easily accessible.
  It is extraordinary that it is easier for people to buy a weekly lottery ticket than to vote in an election. Technology offers a host of ideas that are worth considering. For example, people could vote electronically at the polling station, and when the polls close it would be easy to take the information from the electronic booths and get a result within a short time, instead of having countless council officers counting papers at the town hall.
  During my own count at the general election, we used a computer to ascertain the result to within a couple of votes at least four hours before the tellers did so, at 4.30 in the morning. It may be more cost effective to use such technology than it is to use tired people who have served at polling stations all day and go on to work at the count throughout the night.
  Mr. Grieve: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady in mid-flow, but I am concerned that she may move on to something else. She has made many interesting points, which will need to be investigated. The pilot schemes will be very important. She said that one of the merits of those schemes is that a report will have to be given to the Home Secretary, and I fully endorse that. As it is ultimately for the House to safeguard democratic rights in this country, does she think it a good thing for the Home Secretary to decide that a particular pilot scheme appeals to him and for it to be implemented by resolution of the House, without its being the subject of a Bill?
  Caroline Flint: The Committee will have to give that point further consideration. I am sure that there will be extensive discussion as the pilot schemes publish their reports. There will be plenty of opportunity inside and outside Parliament to discuss the relative merits of the schemes. We must make progress on these issues, and I hope that the Home Secretary will ensure that any directions he gives will be based on a proper evaluation of what has been shown to work in the pilot schemes.
  Low turnouts in elections are not just the fault of the system: political parties carry a large measure of responsibility. We must all take responsibility for the decline in interest in politics over the past 20 years. The political system must be open, transparent and confer genuine power on the public. To that end, I support discussion and technological innovation. My only proviso would be that we should ensure that the means of using new technology provides equality, so that the technology is available to a majority of people. We could make a case for the telephone, but only a small, though significant, number of people feel confident about using the internet and computers, even for games, and most homes do not have access to a computer. We should ensure that there is equality of access to the technology before we decide on a particular route.
  I should like the Minister to consider a case in my constituency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) gave a similar example. The count for the Rossington parish council in my constituency was held on the Friday after the local elections. I have no doubt that the candidates who attended were, like the local authority staff and the returning officer, a bit jaded after the previous late night. Unfortunately, a mistake was made in the result.
  There were 22 candidates seeking one of the 12 places available, and by a simple error a candidate was awarded the 12th place, which a Labour candidate, Barry Johnson, should have won by 11 votes. When the error came to light after the result was confirmed, the returning officer conceded the error. The other candidate could raise no argument, because it was a pure error and the count had been conducted properly. There was no question of the count being improper.
  Mr. Johnson, however, had to go through the whole palaver of drawing up a petition to the High Court, retaining solicitors, sending notices to all other candidates and coming to London for a costly High Court petition that was uncontested. He won the petition, and he is now duly serving on the Rossington parish council.
  We should examine how we can modify the law to allow returning officers to issue a correction to results within a fixed period in the event of an error. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider my request carefully and see whether it is possible to accommodate it in the Bill.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I want to avoid repeating some of the comments that have already been made. Broadly speaking, there is much to welcome in the Government's proposals. There is much we can do to improve the way in which voting is carried out in this country. I am all in favour of experiments and pilot schemes, and I welcome those aspects of the Bill.
  My reluctance to give the Bill approval on Second Reading stems from one issue alone, although I have other reservations. We are passing what is, in effect, a Henry VIII clause entitling the Home Secretary, after having considered the results of the pilot schemes, to implement or make such changes as he sees fit subject to approval by the House on a short resolution. I have had occasion in the past to express my deepest reservations about the use of Henry VIII clauses in such circumstances. Whether it is the Human Rights Act 1998, which the Minister knows I broadly supported, or legislation such as this, it is uniquely a matter for Parliament to determine what method it thinks is best. If that takes a little of Parliament's time, it does not matter.
  Doubtless the pilot schemes, if they are successful, will present a wide variety of possibilities and choices. Listening to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), I was immediately struck by the fact that she was coming up with ideas that may not be floated through the pilot schemes. [Interruption.] I detect that the hon. Lady wants me to give way, and I am happy to do so.
  Caroline Flint: No.
  Mr. Grieve: I apologise; I thought for one moment that the hon. Lady wanted me to give way.
  The House should be able to consider the options, table amendments and discuss the matter in Committee in the ordinary way. My reluctance to support this measure is not because I think that it is ill-intended; I think that it is well-intended—however, I shall not give my support to a measure that will make potentially major changes to our system of elections after only a three-hour debate in the House. I am sorry, but I am just not willing to do that. I hope that the Government will reconsider. I dare say that the Committee stage will be taken upstairs: I am not sure whether the Bill will be treated as a constitutional measure. If I have the opportunity to intervene in Committee, it will be to make the point that the Henry VIII clause is a bad part of the Bill.
  Now that I have got that off my chest, there are a number of details—
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: For the sake of clarification, as the question has been raised by a number of Members, I can confirm that we intend the Committee stage to take place on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Grieve: I am obliged to the Minister. I also apologise for having had to leave the Chamber for about an hour, possibly when that was being explained, to attend a meeting of the Church and nation committee of the Church of Scotland.
  I am concerned about one or two matters, although I hope for reassurance. Clause 13 deals with persons with disabilities. I am all in favour of giving such people the opportunity to vote, and I would certainly be worried if

  221
  someone who had decided that he wished to vote was prevented from doing so because of his physical disabilities. I welcome clause 13 for that reason, and hope that it will work in the way in which it is intended to work.
  However, I must express a slight worry, born of an event that I witnessed with my own eyes when I fought a Lambeth seat in 1987. A substantial number of persons with quite severe physical, but also learning, disabilities—about a dozen—were brought to the polling station by their carers, who wished to persuade the returning officer that they had expressed an intention on how they wished to vote, and that he should record their vote accordingly. It was apparent to me, a spectator standing beside them, that they had formed no view whatever about the election, that they might well be ignorant of the fact that a vote was taking place at all, and that they were probably incapable of making up their minds about how to vote.
  I trust that the measure, as drafted, will be accompanied by regulatory procedures or guidelines sufficient to enable the necessary distinctions to be made by the officer dealing with the polling station involved. I considered what I saw on that occasion to be scandalous: it was simply a piece of exploitation. It was said earlier—by, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)—that such practices were not unknown in old people's homes and nursing homes.
  These may be matters of detail, and of course there is always a balance to be struck. We must ensure that people are not wrongly denied the opportunity to vote, although there may be a risk that people will cast votes when they had no intention or desire to do so. However, the issue merits consideration; otherwise, we risk bringing the system of election into disrepute. As I have said, I was shocked by what I saw on the occasion to which I have referred. It was a travesty of what an election should be about.
  I was slightly surprised that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) should raise the issue—which, I accept, does not feature in the Bill—of the length of time for which someone might be out of the country before being deprived of the right to vote. I was staggered by what I heard. This country has always prided itself on the fact that, unlike other countries, it does not apply rules that deprive people of the right to British citizenship because they happen to be citizens of another state. I have always considered that to be rather important.
  My late mother regularly voted in both French and United Kingdom elections because she had dual nationality, and at one time had residence in both countries at the same time. It never struck me that the one was incompatible with the other, and I am sure that the Minister will feel able to agree with that principle. We know that many citizens of the Irish Republic effectively exercise citizenship rights in both countries with no difficulty, and, indeed, without formal dual nationality.
  I hope that the Government will put all such thoughts aside when considering the appropriate length of time for which a person should be allowed the vote. It has been suggested that 20 years is too long for someone who has previously been resident. I am prepared to consider a shortening of that period, but, if the issue is to be raised in the future, we should bear in mind that increasingly, in
  222
  the mobile society in which we live and given its international dimension, individuals leave the country for long periods, but continue to take an active interest in its affairs and have a desire to return. There is no evidence that the system has been abused. It has been suggested that, because few people take up the opportunity, it is worthless, but the number who take up the opportunity may reflect the number who feel sufficiently concerned to do so. That is no reason for us to deprive people of that opportunity if they have a contribution to make.
  Clause 6 deals with:
  "Notional residence: declarations of local connection".
  I welcome any measure that extends the franchise to those who are clearly eligible to vote in this country, but may not be able to exercise their right. I am all in favour of homeless people being able to have a point of contact enabling them to exercise a specific right to which they are plainly entitled. That causes me no concern, and I shall be happy to help to devise any system to facilitate it.
  I share the fear of some of my hon. Friends—a fear that may be shared by Members on both sides of the House—that personation of voters and abuse of the system are taking place. We have little idea of the extent to which that occurs, but most of us have ample anecdotal evidence that the registering of people who are likely to occupy very temporary addresses has been exploited in order to lay hands on voting cards so that other people can, effectively, vote without their consent. The Home Secretary said that such action was a serious criminal offence, and I wholly accept that, but I venture to suggest that this is one of the criminal offences for which the offender stands a limited chance of being caught, unless he is unlucky enough to be recognised at the polling station as someone who has voted before, or as someone known not to be the person whose voting card he is handing in.
  Having made those preliminary comments, I hope to participate actively in later discussion on the Floor of the House. I am grateful to the Government for saying that the Committee stage will be taken on the Floor. I am sorry that I cannot support the Bill tonight. In many respects, I should have liked to do so, but I return to my original criticism: it is bad practice simply to say that pilot schemes can be turned into a complete change in our electoral roll system as a result of rubber stamping by the House after a short debate. That is not what I understand parliamentary democracy to be about, and it is certainly not what my electors would wish me to vote for.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. David Drew: I was feeling upbeat because I thought this Bill to be, in many respects, not very controversial, but rather one that could genuinely improve representation. I am a little less happy after listening to the speeches of Opposition Members, who have made rather a meal of a number of the clauses and issues involved. I understand their right to oppose and to draw various conclusions from some of the changes that are being introduced, but I am not sure whether this is the right time to do some of the things that they have been doing. It would have been much more appropriate to allow the Bill to go through Second Reading and then to raise detailed objections and make significant improvements in Committee.

  223
  The Bill is the first stage of looking for improvements. It is likely to be followed by the political parties funding Bill later in the Session. The two together mean that the Government have put their foot firmly in the water to improve this country's electoral processes. They come on the back of what I see as a major series of constitutional changes. The Government are certainly reforming when it comes to the constitution. We have to look only at their policies on devolution, the House of Lords, modernising local government—which is partly referred to in the Bill, but will come in train later—and modernising the House of Commons.
  As a member of the Modernisation Committee—a quick plug there—I was pleased to see the start of the Westminster Hall experiment today. It showed the best of Parliament, as the reform slipped in seamlessly and was welcomed by all sides, including those who, perhaps, had some doubts whether it was the right way to go. In view of today's turnout and the quality of debate, we can feel proud—it is an opportunity whose time has come and we should make the most of it.
  The Bill contains four key principles, which are important in their own right. First, it provides another stage in the development of the modernisation agenda; secondly, it is about increasing participation; thirdly, it is about fairness and justice; and last but not least it is about, I hope, getting better representation, if not better representatives.
  I tread gently here because the Jenkins report is not mentioned in any way in the Bill, even though it examines the electoral system. Indeed, the report is yet to be voted on. As someone who tends to favour electoral reform, I think that we cannot just pass over the report—the debate will have to happen. Perhaps the Bill will lead us towards that debate, although it will not happen quite yet.
  We need to look at how the key principles that I have identified take us forward. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a good defence when he was accused of not consulting widely on the matter. It was unfair and unrealistic for the Opposition to make such an accusation. My right hon. Friend listed a number of ways in which he had gone out of his way to consult, either directly through Government action, or, more particularly, by making representations to the Home Affairs Committee. The way in which the Government responded was laudable and interesting.
  I shall concentrate on two issues that have not been widely covered in the debate so far—there is no point in going over old ground. The first is the impact on local government. Again, that is part and parcel of the agenda to modernise local government. I should like the measure to kick start some of the other changes that local government should be encouraged to introduce. The Green Paper "Modernising local government: local democracy and community leadership" showed only too clearly how the turnout in local government elections has declined, the repercussions of that decline and why we need, if nothing else, to refurbish our local government system, so that people genuinely get back to participating in that form of government. It is worth while aiming towards that, even if we also want to look at the wider parliamentary stage.
  224
  I am not sure whether my intervention on the Home Secretary came at the right time because he did not quite answer it, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary could refer to it when he replies to the debate. It dealt with the link to citizenship in general. I made the point about the importance—although perhaps it has not had as much debate as it could have—of the Crick report on education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy.
  Let no one misunderstand that the changes will be embedded for some considerable time. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) went through some of the history of reform; I could do so, too. Reform tends to come in 100-year bites, or not much less than that. What we do today will be in place for a considerable time. Some of us would like much more rapid change and more radical opportunities, but what we do will stay in place for some time. Therefore, today we are legislating for the next generation and possibly the generation after that.
  Those generations will be interested in having different access. They will be the children of the internet; we cannot fool ourselves and think that they will be anything else. They will have grown up in the electronic world, yet we may try to foist on them old-fashioned methods. At the very least, we should listen to what young people have to say. They are not put off by politics. They are only too aware of and interested in green issues, for example, let alone world debt and so on. Unfortunately, when I go to schools they tell me that they find the political system somewhat difficult to take. They do not understand all its implications and do not find it very accessible. We should do all we can to make it more accessible to them. It should not be our only or main consideration, but it should be a consideration.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one way to increase voter participation is to introduce teaching about government and politics in schools—not at 16 for A-levels, but at the age of 11?
  Mr. Drew: I could not agree more. One of the things that I banged on about before coming to this place was the sad decline in citizenship education. The last Conservative Government did not help—they had a policy of discouraging, in all sorts of ways, the politicisation of the curriculum, as some people saw it. As always with such things, it can be done badly, but if it is done well, it can yield many benefits.
  I am saddened that a Bill which, in the main, hon. Members agree to across the Chamber has not achieved the consensus that it should have done. I want to examine some of its detail. I was out of the Chamber for a short time to attend an unavoidable meeting, but otherwise I have not heard any hon. Member say that he or she is opposed in principle to the idea of a rolling register. All hon. Members could quote examples of people who have claimed to have been disfranchised through no fault of their own. For example, Mr. and Mrs. Henschel of Whitminster moved in before the local election, prior to the general election. They were staggered that, although they moved in well in time for that election, they could not get on to the register. The simple fact is that we have

  225
  utterly failed to keep up to date with the technology that permits us to maximise people's participation in the electoral system.
  Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many Conservative Members accept great chunks of the Bill, but have reservations about the sweeping powers that the Home Secretary would have after the pilots to introduce the systems wholesale over the country, with just an affirmative resolution of the House?
  Mr. Drew: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Many of those issues could be considered in Committee, where there would be considerable consensus. We are having a debate on the principle of the Bill. The Opposition, for reasons best known to themselves, are opposing it in principle, which I find somewhat strange and difficult to understand.
  I shall refer briefly to some of the other issues. I am aware that other hon. Members are waiting to speak and I do not want to take up their time. We have argued effectively about the need to bring in groups who have been disfranchised through no fault of their own, including the homeless and temporary residents of mental institutions—they are often there voluntarily, which makes it unfair to exclude them. It will still be possible to prevent some people from voting, but those who have made a decision to go to such places should have the right to use their vote.
  I am particularly interested in the declaration of local connection. It sounds a bit new Labourish, but I think that I know what it means. We are trying to overcome the problem of someone having to have a residency to allow them to vote.
  It is a shame that the hon. Member for Blaby is not in his place. As a former service man, he said that he had found it easy to cast his vote. I have been on the armed forces parliamentary scheme during the past year and found it interesting to talk to service people. Many of them said that it was not easy to vote, largely because, for various reasons, they were doing back-to-back tours of duty. We have to be more flexible in how we allow people to register. Many service people have moved to Germany and have no particular residency in this country. We should make the maximum effort to allow them to register and vote in this country.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman put great emphasis on the fact that some patients in mental hospitals are there voluntarily. I welcome the fact that patients who have been sectioned under the Mental Health Acts will also have a right to vote. Does he agree that there is ample evidence that people get sectioned for all sorts of different reasons, which do not disqualify them from exercising a judgment on which party to support at a general election?
  Mr. Drew: I agree with that helpful intervention. I apologise if I had misconstrued the Bill. People should not be disfranchised just because they happen to be in a certain place.
  Many of the advantages of the Bill are for local government. Parliament is not excluded from the experimentation, but it is aimed principally at
  226
  reinvigorating local government. We shall then be able to judge whether the improvements yield the greater participation that we all want.
  Mr. David Heath: The hon. Gentleman and I both have experience in local government. People's interest in local government will be reinvigorated only if it has the power to change things that people care about. Only when we release the shackles from local councils and allow them to do the job that they are elected to do will people become interested in them again.
  Mr. Drew: There is a kernel of truth in what the hon. Gentleman says, but the Bill is also about allowing people access so that they can express their opinion on what their local councils are doing. We need to meet in the middle on that. Many of the proposals will be directly relevant to local government. The Bill is about reinvigorating local government and ensuring transparency in its operation and elections.
  The Jenkins commission is not directly related to the Bill, but there is a natural connection. We have to deal with the issue of electoral reform. I support the idea, but there are Members on both sides of the House who do not. We need to have that debate because it is important that people should have a choice about the electoral system for this place as well as for other bodies.
  The link with the electoral commission will be largely covered in the Bill on the regulation of the party funding system. Will it be possible to evaluate, review and perhaps educate through the commission, so that we can ensure that the changes are having the desired effect? We also need a process to enable us to tinker further to produce tangible improvements without having to resort to more primary legislation. Has any thought been given to the electoral commission and how the proposals may embed themselves within it?
  This is a good Bill that will produce significant improvements and be a stepping stone towards further measures. It is important that it should be passed. I had hoped that the whole House would adopt a consensual approach, but unfortunately that does not seem to be the case. Let us see in Committee how we can take matters forward to improve representation in this place and elsewhere.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Graham Brady: The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) criticised the Conservatives for failing to wave the Bill through and give it a fair wind even though we have some serious concerns about it. That was in tune with the comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who criticised Her Majesty's Opposition for breaching a consensus or refusing to allow one to be reached. In matters of electoral reform in particular, it is for the Government to bring forward innovation and change to ensure that their proposals enjoy consensus. The fact that we are stating our objections to the proposals cannot be held against us. Like other Conservative Members who have spoken, I endorse many parts of the Bill, but I also have serious concerns about it.
  We were drawn down a side alley, which may have been a preview of discussions that we shall have on another Bill in the near future. I want to respond to some

  227
  of the points made by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton). He was adamant that those who pay no tax should not be able to vote in this country. I am concerned about a large number of British people who habitually reside overseas—pensioners who may have paid tax over their working lives. In that sense, they have contributed financially. Many have contributed in other ways, such as by fighting for this country. They may live overseas for part of the year, or for the whole year. Those people should not be disqualified from voting in elections in a country about which they care so deeply. That is especially true when many of them draw pensions from this country, and they have a right to express views on the way in which their pensions are treated.
  We have been reminded recently—not least by some unfortunate behaviour in the Gallery a few days ago—that pensioners feel strongly about the principle of what they have contributed during their working lives while they have been paying taxes, and they have feelings and beliefs about what they deserve in return. They believe that they should be able to represent those views through the democratic process. That is no less so if they happen to be resident in another country—perhaps another European country.
  This a typical new Labour Bill, as it spectacularly misses the point. The Bill seeks to address the question of low turnouts without recognising—as the Home Secretary appeared to do in one or two earlier observations—that the key cause of low turnouts is low interest in the political process; in some instances, lack of interest. It is not because it is too hard to vote or—as the Prime Minister appears to believe when he sees low turnouts in by-elections in constituencies held by his own party—because people are universally happy with everything that is going on in the country and with the Government's performance.
  It is not because there are insufficient numbers of elections or opportunities for them to cast their votes. One outcome of the Government's actions—which will result inevitably in lower turnouts—is that people are becoming sick of the number of times that they are being asked to go out and vote. They are asked to vote for representative assemblies which have little power and which cannot take independent action. They are asked to vote for new bodies which many people did not want in the first place. In the near future, the people of London will be asked to vote for a London mayor, a post that was not wanted by the majority of people in the first place.
  The piling on of new layers of government or—as Labour Members might say—of new opportunities to participate in the electoral process, is not what people really want. People want to be able to register a vote—or perhaps two or three—that will really matter and will return people to institutions with some power to affect their lives. The Government's behaviour in increasing the numbers of elections will not achieve higher participation—quite the reverse.
  The experiment in the European elections—with which the hon. Member for Stroud may have agreed, but about which I had grave reservations—provided absolute proof that, by making the electoral system more complex and by breaking the link between a single representative and the elector, the Government achieved a new low in turnouts in the national elections of just over 23 per cent.
  228
  It increased confusion among the electorate and massively decreased the interest that the electorate had in that part of the process.
  The Government have missed the point, and some points of detail are traps in the Bill. The possibility of weekend voting—which may be prejudicial against certain minorities—leads the Home Secretary to give an assurance that, if there is weekend voting, it must be on a Saturday and a Sunday. I welcome that, but if we are to depart from the principle of elections being confined to a single day, it is vital that we have sensible controls on the way in which polling can be conducted during the process. The prospect of a running commentary on the outcome of an election, which could influence the turnout and voting behaviour during an election over two or more days, would be a matter of concern.
  The introduction of new voting technology and techniques risks increased confusion—particularly for the elderly, but not exclusively so. Again, if confusion is increased by perhaps unnecessary changes, there is a danger that we will turn people off the whole process and discourage participation.
  Electronic vote counting or the electronic registration of votes is seen by some hon. Members as a great way forward to the 21st century, and they believe that it will increase security and prevent electoral fraud. There may be other advantages. However, all hon. Members will have stood in a church hall or a leisure centre when a vote is being counted, and they and their counting agents will have scrutinised what is there on paper. Electronic voting may appear to be much more efficient, to accelerate the counting of votes and to be a great technological and electoral advance, but what happens if the votes that have been cast cannot be verified? What final guarantee is there if there is no tangible evidence of how people have cast their votes?
  We all know that scrutiny of votes is not scientific because one cannot be certain of what has happened, but it provides some check and the ability to ascertain where the cross was placed by a particular voter on a particular ballot paper. If we adopt electronic voting, that will not be possible. Computers might be able to generate lists of people on electoral rolls who have voted in a particular way, but it will be difficult to verify that that is how people intended to cast their votes. It might be a computer error, a programming error, or even a deliberate attempt to change the outcome of an election.
  We have discussed the development of an edited register of electors. What is there to prevent bogus or single-issue political groups from obtaining a register for political reasons and abusing it? Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby raised the issue of the security of people on the register who may be targets for terrorists or other groups.
  What is the logic in allowing declarations of local connections that would allow homeless people to register to vote but not allowing someone who might be at risk from terrorist attack to register only a local connection instead of an address on the electoral register? I listened with interest to the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on that issue, and I have sympathy with them, not least because of his recent experiences. In some instances, the threat to an individual may be so extreme that there may be a better way to proceed.

  229
  The declaration of local connections might also lead to abuse, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) suggested. There is a possibility that people might be able to claim a local connection to several places, especially if they are sleeping rough in a city or town centre, and that they might claim a connection to a place with a particular electoral balance. There is room for abuse, although that is not necessarily a reason not to pursue the reform. We must consider the issue very carefully.
  Mr. Drew: That point has been made several times before, but I struggle to understand why people in such circumstances would want to make multiple registrations.
  Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman may have a point. He may also have put his finger on a broader point that people who are sleeping rough have often opted out of community life and may therefore not have the slightest interest in voting for him, or for me or for any other hon. Member. People may indeed choose to abstain or to fail to register, and those are legitimate options.
  Mr. Evans: The Bill makes no mention of by-elections, but people might flood into an area to register after an hon. Member dies, so that they can have a vote in the subsequent by-election.
  Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend is right, and he raises the spectre of people who are not genuinely homeless or without a permanent address behaving in that way because they are politically motivated. I do not suggest that that is a likely scenario, but we must legislate with a view to the possibilities that could arise.
  I come back to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), which shows why there is a principled objection to the Bill. It does not present a schedule of changes that the House is being asked to accept. Instead, it will enable the Home Secretary to experiment with various pilot schemes in different parts of the country, which could have various outcomes. I do not suggest that the Home Secretary would engage in gerrymandering, but if, in future, an unprincipled Home Secretary wished to achieve party political advantage, the Bill would enable him or her to take an a la carte view of the electoral law. The Bill provides a Home Secretary with the opportunity to try any number of different electoral arrangements. It is a question not of the Home Secretary or the House then accepting or rejecting them, but of the Home Secretary's opportunity to pick and choose between different options. That could be done without primary legislation, with relatively little opportunity for House of Commons scrutiny. This measure could be used to affect the political process in the future.
  We must look at the turnouts in general elections, European elections and local elections and at the stories that lie behind those figures. Again, I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby and, to do the Home Secretary justice, I think that he gave a nod in this direction at the beginning of his speech. People vote—or not—because they have a pretty good idea of what voting in a particular election will mean and how much difference it will make to their lives. In 1979, 32.7 per cent. of people voted in the European elections. That figure rose
  230
  dramatically to a high of 33 per cent. in 1984, before plunging to a low of 23.3 per cent. in this year's elections. That shows clearly how important the European Parliament is to people.
  I accept that the Conservative party shares with the Government a considerable amount of blame for the fact that the diminution of the rights and responsibilities of local government has had an effect in that 40 per cent. of people—the number is frequently far less—vote in local elections. Again, the public are wondering how important such elections are to them, and what effect the results will have on their lives. For some people, the effect can be significant, but often, they think that voting is not worth the effort.
  The turnout in general elections is proof of that. On the whole, people still believe that the House of Commons can make a difference to their lives. There has never been a turnout of less than 70 per cent. since 1970 and, while the turnout was as high as 78.8 per cent. in the first of the 1974 elections, it was as low as 71.5 per cent. in 1997. Again, I suggest that the Government have drawn the wrong conclusion from those figures. The reduced turnout was not because it was more difficult to vote, because participation in the electoral process was less attractive, or because it was harder to register on the electoral roll. It is an indictment of all political parties that people did not believe that how they voted would make much difference to their lives.
  The result was not a ringing endorsement for the Labour party, which, historically, did not achieve a very high vote in 1997, nor was it a ringing endorsement of the Conservative party. There was clearly a desire to end a long period of Conservative Government, but no great desire for a Labour Government. People were not persuaded that voting would make a great deal of difference to their lives. That is why so few people voted and why the 1997 general election had the lowest turnout since at least 1970.
  The myth is that the Government are greatly loved, that people were so confident that the Government would get elected that they did not bother to vote and that they were so ecstatically happy with the Government's election that they gave up voting. I do not think that that hangs together.
  However, two items cropped up in my postbag this week that ought to give the House pause for thought. They illustrate what is going wrong, why people are disaffected with the political process and why they do not participate in elections. They also give a clue about what remedy would really make a difference, as opposed to Government proposals to set up polling booths in supermarkets or prisons.
  A constituent wrote to tell me about a neighbour, a 10-year-old boy, who felt strongly about a local planning issue. I shall not name him, as I have not spoken to the constituent about the possibility that I would raise the matter. However, the boy was concerned that a historic local building would be pulled down and replaced with a large number of flats, which would increase traffic congestion and damage the environment.
  The letter from my constituent said that the boy attended a meeting on the matter, after which he spent several hours writing to local and national politicians, including the Deputy Prime Minister. The letter stated:
  "The reply he received was not from your office but from the Government Office for the North West in Manchester who stated that it had been passed to them. This reply was a standard letter, identical to those sent out to local residents who had written on this

  231
  subject. The wording and tone of the letter was totally inappropriate to and completely dismissive of this ten year old boy. He was very disappointed. When he moves to secondary school next year and is taught Citizenship, the Local Democratic Process, Parliament and its workings etc,. in his PSE lesson I can imagine that he will be somewhat questioning of the information that he is given."
  The letter went on to say that the boy's
  "faith in the democratic process must have been dented both by the experience locally and the response to his letters. In eight years time he will be eligible to vote and these experiences are hardly going to encourage him to do this, whether in local or national elections."
  That is what happened when a boy of 10 raised real concerns about a matter of direct concern in his locality. He received a brush-off and a standard letter. He did not even get a direct reply from the Deputy Prime Minister's office. That is a cause for concern, as such a response will lead to disaffection and cause people to think that it is not worth voting when they are of an age to do so.
  A second example involves letters from constituents worried about live exports of sheep. This week, I received a response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It pointed out that, regardless of the Government's views on the matter, it was not possible to legislate to ban such exports, as to do so would be contrary to EU law.
  Constituents write to their Members of Parliament in the expectation that some action will be taken. When they write to me they want to discover my views and the Government's views on the matter at hand. Letters, such as the one about sheep exports that I have described, which say that the Government, the House of Commons and Members of Parliament are unable to do anything about a problem because they are no longer entitled to a view on it must be a cause of dissatisfaction, disinterest and alienation in the political process.
  The Government should focus on what people really think about their politicians and the process of government. Can people, through the democratic process, any longer affect what happens to them? That is more important than voting in supermarkets or the rather flippant matters with which the Bill is largely concerned. It sets out few concrete changes, but it gives the Home Secretary an enormous new power to pick and choose changes in the electoral process—changes that may or may not suit one political party or another, but that will do nothing to restore faith in our democratic process.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I thank the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for two comments that he made about my contributions to the debate on this subject, especially those on the rolling register. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), who serves on the Select Committee on Home Affairs and who is no longer present in the Chamber, also referred to my contributions, while my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that there might have been no Bill if it had not been for some of my work in the past, which might be going a bit over the top. Those comments place a great burden on me now—this speech had better be good, or I will come in for considerable criticism.
  232
  I became interested in electoral registration in 1987-88 when I served on the Standing Committee that considered the poll tax Bill—the Local Government Finance Act 1988. It was clear that that legislation would help to destroy electoral registration. I was dubious about whether that was in order, given the standing of the constitutional legislation on electoral registers that it was seeking to destroy.
  The 1988 Act certainly destroyed electoral registration in many areas, especially among attainers—people who would then never appear on any register. Soon after that, I discovered that electoral registers were hit by many other factors. We have a rootless, mobile society, and there is much political alienation, to which many hon. Members have referred. Registration levels are poor in bed-sitter land, among black communities, among young people and the mobile of all classes—those who get on their bikes to look for jobs and those who can travel in more comfort while doing so—and in inner cities.
  There is probably a 10 per cent. shortfall in electoral registration; furthermore, the shortfall is subject to serious maldistribution, so constituency boundaries are distorted. Those matters should concern us a great deal.
  I am conscious of the time and that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will concentrate on the rolling register, as hon. Members have stressed my interest in that subject, and express my views on the proposal that is before us. Certainly, such a register is the main technique for tackling under-registration. It is welcome that people can, within a reasonable time, transfer their registration as they move to a new area. However, I do not know whether that represents the full version of the rolling register and whether it will roll as quickly and as fully as I would like.
  People who move can certainly transfer their registration, but the current register does not have the benefits of the whiz-bang, computerised, e-mail, e-commerce, technologically advanced methods that some people have said will need to be tried. Certainly, we can look at some of those ideas, but they should basically be applied to the rolling register. Once a person moves, the transfer of registration should take place almost automatically. People should be removed from the old register and transferred to the register in the new area.
  We have had monthly lists for a while and when people move to a new area they can get on that. However, they have to register 15 days before the end of the month when the register is published to get on to it. Furthermore, once an election is announced—or once the nominations are in—no new lists will be announced. There is a bit of a blockage to inclusion on the rolling register; depending on when people move, it can be between six and 10 weeks before they are registered. If a system of rolling registration could be used under the evils of the poll tax, I do not see why we cannot have a full and continuous rolling register for electoral registration, which is vastly more important for a democratic system.
  If such a register rolled continuously until nominations were made, there would be no need for double registration. Several Members have referred to the difficulties and problems of double registration, but it could be ruled out if people registered at their sole or main place of residence—or, for homeless people, their sole or main location. People could move rapidly from one area to another; for example, university students could be registered at their university constituency while at

  233
  college, and back at their home constituency during their long summer break. It should not be beyond the technology to achieve that. We have heard what technology can do to produce fancy voting arrangements, such as weekend provision and access for many people—like the current access to the lottery system. If such techniques are possible, they should be used for the rolling register.
  Under the Bill, electoral returning officers are permitted access to local and public authority information in order to assist them for registration purposes. I should prefer a stronger measure whereby it would be compulsory for the officers to use such information—or strong pressure would be put on them to do so. Other forms of information could also be included to improve the register. Those ideas were contained in measures that I proposed in 1993, 1994 and 1995. Technically, civil servants and others would be better placed to produce those measures in order to iron out the difficulties.
  We should consider the principle of a high-tech, rolling register that represents real modernisation—rather than merely the best that we can do at the moment; otherwise, we shall have only a veneer of modernity instead of an updated register. I welcome the Bill's proposals for the register, but hope that considerable improvements will be made in Committee, so that my vision of a rolling register can be realised.
  I very much welcome the provisions for the registration of homeless people; I have introduced private Member's Bills on that subject. Some people may want checks to deal with some of the worries that have been mentioned. However, a declaration of location so that people can register to vote will enable us to get away from the system under which people can register only when they have a residence and which homeless people find it extremely difficult to get round. The system blocks them and the provisions on their registration are to be welcomed.
  The measures to extend registration for people on remand and for mental patients who are not detained are also welcome. There are important provisions on access for the blind and the partially blind, but that is all that there is. Another—greater—possibility would be to extend measures for access for disabled people. The Bill may make it easier for disabled people to register, but they want the same right as able-bodied people to exercise their franchise at the ballot box if they want to do so. They thus need access to polling stations. Scope and others have produced evidence in that connection, and we should take notice.
  There were provisions in that connection in the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill, which dealt with rolling registers, and I included a clause on the subject in my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. The Government might feel that the matter could be dealt with in other ways. For example, legislation might be contemplated to extend civil rights for disabled people, in which case such a provision might be included. Legislation on the electoral commission may make that much more feasible. However, I hope that we may tease things out to ensure that advances are made for the disabled.
  It is an achievement to have the measure before us. It creates the possibility of making the improvement that I have described. I am pleased that the measure will be
  234
  debated by a Committee of the entire House, as is only correct and constitutional. Although it might be a bit high-flown to rank the measure with the great reform Acts of 1832, 1867, 1884 and so on, it is nevertheless about electoral registration and tidies up the process.
  It was believed that universal franchise had finally been delivered by legislation passed in 1918 and 1928. In 1928, when women finally got the vote on the same basis as men, based upon residence, that seemed to be it, and to some extent it was; but society has changed. We have become much more mobile, and some aspects of the current system have provoked disillusion. Therefore we must devote attention to them.
  The Bill is therefore very important, and it is important that we have full discussions on the Floor of the House to ensure that what is basically the right approach is followed properly. The subject is of vast importance, and we should act as the heirs of the legacy of the chartists and the suffragettes by ensuring that we offer a full franchise.
  9.2 pm
  Dr. Julian Lewis: It is a great pleasure to follow the excellent speech of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), and especially to acknowledge his kindness and consideration in cutting short his remarks on a subject that is, evidently, very close to his heart in order to give other hon. Members a chance to speak. I shall try to follow his example.
  In speaking now—unexpectedly, following a constructive and welcome meeting earlier today with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien)—I am appealing to the House for cross-party support to help close a loophole in the Representation of the People Act 1983. That loophole is not yet addressed in the Bill, but I have some reason to hope that, if an amendment is moved in Committee, it may not be met with an entirely unsympathetic response from the Government. It relates to section 106(1) of the 1983 Act, which is concerned with the telling of lies about the character or conduct of candidates in elections by people intending to damage their prospects of being returned to Parliament.
  I wish to use as an illustration my own experience, which led to a court case that exposed that loophole in the law in the age of the internet. I have previously, on 18 March 1998, mentioned in the House the problem caused by the publication of a scurrilous magazine called Scallywag, which specialised in telling lies about the private lives of public figures. It first became notorious in 1993, when it falsely alleged that the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), was conducting an adulterous affair with his caterer. A couple of years later, it announced that on a certain date Buckingham palace would be making a formal declaration that a senior member of the royal family was dying from the AIDS virus. Needless to say, that declaration was never made.
  Eventually, in late 1994, the magazine turned its attention to me, and the nub of its accusations was that I was a secret promiscuous homosexual who frequented "male dens of iniquity" and that my girl friend was really a tart, hired from an escort agency to accompany me to constituency selection contests.
  Recent events show the lethality of such accusations. Because the author and publishers were destitute, I could not sue them without running up irrecoverable costs.

  235
  However, I managed to uncover the secret network of printers and distributors, and I sued them instead. I gained £39,500 in damages and about £70,000 in costs. The accusations were then transferred to the internet, but, foolishly, to a British-based internet company, Demon, whereupon I sued it and gained several thousand pounds in damages and costs from it as well. However, I still could not go after the actual perpetrator because he was financially destitute. If I had, I would have run up irrecoverable costs, which I would have had to meet when he declared himself bankrupt once again, having been a bankrupt as recently as 1991.
  The Representation of the People Act 1983 is relevant, because section 106 makes it a criminal offence to tell lies about the character or conduct of a candidate with a view to affecting his return to Parliament. I was able to confront the editor of the internet site at a public meeting to get him to admit that he was making these statements about my character and conduct to damage my vote, and I then reported him to the police under the terms of section 106.
  That led to a trial in December 1998 in a magistrates court. After three days of cross-examination of myself, and a series of smears and lies put forward on behalf of the person on trial by Mr. Paul Bogan, his barrister, Mr. Bogan admitted on the last day of the trial:
  "I accept that there is no evidence of a direct nature that Dr. Lewis was homosexual."
  In fact, Mr. Bogan produced no shred of evidence of any sort, nor was a single witness produced.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I would be grateful if the hon. Member could help me by demonstrating how his remarks are related to the Bill before us.
  Dr. Lewis: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was encouraged by the meeting that I had with the Minister this morning and I was told that it would be germane to talk about this case with a view to tabling an amendment in Committee to close the loophole that I am about to explain. I have almost finished my remarks on the illustration, and, if you bear with me a few moments longer, you will see that it is entirely germane.
  In the December trial, this gentleman was convicted on seven criminal counts. However, on appeal in the Crown court in June this year, those convictions were quashed. They were quashed because the material had been uploaded on to the internet before the opening of the election campaign, and thus while I was a prospective parliamentary candidate, not an adopted parliamentary candidate. The Press Association law reporter quoted the judgment as follows:
  "the judge said: 'Failure of the defendant to act to shut down the internet site cannot be properly described as publication in the context of this Act.'
  He went on"—
  here is the direct relevance of the case, Mr. Deputy Speaker—.
  "'We are aware that our decision means that there is a situation which is unsatisfactory if Section 106 (of the Act) is to continue to be effective legislation.
  We are not entitled to remedy any defect the wording of the section may have in light of more modem conditions."'
  Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point in the context
  236
  of this Bill and much other legislation. Will he explain why, given the logic that he is pursuing, he thought it appropriate to vote last night against the Electronic Communications Bill, which contains provisions that will help to address some of the points that he has raised?
  Dr. Lewis: I was not aware that that Bill contained such provisions—I wish to be entirely honest with the hon. Gentleman. Had I been aware of them, I would have reconsidered the matter.
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend's memory, which is normally very good, has failed on this occasion. He did not vote against the Bill; he abstained.
  Dr. Lewis: Much as I appreciate my hon. Friend's attempt to assist me, I am aware of the passage of time and the importance of letting other Members speak, and we are moving into arcane considerations in which I have no wish to indulge.
  The judgment made it clear that section 106 of the 1983 Act is deficient. As a result of the creation of the internet, people can upload lies about a candidate in an election, but, provided that they do so prior to the start of the election campaign, failure to shut down the website in question is not enough to establish that publication occurred during the election campaign itself, and thus to establish guilt under section 106.
  I understand from the Minister that he has experienced something slightly similar to my case, although the allegations against him were of a different nature. Our cases show that section 106 of the 1983 Act is now worthless in respect of protecting candidates for election against deliberate lies told about their personal lives and character with the intention of damaging their chances of returning to Parliament.
  I therefore hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in seeking to support an amendment that I propose to table in Committee to restore to candidates the protection against lying filth and the disgraceful attempts to pervert the political process which section 106 was originally intended to prevent. Now that we are in the age of the internet, I am sure that such protection will be of value to all candidates of all parties in all future parliamentary elections.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Neil Turner: I am aware of the time constraints, so I shall limit my comments to two or, if time allows, three items. Most of the points that I would want to make have been made much more eloquently by previous speakers.
  My first point relates to clause 13, which deals with people with disabilities. Obviously, I welcome any measure that will ensure that disabled people have the right to vote and are more easily able to vote than at the moment. However, the Bill makes the process an awful lot more bureaucratic than is necessary, and I hope that we will consider that clause in Committee and try to remove some of the bureaucracy.
  Most of us who want to vote can go to the polling station, give our name and address or hand in our polling card, get our ballot paper and cast our vote. Surely we should seek the same provision for disabled people, with the addition only of provision for a helper. We should be

  237
  able to do without the bureaucratic nonsense of requiring disabled people to identify that helper and have his or her name recorded.
  My second point concerns voter apathy and fatigue, which has been mentioned by other hon. Members but which is not dealt with in the Bill. It may not be appropriate for it to be covered, and I look to the Minister to say whether or not that is the case. It seems a shame that we might miss the opportunity to try to overcome the voter apathy and fatigue that occur when there are several elections in quick succession.
  In the elections in June this year, one reason people gave us for not voting was that they had just voted in May and were being asked to do so again soon afterwards. We should take this opportunity to give the Home Secretary the right in future years to hold two elections on the same day. Surely that would overcome much of the apathy and fatigue and increase the turnout.
  Wigan, unfortunately, has a record of low turnout. In May, the local council carried out a survey among voters. We gave those who were carrying out the survey the marked register, so that they knew who had voted and who had not, and they carried out face-to-face interviews on that basis. We got a far more accurate reflection of people's views in that way.
  One of the questions asked was how voting turnout could be improved. It is interesting to note that the three main suggestions were not measures that Parliament or local councils could put into effect, but steps that political parties and candidates could take. They included issues such as doorstep canvassing and greater information about candidates. Of the measures suggested which the Bill addresses, the first was postal voting, so I welcome the introduction of postal votes being granted on demand.
  The second suggestion was the introduction of electronic voting, both from home and from other sites such as libraries. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will take account of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward). Perhaps the organisations that operate the means of electronic voting might be persuaded to cover the cost of pilot schemes. If they do not volunteer to do so, I hope that my right hon. Friend will provide funding to enable the experiments to be carried out. It strikes me that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made a good case for maximising the use of such schemes.
  I welcome the Bill, and I look forward to tabling amendments during the Committee stage to address the concerns I have expressed.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I welcome the broad thrust of the legislation. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I believe that the Bill might well be a wolf in sheep's clothing. Like so many other new Labour Bills, it is a blank cheque, with much detail left out and many powers left in to enable the Home Secretary to make changes through secondary legislation. That is dangerous, not only for the parties concerned but for democracy in this country.
  238
  Nevertheless, the debate has highlighted some interesting issues. With his characteristic enthusiasm for high technology, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) spoke of the use of the internet. That might well prove to be an effective means of preventing multiple declarations. Like all of us, the Home Secretary wants people to be able to get on the register far more easily than they currently can. That is especially important in the light of increased mobility of labour and of households, with 10 per cent. of the population moving each year.
  As I pointed out, if that mobility means that there might be a need for as many as 4 million changes to the electoral register each year, the register must be accurate. So my first point, which is meant to be constructive, is that, despite what civil libertarians might say, it might be no bad thing to keep a central, national register. I suspect that that accords with the views of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes).
  There is a possibility that voting via the internet will be allowed. Given that it would be possible to vote from any site, not only within the UK, but anywhere in the world where there is internet access, steps would have to be taken to prevent personation. That can be achieved: if Amazon.com can ensure that no credit card fraud occurs in its book sales, I am sure that it is not beyond the Government's wit to prevent electoral personation. Certainly, voting off a national register could be arranged to ensure that a second vote could not be made.
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) mentioned the difficulties he has encountered with websites. I, too, would like to draw a problem to the Minister's attention. There is no provision in the Bill that would deal with it and the hon. Gentleman might like to think about it. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have websites, which might use "MP" in the target or uniform resource locator address. It is not easy to change the name of a URL. Technically it could be argued that by retaining "MP" during a general election, when Parliament has been dissolved, one is in breach of the Representation of the People Act. It is a problem that needs to be addressed.
  If the right hon. Member for Gorton gets his way and ensures that anyone living abroad for more than five years is disfranchised, that would be mean and dishonest. The Government have reduced pension values by up to 20 per cent. by their raid on pension funds. Many people abroad have pensions in the United Kingdom, and while they may not be paying taxes in this country, they have investments here. Being British citizens, they have every right to ensure that they have a vote. Labour Members may feel that those people will vote Conservative, aware as they are that the raid on pension funds is a grave disincentive to their ever voting for new Labour.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition on the Second Reading of an important constitutional Bill. I suspect that we have all declared an interest because we are all interested in the increased participation of our electorates—especially when they vote for us.

  239
  I thank the Minister for making it clear that consideration of the Bill in Committee will be held on the Floor of the House. That is vital. I am extremely grateful that we shall all have an opportunity to participate in Committee.
  I believe that the Bill was born of good intentions, but there are deep flaws in it. Like many of my colleagues, I am deeply concerned at the lack of public consultation following the findings and recommendations of the working group on electoral procedure. I am aware that the Government are keen to get the Bill through Parliament at breakneck speed—never mind the quality, just feel the speed. However, I urge caution on them. It is a far-reaching Bill with sweeping powers for the Home Secretary that could change the way elections are held, with minimal participation of the House once the Bill becomes an Act. The powers are excessive and I believe that they must be trimmed in the name of good government.
  The need for a Bill is unquestioned but the need for this Bill is questionable. I shall not damn the entire Bill because it does not deserve that. There is much within it that deserves credit, and I shall refer to some of those features. I hope also that my criticisms will be constructive.
  No one doubts the need to increase participation rates at elections, from general to local and, of course, European. There are many reasons why turnouts at elections are declining. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said that there is a low level of interest at some elections, and that is right. One of my constituents said that she did not vote in a local government election because she felt that when the councillors turned down a planning application, which went to appeal, with an inspector coming from Bristol and overturning the local councillors' decision, that was a denial of democracy. She felt that it was not worth voting in local elections. That is an example of a feeling that we must address.
  There are many reasons why the turnout at local elections is pitifully low, at 40 per cent., while in Germany, for example, it is 72 per cent. The turnout at the European elections was absolutely dismal, declining from 36 per cent. to 23.3 per cent., compared with 64 per cent. in Spain. We are definitely at the bottom of the European league table for turnouts at European elections. Indeed, the turnouts at such elections are falling faster than the value of the euro, and that is really saying something. If the turnout declines much further, it will be only the close friends and relatives of the candidates who will be taking part in the elections. I suspect that the registration of the homeless and continuous registration will do nothing to halt the decline of voting in European elections. The system of voting was decrepit, as we told the Government, and the turnout has convinced us that that was the case. There is a crisis of democracy in European elections in Britain which must be addressed forthwith.
  In general elections, the decline is smaller but still worrying. It is as though the graffiti generation had said, "Don't vote for the politicians—it only encourages them." We must tackle the problem.
  Having accepted the need for considered change, I shall comment on the topics raised in the debate, which in the main has been constructive. Several of the hon. Members
  240
  present contributed to the debate. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) spoke about the new technology that can be used to promote voting. It cannot be introduced immediately, but perhaps some can be tested in the pilots. I understand that some new technology is being examined in consultation with British Telecom.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about the rolling register and proposed an annual reminder. I agree that a national campaign is needed to encourage people to register at certain times during the year. He also referred to clause 9, as did several hon. Members, and the sale of the commercial register. I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to the problems that that raises.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) dealt with several aspects of the Bill. All hon. Members welcome the provisions on disability, which ensure that disabled people can go to a polling station and vote in person. It is important for them to be able to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) spoke passionately about the last time her late mother went to vote and almost had to be carried into the polling station. That is wrong. We must review access to our polling stations, and perhaps hold discussions with Scope, the Royal National Institute for the Blind and other charities that act on behalf of disabled people. They can give advice to the Government, and we must take it on board.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale spoke about early voting and the fact that the Bill seems to contain no limits on when early voting can take place. He also spoke about exit polls and the possibility that exit polls taken after early voting could influence the outcome of the election.
  The reduction of the 20-year period during which people resident overseas can vote in the UK could be called the Ashcroft amendment. Let us be adult about the matter. It has been mentioned in whispers from the Government Benches, but it is important. I remember that during the last general election campaign, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) paraded herself round the beaches of Spain, trying to get people to vote for the Labour party. No doubt we, too, had hon. Members trying to encourage overseas voters to vote for us. We should not penalise the 3 million people who can vote as overseas electors simply because the Government have a vendetta against one person.
  Ms Ward: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this is not about one individual, although it will have an impact on that individual? Does he not realise that people who live abroad for as long as 20 years are not voting for a future with which they have some connection? They are voting because they have a past with Britain. It is important that people who vote for a Government live under the policies of that Government, not in another country where they are not affected by the consequences of their vote.
  Mr. Evans: I wholly disagree with the hon. Lady. Many of those people have a deep interest in the United Kingdom. They have pensions from businesses, and they pay tax on their pensions; they have houses and they may pay property taxes; and they may have intentions of coming back to the UK.

  241
  This is not the Bill in which to introduce the change that the Government propose. Like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, I believe that we should reflect further on the change. It seems to have been introduced in the heat of the moment, while attention is concentrated on one person. I do not believe that that is the Home Secretary's intention. We should therefore reflect further.
  The hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) mentioned assistance for local authorities participating in the pilot schemes. That is important so that local authorities are not deterred, especially from going down the more expensive electronic routes.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) made a witty contribution as usual. I was not in the Chamber, but I understand that his speech was funny. The hon. Gentleman is the one pound that the Conservatives are not keen to save at the next election. He was right about clause 9: the Government must think again.
  The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) made many important suggestions, especially the proposal on dual registration. Perhaps we should reconsider that during the Bill's passage, and provide for people who are registered in a couple of places to specify where they intend to vote in a general election.
  I cannot believe that residents in old people's homes found it difficult to recognise my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). I am sure that they all know him, and look forward to his frequent visits. My hon. Friend made an important point about security and the electoral register. For many reasons, some people do not want their names published. Jill Dando was mentioned, and we must consider the point seriously. My hon. Friend also asked us to take account of history when we consider changing polling day from Thursday to Saturday and Sunday. Many people go on weekend breaks and perhaps would not be back to vote on Saturday and Sunday. Thus despite holding the election on two days, the turnout could be lower.
  The hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) criticised us for intending to delay the Bill. We want to improve, not delay the measure. She talked about the rolling register, which I welcome. We could all give examples of people who just missed registering and find it difficult to vote. The hon. Lady also spoke passionately about the disabled.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) mentioned his anxieties about the pilot schemes. I share his worries that, once the pilot schemes have been undertaken, the Bill will give the Home Secretary vast powers. While we accept that the Home Secretary would not abuse them, he may not always be in that position and a Labour Member who is a little more shifty than the current incumbent might take over. We must therefore be careful.
  The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said that he was disappointed by our approach. I hope that he will accept that we are sincere in our desire to improve the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West emphasised that we must encourage the electorate's interest in voting. We must ensure not only that people register but that they want to vote.
  242
  The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who is well known for his work on trying to introduce a rolling register in this country, expressed the hope that it would be a proper rolling register, and not simply covered with a veneer of modernity. We all agree with that. He also spoke passionately about his wish for disabled people to have the opportunity to vote in person at polling stations. We all support that. However, if we are to introduce early voting and one polling station where people can turn up to even out the numbers, we must ensure that the system is secure and that people cannot double vote.
  Mr. Barnes: I am pleased that the Opposition are in favour of disabled access to polling stations. When that policy was pursued in the previous Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition helped to block the measure when he was a junior Minister at the Department of Social Security.
  Mr. Evans: As ever, we are a listening and caring Opposition on our journey to government. We want to ensure that the changes are secure. We do not want to make it easy for people to double vote and defraud the system. That deep anxiety was reflected in the Select Committee on Home Affairs and in the working party.
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) talked about section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and told a personal story. He was brave to speak about the trauma that he went through, and I wish him well in tabling amendments to the Bill that will assist him and others who may suffer.
  The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) talked about disabilities and the potential for using new technology to improve access to the vote. He is absolutely right about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) talked about using the internet for voting—I suspect that few Members of the House know more about it than he does—and the problems with using the initials "MP" after our names on the internet. If we do so, we could fall foul of all sorts of difficulties.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: My hon. Friend is giving an excellent summing up. Will he reflect on overseas voting? Does he agree that many people work overseas for perhaps 20, 30 or 40 years and that their numbers are increasing? Although the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) seems to think that such people live abroad permanently, they often return to this country, are part of it, pay taxes in it, have children and grandchildren in it and should be entitled to vote.
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill seems to have been born of a vendetta against one person, but 3 million people who live overseas can vote in elections.
  For goodness' sake, the Bill is supposed to increase the number of people who participate in elections, but Labour Members are threatening to table an amendment that could decrease that number. [Interruption.] If Labour Members want to be honest about this, they should put Michael Ashcroft's name in the Bill and not deny 3 million others the opportunity to vote.
  I believe that the fault lines that run deep through the Bill will have undemocratic consequences, although I do not say that that is intentional. It is intended to increase

  243
  voter participation, but an amendment may be tabled that could reduce the electorate by 3 million. The upside is that the domestic electorate will be increased, but by only a fraction of that number. The chances of multiple voting will be increased with the introduction of the travelling voter; not the homeless, but the shameless, will abuse the system and they will move their votes not out of necessity, but out of opportunity. Tactical voting will be replaced by tactical registration, which will give a fresh lease of life to the old Irish maxim, "Vote early, vote often."
  We want the currently enfranchised to vote more often and the disabled to be given the opportunity to play their own full and personal role in all elections.
  Ms Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Evans: I do not have time.
  We want the electorate to be reconnected to the British democratic system, which has been battered and vandalised by the Labour Government during their internal election farces—in Wales over who would lead the Welsh Assembly and in London over the mayoralty— and their external electoral farces, such as those related to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999. We want to achieve a more modern and efficient way of voting that maintains the confidence that people have in the system, and we want to make it easier for people to vote. We do not want to make it easier for people to cheat.
  Further careful consideration of all the proposals that we have debated this evening is necessary before the Bill goes any further, which is why we have tabled our amendment. The Home Secretary, Ministers and Labour Members all have the same interest as us in giving more people the opportunity to participate fully and freely in all elections in this country, but the Bill contains fault lines. We want them to be put right before it proceeds and, because of the problems that have led to clause 9 being included, we believe that there should have been more consultation with charities and businesses.
  We also believe that more consultation should have taken place once the working group had reported. The Government, however, have decided not to consult further, and we understand that they want to pass the Bill quickly so that they can have pilots up and running by May 2000. I ask them again: please do not push the Bill through the House quickly. Let us improve it so that we can all support it. If the Government listen to the House, there will be proper consensus.
  9.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The Bill is part of a wider programme of constitutional modernisation and democratic renewal undertaken by the new Labour Government. Our electoral procedure plays a fundamental role in our democracy. It is a tribute to the work done by the modernisers of the 19th century that their legacy in electoral law has stood the test of time. At the end of this century, it still carries much legitimacy and respect.
  However, some areas need updating, and the Howarth working party recommendations will bring the procedures out of the 19th and into the 21st century. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) as chairman of the working party, and to my hon. Friend the Member for
  244
  North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) whose work on rolling registers is a source of these proposals. In his contribution to the debate, he set out further ambitious proposals. I am not sure that we can go as far as he wants in all respects, but he will play a substantial part in the consideration of the Bill and will no doubt have more innovative ideas. He made a telling point about the Leader of the Opposition's conversion to helping the disabled to vote. The right hon. Gentleman has now realised that my hon. Friend's ideas were common sense all along.
  As I said, there is much in our electoral law of which we can be proud. We were one of the first countries to legislate to provide a free and fair electoral system, secret ballots, limits on election expenditure, a ban on "treating" and much else. None of us would contemplate removing any of those provisions. That said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) pointed out, our procedures are far from perfect. Indeed, it is arguably the very success and stability of our democracy that has made us slow to update our electoral procedures to take account of changes in modern society. We recognise, as did the working party, that the foundations of our parliamentary procedures are strong, but the legislation that is built on those foundations must be up to date so as to maintain legitimacy in the years ahead.
  I hope that the Bill will address the concerns about low turnout that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and I share. The legislative changes to registration and absent voting, and the enabling of local authorities to run pilot schemes to try out innovative electoral procedures, will give all of us a dramatic and long-term opportunity to improve the way in which our elections are run.
  I want to deal with some of the specific points raised in the debate, and come first to the extraordinary opening speech of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). It was symbolic of where the Conservative party stands today. The Bill merely implements the recommendations of the Howarth working party, on which members of the Conservative party sat. It broadly agrees with the proposals of Conservative and other members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. It is a straightforward Bill, but we are told that it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Such a comment is symbolic of the Tory party as we know it today—and increasingly over recent weeks—because it shows rampant paranoia.
  Talking of savage sheep, the claim made by the hon. Member for Ryedale that this sheep has wolf s teeth rests on a number of arguments. Let us see how sharp these teeth really are. He said that there was no regulatory impact assessment and the Government were therefore trying to sneak the Bill through without one. Did he check with the Library? Did he not know that a regulatory impact assessment has been available in the usual way since 18 November? He did not need to ask the Prime Minister whether it was available, he just needed to check. I am assured that the regulatory impact assessment was hand delivered to the Library, and is there if he wishes to read it. His point did not have much bite to it.
  Mr. Greenway: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, will he explain why, before the debate started, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) received a response from the Prime Minister saying that he would reply to my hon. Friend in due

  245
  course, but it was only after I had left the Chamber at 6.30 pm that the Minister's written answer to me was available on the letter board?
  Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman had done the normal thing and checked with the Library, as other Members feel able to do, he would have found that the regulatory impact assessment is there, and that his claim that we are trying to sneak something past the House is entirely illegitimate.
  The hon. Gentleman also claimed that the pilot schemes were originally supposed to be only for local elections, but are now intended for parliamentary elections. Let us be clear about this—the pilot schemes will be involved only in local elections, and only after an affirmative resolution of the House can particular procedures be extended to parliamentary elections. That means that there would be further debate and a further vote in the House before that happened.
  We do not intend to proceed unilaterally. The legitimacy of our electoral procedures depends on agreement between the major parties that the voting procedure is valid, and we would want broad support before changing it. We certainly would not want to try to push things through in an illegitimate way. We have been clear about that all along. The hon. Gentleman's claim has no teeth.
  Mr. Greenway: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman one last time.
  Mr. Greenway: I shall not intervene again, but what the Minister is saying appears to be extremely important. Is he saying that, whatever the experience of the pilot schemes, which, if the Bill is passed, will be launched in May, and notwithstanding the powers that the Home Secretary is taking in clause 11—powers which go far beyond anything that the working party proposed, and which certainly were not contained in its recommendations published in July—the Government will extend the pilot schemes to the general election only if there is consensus among all parties in the House?
  Mr. O'Brien: We have said that we will act according to consensus wherever possible. We have made it clear that these are powers not for the Home Secretary, but for the House of Commons: they are powers enabling the House of Commons to make a decision to vote on an issue by affirmative resolution. The hon. Gentleman's claims that we are somehow trying to push things through have no legitimacy.
  The hon. Gentleman's third argument was that we were trying to legislate to alter the period applying to overseas voters. By the time that the hon. Gentleman began his speech, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had already said that we did not intend to try to do that in the Bill, but the hon. Gentleman had written his speech before the event and proceeded at length to tell us why we should not do something that we were not intending to do in any case.
  Mr. Miller: I think that I have discovered why the Conservative party has become so interested in this
  246
  matter. The draft register relating to my constituency, which was sent to me today, revealed that a lady had said that she would be registering in France next year. She is a Mrs. Lynn Turnbull, who turns out to have been my Conservative opponent at the last election. Are all the Tories going to register abroad? If so, perhaps the Home Secretary will act quickly and sort the matter out for good.
  Mr. O'Brien: We wait to see more of the wonders that we have beheld in recent days in the Conservative party.
  The next claim made by the hon. Member for Ryedale was that there had been no consultation. I will not go into all the consultation that there has been, such as the consultation over two years with local authorities and electoral registration officers through the working party, and in which the Conservatives were fully involved. I will not go into the details of the interim report and the public response to it, or the details of the 1999 report and the public response to that. I will not go into the fact that all the commercial companies that deal with the registers participated in a consultation document, or the fact that the Home Affairs Select Committee took public evidence in which the Conservative party was involved. All that happened, yet the hon. Gentleman claimed that there was no consultation. I bet he wishes that there was that amount of consultation on every Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman commented on how awful it was that the Government did not appear to be considering taking the Committee stage on the Floor of the House. If his hon. Friends had told him, he would have known that it was agreed before the Bill came before us that the Committee stage would be taken on the Floor. I do not want to be paranoid—perhaps his hon. Friends did not tell him. He may have to take that up with them, in today's Conservative party.
  I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, far from being a wolf in sheep's clothing, the Bill is what it appears to be. If he wants to call it a sheep, it is a sheep in sheep's clothing. It is a straightforward Bill, involving no mendacity. I hope mat we can now proceed as we should, by way of debate and agreement.
  I want to deal with one important issue that has arisen throughout the debate—the sale of the register. The hon. Members for Ryedale and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) and others all raised that issue. They are concerned about social exclusion as a result of the sale of an edited register.
  It is important to point out that the register will still be available to commercial companies, but that it will be edited to allow people the choice not to be on the register. Electoral returning officers have made it clear that they get more complaints about names being sold to commercial companies than anything else.
  The working party decided that it was a matter of principle that people should not be under a statutory duty to provide personal information about their names and whereabouts when they had no say in whether that information should be sold or used for purposes that were different from those that they had agreed. It said that they would have no choice in that and that that was wrong.
  We have already heard of examples of abused spouses or those who do not want junk mail. People are concerned that a CD-ROM containing all the election registers in the country can be offered free on the front of a computer

  247
  magazine. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, want to find out where anyone lives, it is possible, with some of the new computers, quickly to identify that person's address. Such information can be offered free on the front of a magazine without the consent of those who have given that information under a statutory duty. A fundamental principle is involved—people should not be forced into that situation.
  As I have said, social exclusion is a serious issue. The argument that people who are poor may be denied credit because they have opted out of the commercially available register needs to be dealt with. The Bill will make it easier for those who change address frequently to register at a new address. Therefore, in some ways, if they are potentially socially excluded they will have a better chance under the Bill of getting on a register and gaining access to credit. That would be an improvement.
  Everyone should be given the right to make a choice, but the important thing is that it should be an informed choice. If they choose to tick the box—it will be their choice; they will have to make the decision—to exclude themselves from the edited register that is sold on, they should do it in an informed way.
  We are discussing with the industry funding for a leaflet that would be agreed with us. We should remember that none of it will happen before an affirmative resolution is brought before the House, so there is plenty of opportunity to continue the discussions. The industry has suggested that it may be willing to provide that funding. The leaflet could go out with all electoral application forms, so that people would know what they were doing when they decided to tick that box. They would know that it might affect their credit rating and they would be informed of a number of other issues of which they need to be aware.
  If we can reach agreement on that leaflet—I see no reason why we should not—that will give people the opportunity to make an informed choice. Whether people are potentially socially excluded or otherwise, they should have the right to that choice. It should be an informed choice. The ability to opt out of the register, rather than to opt in, should be available to everyone.
  We can look at all those issues in detail in Committee. There may be a way in which we can move forward. We do not have to do it during consideration of the Bill; we may be able to do it in later discussions. There may be a way to allow people to put their names on the edited register later. They may choose to make their names available later—having previously thought that they would not need access to credit—if they need access to credit and therefore wish to be included in the edited register. We can consider those issues in the coming months, discuss them with the industry and see how we can take them forward without compromising the fundamental principle.
  Mr. Evans: The Minister will be aware that sometimes only the head of the household fills in the form. That person could tick the box on behalf of an entire household without some of them knowing that their credit status had been removed on their behalf.
  Mr. O'Brien: That can already happen. We are considering the issues with the industry and looking at how to take them forward. We do not need to compromise the fundamental principle or cause the damage that some in the industry seem to think may be caused.
  248
  Many issues have been raised during the debate. I shall not be able to respond to all Members who have spoken, but I hope to write to those with whose points I do not deal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said in his trenchant speech that he wanted more opportunities for telephone voting. We can consider a pilot—it might be possible for some voters, particularly the blind. We shall have an opportunity to consider such options and how to move forward on electronic voting. He also asked for the deadline for absent voters to be reduced. The working party considered that, but concluded, on the strong advice of the electoral administrators, that it was not currently practicable. The proposal to allow postal votes on demand should enable many more people who want to vote by post to do so.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) expressed concern about the affirmative resolution procedure. Perhaps we can discuss that at length in Committee. We are talking only about moving forward on a successful, evaluated, confirmed and broadly supported pilot scheme that would amend, to an extent, the way in which we might vote. We intend to move forward with broad support when possible. An affirmative resolution on the Floor of the House will be needed. If such detailed issues were contained in a Bill, they might end up being dealt with in Committee. It is better that they should be dealt with on the Floor of the House. The extensions of procedural ability to vote are marginal and are not likely to be widely opposed. I should like to have time to deal with other points raised by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), but I am sure that they will forgive me for not doing so.
  By modernising electoral procedures, we shall make it easier and more convenient for people to vote and to exercise their rights in a democracy. In renewing our democracy, it is important that we reflect modern life styles and behaviour. That is essential if we are to gain the interest of young people in the democratic process and encourage the participation of everybody in our elections. Democracy is nothing if people do not exercise their ability to vote. The Bill is about ensuring that people get the opportunity to vote.
  It is small consolation in many democracies that fewer people are voting. That trend is evident not just here, but across the western world. The Bill will help to give access to the ballot to the disabled, the armed services, the elderly, the young and many others. The Howarth working party on electoral procedures was a non-partisan attempt to address the issues and create greater opportunities for democratic participation. It sought to proceed by consensus and it involved all parties. I want the whole House to be able to support the Bill. I ask the Conservatives not to press their reasoned amendment to a vote and I ask the House to support the Bill.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 332.

  Division No. 7]

  [11.43 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cotter, Brian

  Ainger, Nick

  Cousins, Jim

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cran, James

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cranston, Ross

  Allen, Graham

  Crausby, David

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cummings, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Austin, John

  Baker, Norman

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Banks, Tony

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Barnes, Harry

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Battle, John

  Darvill, Keith

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Beard, Nigel

  Davidson, Ian

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Day, Stephen

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Denham, John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dobbin, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dowd, Jim

  Best, Harold

  Drew, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Edwards, Huw

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Efford, Clive

  Borrow, David

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Evans, Nigel

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fisher, Mark

  Browne, Desmond

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Burden, Richard

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Burnett, John

  Flint, Caroline

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Cann, Jamie

  Gapes, Mike

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gardiner, Barry

  Caton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clapham, Michael

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Goggins, Paul

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gray, James

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clelland, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hanson, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cohen, Harry

  Heald, Oliver

  Coleman, Iain

  Healey, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hepburn, Stephen

  275

  Heppell, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hill, Keith

  Mallon, Seamus

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hope, Phil

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mates, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Maxton, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Meale, Alan

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Merron, Gillian

  Hurst, Alan

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hutton, John

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Miller, Andrew

  Illsley, Eric

  Mitchell, Austin

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Jenkins, Brian

  Moriey, Elliot

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Norris, Dan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Olner, Bill

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Kemp, Fraser

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Khabra, Piara S

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kidney, David

  Pearson, Ian

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pendry, Tom

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Pickthall, Colin

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Pike, Peter L

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Plaskitt, James

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pollard, Kerry

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Pond, Chris

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Pope, Greg

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Pound, Stephen

  Lepper, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Purchase, Ken

  Linton, Martin

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Livsey, Richard

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rammell, Bill

  Lock, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Love, Andrew

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Rooney, Terry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rowlands, Ted

  Macdonald, Calum

  Roy, Frank

  McDonnell, John

  Ruane, Chris

  McFall, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ruffley, David

  McIsaac, Shona

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sheerman, Barry

  McNulty, Tony

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McWilliam, John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  276

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Twgg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Tynan, Bill

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Walker, Cecil

  Soley, Clive

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stevenson, George

  Watts, David

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Webb, Steve

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  White, Brian

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stringer, Graham

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wills, Michael

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wood, Mike

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Woodward, Shaun

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Timms, Stephen

  Worthington, Tony

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Todd, Mark

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Touhig, Don

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trickett, Jon

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Swayne, Desmond

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Paterson, Owen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Mr. William Thompson and

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Rev. Ian Paisley.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time,
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
  That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Pope.]
  Question agreed to.
  Committee tomorrow.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Representation of the People Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided;

  (2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of that Fund.—[Mr. Pope.]

  Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland
10.14 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Appointed Day) Order 1999, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29 November, be approved.
This is one of the most welcome pieces of legislation that any of us will be asked to enact this Session—indeed, in the whole Parliament.
It is a momentous occasion for Northern Ireland. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State, but I must have a greater degree of quiet in the House. This is a very important occasion. Those hon. Members who are here for the debate should give the Secretary of State a good hearing.
Mr. Mandelson: This is indeed a momentous occasion, as Northern Ireland begins to put behind it the conflict, prejudice and division that has blighted the lives of everyone in both communities for a generation.
For the first time, all shades of political opinion in Northern Ireland will have a stake in the future. After a quarter of a century, the curtain is finally coming down on direct rule. Of course, there will still be anger about the past, and real difficulties undoubtedly still lie ahead, but this generation is now turning the page to the future.
In Stormont now, Ministers have been appointed and a Government formed. They are waiting only for their powers. Passing those powers to them is our job tonight.
To the new Northern Ireland Executive—five Unionists and five Nationalists—we are transferring responsibility for enterprise; trade; culture and the environment; higher education; training; agriculture and rural development; schools, health, social services and public safety; social and regional development; and finance and personnel.
This is not mere symbolism. It is the passing of real, practical power into the hands of parties drawn from both communities, to democratically elected and accountable people who will no longer have a Secretary of State and his officials to blame when things go wrong.
What has been created is so strong and so durable that not even the Democratic Unionist party of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) wants to stay out of it. I am glad to say that that party has entered the Executive with two very capable Ministers.
At last, the Good Friday agreement is being implemented.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Secretary of State say whether the Democratic Unionist Ministers will be at the meeting of the Executive on Thursday?
Mr. Mandelson: That is a question that the hon. Gentleman might put to the Democratic Unionist
254
Members, who are in the House tonight. I have every confidence that they will play a full part in the work and life of the Executive.
Rev. Ian Paisley rose—
Hon. Members: Come on, then.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the Secretary of State continue.
Mr. Mandelson: I thought for a moment that I was going to have to give way again.
As I said, at last the Good Friday agreement is being implemented. I can state that, under the terms of section 3 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, sufficient progress has been made in implementing the agreement for me to set a commencement date for devolution to take effect in Northern Ireland.
If the order is approved tonight, I can tell the House that Her Majesty has agreed to hold a special Privy Council meeting tomorrow, when the order may be made.
The order states that devolution for Northern Ireland will take effect from midnight tomorrow. In addition, from this Thursday, direct rule will be no more.
In addition to the 10 new Departments created by a previous order, the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister will also be responsible for the promotion and protection of equality issues, and for human rights as well as economic policy.
Some areas of responsibility will remain under my authority, notably policing, security and criminal justice, and that is right and proper for the time being.
The security situation has been transformed as a result of politics replacing violence as Northern Ireland's way of life. However, vigilance remains necessary and we will remain on our guard until it is safe to do otherwise. In the exercise of my authority in those important residual areas, I will consult the Assembly whenever proper and appropriate to ensure that local concerns and issues are taken into consideration in relation to the exercise of my responsibilities. The institutional changes foreshadowed in the Good Friday agreement are not limited to the new Executive.
If the order is approved, in two days' time the new British-Irish agreement will come into effect following the exchange of notifications between the two Governments. This replaces the former 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement and will mark the beginning of a new understanding between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. It will trigger the establishment of the six north-south bodies-including the North-South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council, and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference—and it will provide a foundation for practical cross-border co-operation.
The Irish Government will immediately make a declaration that will bring into effect the amendments to articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution and our own amendments relating to the law on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland will also come into force.
This settles, once and for all, the constitutional argument that has been at the root of the conflict. Henceforward, Northern Ireland's future will be decided by consent of its own people. Unionist and nationalist

255
aspirations will have equal legitimacy, but only so long as they are peacefully and democratically expressed and pursued.
Mr. William Thompson: Will the Secretary of State be reminded that Unionism is not an aspiration? It is a possession, whereas nationalism is an aspiration.
Mr. Mandelson: I am sure that the House will have heard and noted what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Together, the steps that I have described begin a new era for Northern Ireland, which it behoves all hon. Members to welcome in the House tonight.
I should like to pay particular tribute to the Northern Ireland civil service, which has worked enormously hard to put in place the arrangements for devolution at remarkably short notice—not merely the administrative steps needed to create 11 Departments from six and to get ready all the other institutions under the agreement, but also the physical reorganisation, the movement of staff, the preparation of buildings, the reorganisation of telephone and computer networks and so on.
To take just one example, the corridor outside my office has for the past 36 hours reverberated to the sound of trolleys piled with desks, chairs, lamp stands and countless other items as the bureaucracy demonstrates its unique mobility and marches off to serve a new Administration. I welcome this—I am losing some excellent advisers, but I know that they will serve their new Ministers with the same dedication and integrity with which they supported me and my predecessors.
Mr. Tom King: While the right hon. Gentleman is recognising the work that is being done, will he also recognise that tonight is possible only because of the dedicated work of the Northern Ireland civil service and so many others for so many years, during which they kept administration going in difficult circumstances and made it possible for this much more hopeful day to dawn?
Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. Gentleman knows that what he has said is only too true. Others in the House, including other right hon. Gentlemen who have served in a similar capacity, will testify to the excellent service that the civil service has given.
The civil service will be among the first to say that local politicians should be in charge of local affairs. Little trust has previously existed among those politicians, but in London and Belfast, in offices, corridors, canteens and the odd ambassador's residence, the story of this week's breakthrough is that trust crept in and partnership grew throughout those important contacts during the 11 weeks of the Mitchell review.
It is invidious to single out one person for credit as so many have played their part, but George Mitchell refused to believe that Northern Ireland's plight was hopeless. His patience, tireless spirit and determination have been indispensable. The leaders of the pro-agreement parties have indeed repaid his faith handsomely.
I congratulate also the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on his election as Northern Ireland's First Minister. On Saturday, he proved that he has instilled in his party the personal courage that he has shown throughout the whole process. Northern Ireland will
256
indeed need strong, assured leadership in the early days of self-rule. There can be no one better qualified than the right hon. Gentleman to take the helm.
A power-sharing Government for Northern Ireland has been a long-cherished goal for the party of the Deputy First Minister, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). His status, endorsed by Assembly Members yesterday, is a fitting reward for his contribution to realising that goal. His presence reassures us that this new Government will prize fairness and tolerance. His party leader, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), has long championed parity of esteem for both traditions in Northern Ireland, and on Thursday that will become reality.
I would also like to pay tribute to Gerry Adams. He has brought Sinn Fein in from the cold. Without sacrificing his or its basic beliefs, he has created a party with which Unionists can do business, as the sight of Martin McGuinness—to some a remarkable sight—on his first day as Minister for Education goes to show.
I cannot let this moment pass without saying that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have each put extraordinary time and effort into finding a solution in Northern Ireland—as did their predecessors, notably the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). They are the architects of the Good Friday agreement, and can justifiably be proud of their achievement. The same is true of my predecessor as Secretary of State, now the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam), whose endless patience saw the process through countless difficult times—as did our predecessors through the long years of direct rule.
There is one final piece to the jigsaw that will bring the twin goals of devolution and decommissioning to Northern Ireland. The IRA has confirmed that, within hours of the transfer of powers, it will appoint an authorised representative to deal directly with General de Chastelain's decommissioning commission; I hope that the other paramilitary organisations will also do so. That is the first step on the road to the decommissioning of arms in Northern Ireland.
No one is being asked to leap in the dark. General de Chastelain will give a full, frank and public account of the decommissioning process. He is respected on all sides, and his integrity is beyond doubt. I have no doubt that he will ensure that the commission will achieve its mandate. We are not planning for failure, but, as I told the House last week, swift action will follow if there is clear default at any stage of the twin processes of devolution and decommissioning.
Approval of the order will assure new stability, new prosperity and new hope for Northern Ireland. After much frustration and many false starts, we can now unlock the full potential of the Good Friday agreement. The arrangements that will come into force on Thursday will bind the citizens and Government of Northern Ireland closer than they have ever been before. Only the people of Northern Ireland will have the power to decide their future. For all of them, this is the path to an unbreakable peace and to truly democratic and accountable Government.
I commend the order to the House.
10.29 pm
Mr. Andrew MacKay: I wholly endorse the remarks made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about Senator George Mitchell. It is no exaggeration to say that we would not be considering the order if it were not for his tireless patience—the patience of a saint. The senator has gained the trust of everyone involved in the process. This country owes him a very great debt.
The Opposition support the order; not least because we have consistently wanted a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have served honourably in the Northern Ireland Office. I believe that they would all agree that they have been only second best, because it is right and proper that the people of Northern Ireland elect politicians who then can exercise power and responsibility. Successive Governments, Conservative and Labour, have administered Northern Ireland to the very best of their ability, but there has been a democratic deficit. It is unacceptable, in a perfect society, for Northern Ireland to be run exclusively by Northern Ireland Ministers who represent Welsh, Scottish and English constituencies.
That democratic deficit has been further illustrated by the fact that, for perfectly understandable reasons, local government in Northern Ireland, unlike elsewhere in the United Kingdom, has very, very few powers. It is important that the elected representatives, Unionist and nationalist, gain the power and then the responsibility. It will not be easy for them, and in the weeks and months ahead those Ministers will suddenly have to take some very tough decisions, but we wish them well.
The second reason that we support the order is for the reasons outlined by the Secretary of State. The moment that the Executive is formally set up on Thursday, the cross-border bodies come into effect, and, automatically, the Irish constitution is amended. Articles 2 and 3, which for too long have been a stumbling block to lasting peace in Northern Ireland and have caused huge misunderstandings, will disappear, and the Irish Government—the people of Ireland—will no longer have a constitutional claim on the Province. Instead—rightly, in a democracy—the people of Northern Ireland, exclusively and entirely, will be able to decide the future of that Province. I applaud that; it is a major step forward.
There is something that we have always wanted in addition to devolution, and that is the end to violence for good, and the decommissioning of all illegally held arms and explosives. We have been bitterly disappointed and very frustrated that not one gun, nor one ounce of Semtex, has been handed in by any of the paramilitaries, loyalist or republican, who signed up to the Belfast agreement. They have failed to fulfil their obligations, and previously the House has heard me say that I believe that it was wrong to release 300 or more loyalist and republican terrorist prisoners back on to the streets without getting anything whatever in return.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Secretary of State has said that he will not plan for failure. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the failure to have
258
a plan B—the failure to have a plan for failure—has given the terrorists a powerful negotiating hand, which has enabled them to get away without handing in any weapons?
Mr. MacKay: The House will have heard the Secretary of State say tonight, clearly and without equivocation, that if anyone defaults on the Mitchell review proposals, they will be penalised. I take the Secretary of State at his word, but he knows full well that the House will be watching events carefully. Like him, I do not wish to contemplate failure, but we must be aware that we do not live in a perfect world. If decommissioning does not take place reasonably quickly, action will need to be taken.
I believe that the House should endorse what the Secretary of State said about the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and congratulate him on being elected First Minister, as we congratulate the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on becoming Deputy First Minister, and wish them both well for the future.
I should like to return, for a second, to the role of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. I entirely endorse what he said at his party's council meeting on Saturday. It seems to me quite reasonable and proper that the Ulster Unionist council should be reconvened early in February to review progress. It is absolutely clear that if decommissioning has not properly commenced by that point, it would be wrong and improper for Sinn Fein Ministers to remain on the Executive.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I heard my right hon. Friend endorse the Secretary of State's comments about the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I trust that he will not endorse the Secretary of State's comments about Gerry Adams, who ought to be a Member of the House. Will my right hon. Friend consider that many people in Northern Ireland will be very distressed to hear the Secretary of State paying tribute to somebody whose hands are dripping with blood and who is almost certainly a member of the IRA Army Council, which is the cause of all the troubles in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Hon. Members should allow me to deal with this point. I will not tolerate interventions that are in fact mini-speeches. They are not the done thing.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a matter of common courtesy that we always refer to Members of the House, whether or not they have taken the oath, by their constituency. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) referred to a certain person by name, as indeed did the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Blaby was not out of order.
Mr. MacKay: I want to look to the future, and I believe that all the parties in Northern Ireland and all the

259
participants in the review process will be judged, rightly, not only by the statements that they have been making but by their actions. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), I say that we shall judge Mr. Adams, Mr. McGuinness, Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA by their actions in the weeks and months ahead.
I welcome the fact that it now seems almost certain that the Provisional IRA will appoint a representative to deal with General de Chastelain, and I very much endorse the Secretary of State's remarks that the whole House has absolute confidence in General de Chastelain to produce the right report and reach the right conclusions on the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives. However, you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that actually arranging for somebody to discuss those matters with the general is only the first step. Although we welcome that step, shortly thereafter it will be absolutely essential that there is a proper start to the decommissioning of those illegally held arms and explosives, not only by the republicans, but by the so-called loyalist paramilitaries who signed up to the Belfast agreement.
Equally, I believe that it is vital that all arms and explosives are handed in by May. It is very easy to forget, in this short debate, that all those arms and explosives were supposed to be handed in over a two-year period concluding next May. Eighteen months has gone by, and there has been no decommissioning. There ain't long to go.
I want briefly to refer to the appointment of Mr. McGuinness as Education Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There seem to be complaints from Members on the Government Benches. It is absolutely right that in this House we are able to discuss developments in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] Let me say to hon. Members who groaned and who are now shouting from a sedentary position, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), that there are legitimate, genuine concerns in the Province and elsewhere in the United Kingdom about the fact that Mr. McGuinness, with his background and record, is now responsible for schools in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacKay: I shall conclude my point and then I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
If the House is not going to discuss those legitimate concerns, and I, as the shadow Secretary of State, am to be shouted down for raising them, all I can say is that that is not what the House of Commons is about. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Corbett: My point is simple, but the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand it. The appointment in Northern Ireland of Ministers to their portfolios has nothing to do with the House—that is what devolved government is all about.
Mr. MacKay: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I fully understand that, but it does not mean that we cannot comment on the legitimate fears of the people of Northern Ireland and elsewhere. If we are properly to resolve the difficulty—
Mr. Bermingham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacKay: No, because there is a 10-minute limit on speeches and many right hon. and hon. Members want to speak in the debate.
If we are to make progress in the review process, we have to be aware of the huge upset and legitimate concern arising from Martin McGuinness becoming schools Minister, with responsibility for education in Northern Ireland. I accept that Mr. McGuinness is entitled to be Education Minister. Under the d'Hondt process, the different parties were able to choose the Departments they wanted; Sinn Fein chose education, and I make no complaint about that. However, the fact that there is such legitimate concern about Martin McGuinness running schools in Northern Ireland makes it all the more important that Mr. McGuinness and his—
Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order.
Mr. Bermingham: Does the Opposition spokesman have the right to mislead the House? The matter to which he refers is not one of appointment, but one of choice in a devolved—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) is not misleading the House. He is in good order; had he not been, I would have stopped him. Let me tell the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) that when he raises points of order, he squeezes Back Benchers out of the debate.
Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As I was saying, the House accepts that Mr. McGuinness is legally entitled to be Minister for Education under the d'Hondt formula, which is part of the agreement. However, there is huge concern about him running schools in Northern Ireland. Therefore, along with Mr. Adams, Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA, Mr. McGuinness has a responsibility quickly to commence the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives. In that way, they can prove to us, in action rather than in words, that they are now legitimate democrats who want to play a full role in the Executive running Northern Ireland. If they fail to do that, they and their representatives have no legitimate right to remain as Ministers.
Mr. William Cash: My right hon. Friend will have noted that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland referred to swift action if decommissioning did not take place within the prescribed time, and he has referred to

261
the question of the action needed in that event. Will he specify what action would be taken if decommissioning did not take place within the set time scale?
Mr. MacKay: That is a matter for the Secretary of State, and he would not necessarily welcome my advice at this point. However, I think it inconceivable that the Executive should continue into February without proper and sustained decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives taking place. Many Ministers who have been appointed to the Executive would not want to remain in post if decommissioning did not take place, and they would have my full support and that of my colleagues in withdrawing from the Executive.
I wish the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and all the other Ministers well in the difficult task that lies ahead of them. I pray that not only devolution but decommissioning takes place in full, so that peace can at last come to that troubled Province.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Madam Speaker has ruled that there will be a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench Members' speeches.
10.45 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon: After 27 years of the most torrid life that any part of Europe has seen, it is a rather strange feeling for me this evening, having been active in politics for those 27 years, to stand in the Chamber literally on the threshold of the end of one era and the beginning of another.
From Whitelaw to Mandelson is a long time. There is more than one Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the Chamber this evening—there are previous Secretaries of State; and there is more than one former Northern Ireland Minister and more than one present Minister. Collectively, so that I leave no one out, I sincerely thank them all for their efforts as Secretaries of State and as Ministers for trying to help in the most appalling situation that the House will ever deal with in terms of the violence, suffering and trauma that people have lived through.
I do not want to plough over the past but I wish to emphasise that we will never know the suffering of people in the north of Ireland. We will never know the depth and the scope of it. However, we all know collectively, especially Members from Northern Ireland and those in the political process who are not Members of this place, that we as a political process owe it not only to the people who are alive in Northern Ireland and not only to those who died, but to those whose lives are in front of them to take this opportunity and mould it into a future in a way that ensures that the past will never be conceivable and will never happen again.
The Good Friday agreement was the product of many long years of effort by Prime Ministers, Secretaries of State, Ministers and Members. That was the beginning of the end of the horror of those 27 years. The Mitchell review was the penultimate step to that end. Now, 602 days after the signing of the Good Friday agreement, we stand at the end of that era of death, suffering and violence. However, paradoxically, as we reach that end we are at the beginning
262
of a new era, a new dispensation, a new hope and a new confidence that we, the people of Northern Ireland, and those of us who are charged and honoured to represent them politically, will change the future.
We will make this work because we know the alternative to it. We will make it work because we owe it to everyone in Northern Ireland. We owe it to everyone in this country who suffered greatly too. We owe it also to people in the Republic of Ireland and to those abroad, especially in the United States and Europe, who helped us to try to solve our problems. We shall do so in the sense of the Mitchell review and in the direction in which it pointed us. I join in the thanks to George Mitchell for his skill, patience and steeliness, which should never be underestimated.
George Mitchell asked us to do two things. That should not be too much for any of us. One is to take responsibility for our future and our own well-being. That we do at midnight on Wednesday. The other is to get rid of illegal arms within our society. That we must do, if only for the most base political consideration, because people agreed in the Mitchell review that that must and should be done.
Both of those things must happen. I am confident that they will, because I am confident that we will build a new future and a new relationship, no longer one of abject dependence on philosophies that are outmoded, outdated and irrelevant to the type of world in which we live.
We will build a new society and a new dispensation, based on an absence of hostilities, which will create a Northern Ireland that is at peace with itself and at peace with its neighbours, with strong north-south linkages, interacting with a devolved United Kingdom and working within a devolved and common European framework. Then we can look at some of the philosophies that guided people towards violence in the north of Ireland and see how dated and outmoded they are.
However, problems are not ended when devolution comes; they begin, and there will be many of them. There will be myriad problems to be overcome, but I am certain of one thing. With the resolve, the good will and the new relationship that we must build, those can and will be overcome. I also believe that by dealing with those problems together, we will all emerge better people as a community, better politicians and better able to pay our debt to all the people, past and present, who deserve to have that debt paid.
Finally, I repeat that we made solemn promises in the agreement on Good Friday. We made solemn promises again in the Mitchell review. This is an opportunity for all of us collectively to make another solemn promise tonight that we will deliver on a future that we ourselves will create, with the help of the House and the help of the Irish Government and our friends abroad.
I do not want to overplay the theme, but I believe that for the first time we can all use a common understanding of the words, "We shall overcome."
10.54 pm
Mr. David Trimble: It is a pleasure to follow my colleague, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). May I associate myself with the thanks that he expressed, and the thanks expressed by the Secretary of State, to all those who have helped to bring us to this point.

263
I welcome the order, which will result in a significant devolution of power to the Northern Ireland Assembly and bring an end to direct rule. May I say, in passing, that there never should have been direct rule. There was not direct rule before Stormont, and if it should ever be necessary for the Secretary of State to come back to the Dispatch Box to revoke the order that he is making today, there is no need to go back to direct rule, because the legislative authority for Northern Ireland will remain in the House, and the executive authority is vested in the Queen. Consequently, should it ever be necessary for the Secretary of State to revoke the order, it will not be necessary for him to do anything further.
We should never have had the debasement of democracy that was direct rule. We are ending that tonight, just as on Thursday we shall be ending the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Irish Government's quite improper territorial claim. Those are substantial matters for the people of Northern Ireland, which are well worth stretching for as we have stretched ourselves in order to achieve them. We are doing that in the course of the implementation of the Mitchell review and, as others have said tonight, that review is based on bringing about devolution and the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons.
We have always sought to ensure that devolution is accompanied by decommissioning. It is no secret that my colleagues and I would have preferred decommissioning to have happened in closer association with devolution— rather than happening now, effectively sequentially—but we are about to complete the process of devolution; it will be completed on Thursday. The process of decommissioning should begin on Thursday and we are, in effect, passing the baton on to the republican movement. It will need to move rapidly, and it knows that.
Reference has been made—not only in the House but in public comments—to the resolution that was passed by my party's council on Saturday and, in particular, to its intention to revisit this matter in February. All I shall say about that is that all the resolution does by arranging for a meeting in February is simply regularise what would otherwise inevitably happen. No one should be perturbed in any way by what has happened.
As the Secretary of State said, yesterday we nominated a number of people for ministerial and other offices through the application of the d'Hondt formula. I say to those Members of the House who are enthusiastic proponents of proportional representation in all its forms that, having experienced that particular form of it, I cannot recommend it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There were, of course, particular reasons why, in the course of the Northern Ireland talks, we adopted that formula, but its operation yesterday was, in some respects, somewhat capricious and produced results that would not otherwise have happened under what we would have regarded as a more normal system. However, I have to say to the House that it is a matter of pride for myself and my colleagues in the Ulster Unionist Assembly party that we were the only group that did not have to take an adjournment to work out what to do next.
I have to say, too, that I look forward to working with those who have been nominated under that process—the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and, indeed, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I hope that we shall work closely together—[Laughter.] Perhaps even in the same room, from time to time.
264
I met this morning a journalist who came to interview me. He told me that he had just interviewed a member of the Democratic Unionist party who had obtained an appointment yesterday, saying that that person—it is not the hon. Member for Belfast, East—was bursting with enthusiasm and eager to get to grips with his job. I think that that is true not only of those who have been selected, but of the community as a whole in Northern Ireland. This morning, I had the pleasure of meeting a party of 25 people from Portadown who were visiting the Assembly. They, too, were looking forward to what we hope will be a new era.
Some matters are problems that remain unresolved. The Secretary of State knows what they are. He will have today received the submission from my party in response to the Patten recommendations. I hope that he will study it and see, as he comes forward with the Government's conclusions on the recommendations, that we should steer away from some of the sillier proposals that Patten made. On examination, I think that he will discover how ill-advised so many of those proposals are, but I shall not go into them now.
Another problem is the criminal justice review, which should have been completed by now but has been delayed. That delay is causing concern because we are aware of some other foolish ideas that are being canvassed by the members of that review, particularly with regard to what is called restorative justice. In my view, it is—in the form in which it is being operated by the Northern Ireland Office in some pilot schemes—contrary to the European convention on human rights. I remind the Secretary of State that the order brings the Human Rights Act 1998 into operation for a large number of matters in Northern Ireland, so that needs to be considered carefully.
I look forward to the time when policing and criminal justice matters are devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I hope that that will happen as soon as possible, because we should take control of that important aspect.
I shall not say much more because many other hon. Members want to speak. I simply say once again that we welcome this measure and hope to carry it through to fruition.
11 pm
Mr. Frank Field: When the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) made the announcement that led directly to this order, I was one of a small minority who expressed reservations about the whole process. It is with considerable relief that I make a short contribution this evening. If I may, I want to impress two points on the House.
First, I want to pick up the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made in his typically generous and graceful contribution. He was at pains to point out Members of the House who have played some part in bringing about this order. I should like to name three people who are present and have been crucial to this process.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has negotiated thus far, though there have been considerable difficulties with his party. That cannot have been an easy task, and the bravery that he has shown is well supported in the country as a whole.

265
My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh has a particular role in the House for English Members and English constituents. Irish Members have come on the media to condemn brutal murders. If my hon. Friend came on, no one could tell from how he phrased his anger and disgust whether the person murdered was a Protestant or a Catholic. Sadly, that was not true of all spokesmen in Northern Ireland. Like the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has a particular place in the affections of the House for the courage that he has shown over a long period.
It would be wrong if I did not also mention the Secretary of State. Although some will dismiss this movement and these events as inevitable and what history is about, I believe that individuals have played an important part in bringing us to this point. The Secretary of State has shown an array of skills, especially knowing when crucial guarantees should be given, and giving them. His statement to the House on Monday of last week played an important part in ensuring that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann had a majority on Saturday when the vote came, rather than a deficit. I would not want someone who had previously been a critic of this process to let events go past without admiring the skills that the Secretary of State has displayed.
We are celebrating an important event of this Parliament in a proper, reserved way and with a certain anxiousness, because it is not without risk. In the week that we take this action, a terrorist organisation in Spain that did not surrender its arms has given notice that it believes that it should now turn its back on the democratic process. However, I think that two powerful forces will work for the success of this agreement, beyond those highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh.
First, if we pay attention to the local government by-elections in the Republic of Ireland, we already see the effects that the potential agreement is having in the politics of these islands. Sinn Fein is emerging as a major challenger for power in the Republic; the Irish Prime Minister therefore has an added interest in ensuring that those who said at some stage they should surrender their arms do so, for there are major consequences for the polity of his own country.
The other factor that I believe is working for good, for security, and for effective democratic change is the Secretary of State's statement that if need be, he, with the Irish Government, would collapse many agreements that are coming into force if arms were not delivered. With typical skill, he did not define the time limit involved in that judgment.
I recall a comment made by Beatrice Webb when asked why her marriage was so successful. She said, "I leave all the important decisions to Sidney. I decide which are the important decisions." The Secretary of State, while giving a guarantee, has left in his own domain the timing in regard to when he will act on the statement that he made tonight and on Monday last week.
266
As someone who was sceptical about the whole process that the former Prime Minister initiated in the last Parliament, I wished, in my short speech, to thank three of the big figures who have brought the House to this stage. I also wished to emphasise that, although we celebrate the change in an appropriately low-key mood, it is still fraught with great difficulties. I believe that the statements made by the Secretary of State tonight and earlier will help to ensure the success of what we do now, rather than the opposite.
11.8 pm
Mr. Lembit Öpik: This has been a year of amazing events, from the retirement of the leader of my party to the people's pregnancy. However, while the rest are basically accidents of circumstance, this is the biggest surprise of all. It says something about human nature: it proves that, for all the differences between all the sides, there was enough good to make the process work.
Flexibility has been fought for on every step of the way. The dangers have been well documented. Sometimes we almost forgot what the end was meant to be, but the end has been achieved, and I am pleased to note that even those who doubted the process have accepted the democratic will of the majority. There have been a few wobbles, and at some points it has not been entirely clear where the various parties have stood. For example, I continue to be concerned about those who seek to create a link between prisoner releases and the Good Friday agreement. That always struck me as an inappropriate connection. Having said that, let me add that I think we need to start looking forward, and burying those reservations with the past.
Sometimes it looked as though party politics were beginning to creep in. If party politics are allowed to interfere with the peace process, the result is an amazingly debilitating set of circumstances, and I think that that almost did slow the process down. However, I was glad to hear—it was reiterated tonight—that the official Opposition were genuinely behind the initiative. The meeting of senior Conservatives with Sinn Fein representatives a few weeks ago reiterated their willingness to give Sinn Fein the opportunity to take its place in the eyes of the public, as well as in Northern Ireland, as a serious political player.
About two weeks ago, I was at a prize day at my old school, the Royal Belfast academical institution. When I spoke there, I expressed the hope that we would get there in the end and that children at the school would not have to live through the troubles and violence, and live in the completely sectarian environment that, unfortunately, so many children have had to live in for so many years. It seems now that they will not have to grow up in that environment. My feeling is that, more than anything, if the process works, they will be encouraged to take a completely different outlook on people from different parts of the sectarian divide. Indeed, I like to think that, in 20 or 30 years, the very phrase "sectarian divide" will have fallen from public use because it will no longer have any meaning.
I noted the comments of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) with regard to Martin McGuinness and his concerns that that gentleman should not be the Education Minister—but that is devolution. It

267
is not our remit to determine who the Minister should be. It is important that we understand that our job is to ensure that people have the space to make the democratic decisions that they want without interference from over here.
Mr. MacKay: To put the record straight, I did not say that Martin McGuinness should not be a Minister. I said that many people, understandably, deeply regretted that he is and that he has to prove himself. I acknowledge that, under the agreement, he has every right to be appointed under the d'Hondt formula. I just put that right.
Mr. Öpik: I stand corrected. It underlines the importance of us making it clear that we will not meddle in processes and in decisions that are, rightly, in the hands of the Province. I understand from his intervention that the right hon. Gentleman is confirming that his party accepts the legitimate right of those who are elected as Ministers in Northern Ireland to play their role in that process.
Thanks have already been given. The list was pretty comprehensive. I should like to say again what I said a few days ago: it is worth remembering that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was instrumental in beginning the whole process. To that extent, one of the great triumphs that he should be proud of, and that we should acknowledge on both sides of the House, is the courage that he showed as Prime Minister in taking big political risks to move the process forward.
Of course, the current Administration, including the Secretary of State, have played an important part as well. Sometimes it is easy to forget the pivotal role that the right hon. Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam) played in beginning to bring the republicans into the political process in a positive way. She deserves great credit for what was a unique contribution in that area.
Of course, the future holds some difficulties. Those who have been involved with devolution in Wales and Scotland know that there will be a period of readjustment between the House of Commons and Northern Ireland as we begin to understand how the devolution process works. That will take one or two years. I suspect that there will be frictions in that process, but is it not great to be in the same sort of political environment as Scotland and Wales, where the issues are ones of interaction, rather than whether we can set up the process in the first place?
The whole process is not just a lesson for Northern Ireland, or the United Kingdom. It is a lesson for the world stage of politics. It shows that, with courage, determination and some good faith, almost anything is possible. Almost anything can be resolved, however unlikely the goal may seem as we embark on such a process.
For anyone who has lived in Northern Ireland, the order is a personal thing. When I watched politics as I grew up, I envisaged that, perhaps at some point in the future, I would see the sort of momentous changes that needed to be implemented for peace to become a reality. Back then, I did not expect that I would be here in person now to vote in favour of such an important order. It is almost unbelievable. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, this is a new beginning that has a strong emotional overtone for the people of Northern Ireland.
268
Naturally, we support the order. It is an honour for me to be here to observe the proceedings—which are a triumph of reason over emotion—and for that I shall always be grateful.
11.15 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: The order says:
"Whereas, it having appeared to the Secretary of State that sufficient progress had been made in implementing the agreement".
So we are asked to say that sufficient progress has been made. That statement will then become law and cannot be gone back on—yet no progress has been made on decommissioning.
I am disturbed by the Secretary of State's attempts to paint things differently from how they are. He should tell the truth. Everyone knows my party's attitude on the issue; we have fought two elections on it. Our position is clear and was spelled out in our manifesto. It ill becomes the Secretary of State to bandy about words such as "hypocrites" and "hypocrisy" when he is well filled with those himself.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that remark. He should not refer to any Member of Parliament with words such as "hypocrisy"
Rev. Ian Paisley: I wonder why the same remark can be said about me by the Secretary of State, but nothing is said—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State did not say that about the hon. Gentleman, I can assure him of that. He would not have done that in my presence. I repeat, the hon. Gentleman cannot continue his speech until he withdraws that remark.
Rev. Ian Paisley: If there are two laws in the House, I shall withdraw the remark.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I note that the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn the remark, but there is only one law.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I want to put on the record what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said yesterday in the Assembly. His words show that all the Secretary of State's so-called optimism about the Democratic Unionist party surrendering its principles is false. My hon. Friend said:
"Everyone here knows that I am one of the sternest opponents of the Belfast Agreement. I have consistently maintained that the purpose and the objective of the agreement is to have Northern Ireland absorbed in a united Ireland through developing all-Ireland institutions. I still believe that to be the process underlying it. Whether a Member or a Minister, as a convinced Unionist I shall use every ounce of influence I possess to frustrate and thwart Northern Ireland's being conveyed into a united Ireland."
Mr. Chris Ruane: Will the hon Gentleman give way?
Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I will not. The Deputy Speaker tells me that, as the second speaker from Northern Ireland tonight, I have to cut short my speech. I am not giving way to any hon. Member—or right hon. Member—from the Labour Benches.

269
My hon. Friend continued:
"Moreover, it remains for me a fundamental principle that only those who are committed to use exclusively peaceful and democratic means are suitable partners in government."
This House tonight seems to think that a suitable partner in government is a man whose hands drip with the blood not only of the people whom I represent in the House, but of his own fellow Roman Catholics. Hon. Members should go and read about the sobs of a widow in Londonderry. Mr. McGuinness got her son to return from exile with a promise that nothing would happen to him, but he was sent for, taken out and brutally murdered. Hon. Members should talk to her about what Mr. McGuinness really stands for.
My hon. Friend continued:
"The call of my conscience and the commitments I have given to the people of Northern Ireland are unalterable. I oppose terrorism in all its forms and of every shade. Whether it be the murder of a friend or that of an odious adversary, I oppose it without qualification and without any mental reservation. As far as my conduct as a prospective Minister may be an issue, I want to place firmly on the record my intention and disposition to be scrupulously fair in every respect, while exercising such responsibilities as may be in my charge. The religious conviction or political opinion of any person or any group will form no part of the judgment I will make on any matter. I shall work for everyone in this community seeking for them a better deal. I consider myself to be the servant of all and the master of none."
I hope that no other hon. Member will try to do what the Secretary of State tried to do tonight to Democratic Unionist Members. Those Members took office not because this House wanted them to, but because the people of Northern Ireland—according to the laws of this House—gave two seats to the Democratic Unionist party. The Secretary of State, like others who have occupied his position, would like to get rid of the Democratic Unionist party. However, I am afraid that it happens to be here to stay, and will at least outlast the short life that he will have in Northern Ireland.
There is not one truly democratic country in the whole world which would, for one moment, accept the principle that armed gunmen, thugs and murderers, with their hands dripping with the blood of their fellow countrymen, their fellow co-religionists and their fellow citizens should, as of right, be given office in government. Where would we find another democracy passing a measure like this? It is a fundamental of a pure and proper democracy that only those who have eschewed murder and bloodshed should be permitted to be placed in the government of their country.
There used to be laws to keep criminals from taking office. Now we are asked to pass a law to put criminals into office—and the Government think that the people of Northern Ireland should join in some happy ceremony on this occasion. They should go and tell that to the widows, the orphans and those with vacant seats in their houses, and they will get an answer. The Secretary of State needs to talk to, not lock the doors on, those victims and the people who are in tears daily because of the agonies they have suffered. He should listen to what they have to say.
Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I will not.
270
The House is asked to approve a law that provides that those who have engaged in murder—the most heinous and atrocious of murders—must have a way opened for them to get into the government of Northern Ireland. That is what we are being asked to do. True democracy rests on a bedrock of liberty. It was established not to satisfy the views and aspirations of a mere single generation, but to secure the blessings of enduring principles of liberty—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman)
11.25 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: We have heard a characteristically impassioned but wrong-headed speech from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I endorse the warm compliments paid by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
I also offer my compliments to that remarkable woman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam). In the early days when she took office she faced formidable problems, but she behaved with immense courage. The fact that we now have an international tribunal reviewing the Bloody Sunday affair is a tribute to her.
There are those on the Opposition Benches who see these developments as the further unravelling of the United Kingdom, but we have a different United Kingdom to the one we lived in just two years ago. It is now a multinational state based on, among other things, the principle of consent. That holds for the people of Scotland, the people of Wales and, of course, the people of Northern Ireland. In the many years that I sat on the Opposition Benches, I did not think that I would see the setting up of a Scottish Parliament, but it is now firmly established, as is the Northern Ireland Executive, with the Assembly about to begin work.
I have said over and over again that the critical factor of decommissioning has to be addressed. It looms over the Executive and the Assembly, and the paramilitaries must co-operate with General de Chastelain to ensure the comprehensive and viable decommissioning of weaponry. However, as I have said before, everybody in Northern Ireland stands to gain from the Assembly, based as it is on the principle of consent.
That admirable politician, Monica McWilliams, who, I am glad to say, is a member of the Assembly, said yesterday:
"It has taken a tremendous amount of time to get here. True, the mood music we heard today was the one we have got used to at Stormont. But I think people are anxious to get into their new jobs and they will work well together once they have settled in.
I believe the new Ministers are all anxious to prove they are the best Ministers for their particular areas and that can only be good for Northern Ireland."
I hope that that holds for the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I hope and trust that all of the Ministers will do their damnedest to improve the lives of everyone in Northern Ireland.
There will be some lively, even heated, exchanges when the new Ministers are cross-examined by the Scrutiny Committees. I can tell the hon. Members who

271
are going to be Ministers that new Scottish Ministers have found appearing in front of Committees in the Edinburgh Parliament a somewhat interesting experience. There are certainly some interesting pairings of Ministers and the Chairs of Committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Whatever hon. Members may think of Mr. McGuinness, and I certainly have serious reservations about him, I was much taken by his comment yesterday that he is committed to the campaign for the integration of schools and is opposed to the 11-plus. Hon. Members with constituencies in Ulster will know how often I have spoken against the 11-plus. As someone who failed the exam, I have always thought that it should be abolished anyway. The words used by Mr. McGuinness were reassuring.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my old and hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), carried on the work involved in the integration of schools. Such integration is a force for good—long may it continue and develop. As a child, I attended a Catholic school. If it were possible for me to have children again, I would not send them to segregated schools. The integration question is very important in the context of Northern Ireland.
Finally, those with the appropriate responsibilities should ensure that a programme is set up in the near future to bring together cross-border organisations and other bodies. From a Scottish perspective, we now talk about British-Irish relations and about a different kind of United Kingdom.
I believe that another force for good is the Council of the Isles. Hon. Members, especially the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, will not be surprised to hear me say that if that council could be given a permanent secretariat, after the manner of the Nordic Council, it would make good sense to locate that secretariat in Glasgow. That is my appeal. It could not be based in Greenock—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]. I assure my hon. Friends that it would make good sense to locate the secretariat in Scotland rather than in Dublin or London.
I say to those hon. Members who are members of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland that they and their constituents have everything to gain from this Assembly.
11.32 pm
Mr. John M. Taylor: I think that there is nothing that I should add at this hour, save to congratulate all those who have brought us this far and to give my party's good wishes to all concerned. Everyone knows how much there is to do. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, in effect, that the apparent end is in fact the beginning. I agree.
The Opposition would like to say to all concerned, "Good luck with the beginning, the middle and the end. God speed."
11.33 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): By the standards of the best of this House, in many ways this has been a good debate. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) made a good speech. I could not agree with all of it, but he acknowledged that it has been a long and difficult path that has led from the problems of the past to the present position. On behalf of my departmental
272
colleagues, may I say how glad I am that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, even though they may not have been with us throughout the entire journey, should be here at the end of it.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell spoke about Mr. Martin McGuinness. He, and the rest of the House, should remember that there are still two communities in Northern Ireland. The whole process has been about healing the wounds of the past and bringing in parity of esteem for the future. I hope that Martin McGuinness, Bairbre de Brun and all the other Ministers will play their part, and that the right hon. Gentleman, and the whole House, will encourage them to work towards healing divisions and making a future for all the people of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—typically, if I may say so—made a moving speech. Assuming for one moment the mantle of responding to him on behalf of all past and present Ministers, I thank him for his kind words to all of those who have served at any time in Northern Ireland.
I pay tribute to the vision that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have held on to, often in unimaginably difficult circumstances, and to congratulate him and all the other pro-agreement parties on now seeing a time when that vision can be realised. His eloquence tonight was the expression of the eloquence of almost all the community in Northern Ireland and I congratulate him on the role that he has played tonight and for many years, in bringing us to where we are today.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has rightly received many compliments in recent days and months. More than anyone, he has recognised the substantial gains that the Good Friday agreement brings to his community, yes, but also to everyone in Northern Ireland—I know that, increasingly, he will want to speak for the whole community in the future. It is a future that puts aside violence, in which communities come together instead of driving each other apart. The right hon. Gentleman, through his courage, which has often been commented on, his good sense, which I have often witnessed and respected, and with the wit that he has shown tonight, has played an important part in that process—probably one of the key parts—alongside Senator Mitchell and others.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he feels—perhaps rightly—that some issues remain unresolved. While there is not time for me to deal with those issues in detail in this debate, he well knows that the door of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is always open to him and to the other parties that have matters that they still need to resolve. My right hon. Friend will welcome him and those other parties. He will keep that door open to them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is also a friend, paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have watched him work in recent weeks and he has indeed shown a great deal of skill and commitment, but also a great deal of principle in building on the work that many of his predecessors—most recently my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam)—have put into bringing us to where we are today. This is indeed a momentous point in history and a great deal of trust and responsibility will rest on the shoulders of my right hon.

273
Friend the Secretary of State in the weeks and months to come. He will take those responsibilities as seriously in the future as he has in the past.
Mr. Field: While in no way do I want to detract from the compliments that I and many others rightly paid the Secretary of State, I was also trying to point out the strength of feeling on both sides of the House to support him in insisting that at some stage—we hope soon—arms are surrendered.
Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. It is well made. The comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the undertakings that he has given stand on the record. They are serious commitments and undertakings.
Mr. Thompson: The Secretary of State made it absolutely clear that decommissioning is a voluntary act. If that is so, how can he fulfil his promise to take quick resolution if the action is not carried out?
Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend has also made it clear that there is a package, with devolution on the one hand and decommissioning on the other. He has given clear and unambiguous undertakings that he will monitor the progress of both matters; default on one side will have consequences. The hon. Gentleman may not like to accept that; he may not like its implications. However, that is the reality of the undertakings given by my right hon. Friend; that is why the Ulster Unionist party, last Saturday, decided to give the process a go.
More in sorrow than in anger, I come to the speech of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I do not propose to deal with all the points that he made. However, he made a specific attack on the intentions expressed by my right hon. Friend in his opening speech. By way of clarification, when my right hon. Friend referred to the hon. Member for North Antrim and his party, he had in mind the fact that, after 30 years of telling us that Ulster says no, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were remarkably swift-footed in saying yes when it came to taking up ministerial positions. Although we welcome that news, the hon. Gentleman may have to make some explanations as to how that came about to the people who have put their trust in him in the past.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I got 195,000 votes.
Mr. Howarth: I have some affection for the hon. Gentleman. That is not the first occasion on which he has shouted at me. I congratulate him and his colleagues on taking up Government posts. I hope that they will play a constructive role.
This is truly a moment in history when, for the most part, Members of the House have been patient and understanding. On occasion, we have been willing to suspend our collective judgment in the hope that that will help. As a House, we have played our part in this piece of history. Of course, we should acknowledge and remember all the past suffering, but I hope that the hon. Member for North Antrim and all those who do not wish the process well will join us in wanting to see a future for
274
all the people of Northern Ireland—a future in which they will all have a stake and in which they can all take their place, not only with pride, but with confidence that it is indeed all of their future.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 10
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Appointed Day) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 108 (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)),
That the Welsh Grand Committee shall meet on Tuesday 14th December at half past Ten o'clock at Westminster to take questions under Standing Order No. 103, (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and to consider the matter of the Government's legislative programme as outlined in the Queen's Speech and the Chancellor's Pre-budget Report as they relate to Wales, under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)).—[Mr. Touhig.]
Question agreed to.

Diabetes
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
11.55 pm
Mr. Adrian Sanders: Thank you Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to raise—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. An hon. Member is addressing the House, so other hon. Members should leave the Chamber quietly.
Mr. Sanders: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an important issue in the House. I have declared a relevant interest. It has been pointed out that some might take offence at a Member of Parliament addressing the House in a dinner jacket, but that is unavoidable: I came here straight from an event to which I hope to return at the end of business.
Currently, 140 million people throughout the world are known to have diabetes. That figure—
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the previous debate, you made a ruling in respect of something I said. May I draw your attention to column 605 of the Hansard of 24 November? At that time, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made certain comments which could be taken to refer to only one person, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I should like you to read the Hansard and give a ruling on the matter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The matter will be looked into. Let us return to the Adjournment debate.
Mr. Sanders: Currently, more than 140 million people around the world are known to have diabetes. That figure is projected to rise to 300 million by 2025. In the UK, the figure is currently 1.4 million, and it rises every week.
Diabetes is the biggest single cause of blindness among adults of working age in the UK. The risk of hospital admission owing to heart disease is increased fourfold among those with diabetes. Diabetes is one of the most common causes of kidney failure. Half of all lower limb amputations other than those carried out following trauma are a consequence of the disease. Diabetes consumes more than 5 per cent. of health care spending in this country, which is £2.5 billion each year or £70 a second.
The Government's response has been to launch the national service framework on diabetes. It is imperative—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The best thing would be for the owner of that device to leave the Chamber.
Mr. Sanders: It is imperative that people with diabetes have access to top-quality diabetes care. I hope that the national service framework will achieve that, when it is published in 2001. The Government recently announced the co-chairs of the NSF expert reference group, and are currently assembling the core members of the group. I hope that people with diabetes are properly represented on the core group and topic sub-groups, because they are
278
the end-users; they, like me, live with the condition every day. People with diabetes are the real experts and the Government should make full use of their input.
The scope of the NSF has yet to be announced, but I believe it to be imminent. Vital to the success of a comprehensive NSF is that it covers the entire diabetes life cycle, from cradle to grave. That means from diagnosis to treatment, and from childhood to old age.
At the beginning of this month, the British Diabetic Association launched its report on diabetes care in nursing and care homes. Research reveals numerous deficiencies in the care elderly people receive in care homes: lack of care planning, inadequate nutritional guidance, lack of specialist health expertise input, and inadequate and unstructured medical follow-up. With about one in 10 people in care homes having diabetes, that issue must be examined. I should like all to receive equal, high-quality care, and the BDA report makes a number of suggestions, based on the active involvement of individual residents, to rectify the shortcomings I have described. The Secretary of State has been sent a copy of the report, and I hope that he will respond positively and take action.
The Government announced in the Queen's Speech their proposals for a care standards Bill to improve care across social services in private and voluntary health care and in child care. I hope that such a Bill will have the desired effect. Meanwhile, the on-going "Fit For the Future?" consultation document on improving standards of residential care for older people is a further opportunity for progress.
It is important that better standards of care are introduced, and we need to end discrimination against people with diabetes. The recent implementation of the second European Community directive on driving licences effectively bans insulin-dependent diabetics from driving large vans and minibuses.
Mr. Desmond Browne: I first became aware of the absurd state of the law in relation to insulin-dependent drivers in the United Kingdom when one of my constituents, James Murray, who was a light goods vehicle driver, became insulin dependent and found himself almost overnight not entitled to an LGV licence or to retain the licence that he had previously held, which allowed him to drive vehicles between 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes and some minibuses.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the roots of the legislation lie in the directive to which he referred, but it is one that allows some flexibility to the member countries of the European Union. Does he agree that the James Murrays of this world will find it inexplicable that while our Government have applied the directive stringently, other European countries have protected existing drivers who have occupational licences by using the exceptional circumstances provisions of the directive?
Mr. Sanders: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. There are different interpretations and it is bizarre that a Dutch diabetic can come to the UK and drive a vehicle on our roads while a UK driving licence holder cannot drive the same vehicle if they are both insulin-dependent diabetics.
Since 1991, diabetics have been banned from driving heavy goods vehicles under the first EC directive on those matters. I would argue that the Department of the

279
Environment, Transport and the Regions has interpreted the second directive in an unnecessarily harsh way. I would reiterate the points that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) made.
Since 1998, more than 1,000 people with diabetes who applied to renew their C1 licence, which allows them to drive a van or vehicle weighing between 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes, have had their application refused. My attention was recently drawn to the case of a man who ran a haulage firm in Kent for 26 years. Running the company meant moving lorries around in the depot. He lost his licence as a result of changing on to insulin. He was a diabetic before that happened. As he could not afford to hire an extra employee, he was forced out of business.
I have examples of people in my constituency who have had their earnings reduced—at worst they have lost their jobs—as a result of the restrictions. There are hundreds more cases of that sort, yet the Department's suspicion that people with a medical condition, such as diabetes, are less fit to drive than others is not substantiated by any medical or scientific evidence. Instead of a blanket ban, I believe that a system of individual assessment should be adopted by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
The EC directive under which the regulations were adopted allows for a certain amount of flexibility, and as I have mentioned, other EU member states take a more lenient approach. I am not advocating a lapse in road safety—far from it. Stringent annual health checks by a diabetes specialist should be used as a basis for individual risk assessment. Only those who show good blood glucose control and have no further complications would be allowed to drive larger vehicles or passenger carrying vehicles.

Blanket bans are always unfair and I am sure that many hon. Members will be aware from their postbags and surgeries that this discriminatory policy is causing distress to many people throughout the country. With the possibility of a third EC directive on driving in the pipeline, it is time that the Government reviewed their approach. Meanwhile, the Select Committee on Science and Technology is investigating the issue, and I hope that the Government take note of evidence to the Committee calling for a fresh look at the regulations.
Health care should be accessible, and that includes accessibility in terms of cost. Yet in many parts of the country people who use pen needles to inject insulin currently have to pay for their needles. I and a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have been engaged in a long battle to make those needles available on prescription. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) for the work that he has done on the issue over the years.
When the current Secretary of State for Health was first at the Department, before his spell at the Treasury, he initiated a consultation process, but the matter has still not been resolved almost a year on. I see no justifiable reason why the decision should be delayed further. The Government have given an assurance that they agree with the principle that pen needles should be free on prescription. They say that they are still consulting, but surely the situation should not be allowed to drag on any longer.
Meanwhile, the Department of Health has yet to rule out the blacklisting of disposables as a cost-saving measure. Disposable pen needles are essential for people
280
who have visual impairment or lack manual dexterity and find it difficult to fill reusable pens. These simple devices are a vital part of many people's diabetes control. I ask the Government not to delay any further, as the current situation discriminates against poorer people with diabetes.
Good health care should be a right in this day and age, and should not be based on ability to pay. I urge the Government to consider seriously the various points that I have raised tonight, and to ensure that people with diabetes are treated with equity, fairness and dignity.
12.6 am
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) on raising this important subject and making his points clearly and concisely. I am aware of his close interest in the subject, as the chair of the all-party group on diabetes and, as he told the House, because he himself has diabetes.
I hope to respond to all the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. I begin by assuring the House of the seriousness with which the Government take diabetes. It is, as the House has heard, an important health issue in terms of both morbidity and mortality. More than 1 million people in the United Kingdom have diabetes, and that number is forecast to increase significantly over the next decade.
Diabetes has a significant impact on the national health service. Our estimate is rather higher than the hon. Gentleman's—diabetes and its complications account for at least 9 per cent. of health care costs in the UK. If it is not properly managed, diabetes can result in a range of long-term complications which the hon. Gentleman listed—blindness, renal failure, lower limb amputation and cardiovascular disease.
I acknowledge that there is some evidence of considerable variations around the country in the organisation and quality of diabetes services. For that reason among others, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the former Secretary of State, announced in January that the next national service framework would cover diabetes. I shall return to the national service framework later and respond to other specific issues, but first I shall touch briefly on the wider context of Government policies for tackling diabetes.
The previous Administration signed up to, and we endorse, the St. Vincent declaration, which recommended action in key areas and set outcome targets. The principles and targets of the St. Vincent declaration have been at the core of what successive Governments have done on diabetes, in partnership with health service providers, the British Diabetic Association and others.
The St. Vincent joint task force for diabetes set up by the Department and the BDA made recommendations in 1995 about good clinical and management practice in 11 agreed priority areas. That was followed in November 1997 by service guidance for the NHS entitled "Key features of a good diabetes service", which was developed by a sub-group of the Department's clinical outcomes group. The key features guidance made suggestions about how health authorities, working in partnership with primary care and all those involved in the planning and

281
delivery of local diabetes services, including people with the condition, should work together to agree a structured programme of diabetes care.
A raft of other work feeds into the new quality agenda. The Government are supporting a range of current activities to improve knowledge-based decision making in diabetes care. The Department has commissioned new national clinical guidelines for type 2 diabetes, and other clinical effectiveness materials.
The hon. Gentleman rightly stressed the importance of the user's perspective and needs and of ensuring that the NHS provides effective services to meet them. We attach great importance to involving patients, carers and the wider public in decisions about health service delivery, and we also want individual patients to play a greater role in determining the care that the NHS gives them. An NHS that works effectively with patients will deliver better results for individual patients and better health for the whole population.
An example of that is the Bradford health action zone programme, which is developing models for delivering accredited diabetes care within primary care. The Bradford HAZ has set up a network of local diabetes satellite clinics in general practitioners' surgeries and, instead of visiting hospital, patients can receive specialist care locally. That is an example of how our determination to modernise the NHS and tackle inequalities is already improving services.
The BDA is also participating in the expert patients task force, headed by the chief medical officer, which was announced in the White Paper "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" and met for the first time last week. The task force will design a programme to help people with a chronic disease or disability such as diabetes to take the lead in managing their condition, with appropriate support from the health service.
The Government are making a major contribution to diabetes research through the Medical Research Council and NHS support for research and development. The MRC, which is the main agency through which we support medical and clinical research, spends about £3.5 million a year on diabetes. In addition to commissioning specific projects, the Department supports research funded by charities such as the BDA and the MRC, which takes place in the NHS. More than £4 million a year of that funding supports endocrinology and diabetes research.
I shall deal briefly with issues surrounding diabetes screening. The UK national screening committee is considering the case for introducing a screening programme targeted at people at high risk of contracting type 2 diabetes. We expect to receive its advice later next year, and it will also be linking type 2 diabetes with other risk factors in its consideration of screening for vascular disease. It also recently commissioned a working group to develop proposals for a national screening programme for diabetic retinopathy. The proposals being developed would ensure national coverage to national quality standards.
I deal now with some of the specific issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. On driving and diabetes, I am afraid that there is little more that I can say this evening. The way in which the driving licences of people with diabetes
282
treated by insulin are considered is of course a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Briefly, as the hon. Gentleman said, the current position is based on European legislation—the second driving licence directive. That directive provides for licensing restrictions on those with insulin-treated diabetes—in particular in respect of driving heavier vehicles—based on risks associated with insulin treatment. I understand that the advisory panel on diabetes and driving, which advises my right hon. Friend, has, over a long period, consistently advised against the granting of licences to drive the largest vehicles, such as lorries and buses, to people with insulin-treated diabetes, based on its knowledge of the risk of a hypoglycaemic attack occurring without warning and the associated road safety risk.
That bar was extended to small lorries and minibuses on implementation of the second driving licence directive which, for people with insulin-treated diabetes, came into effect at the beginning of 1998. However, on the advice of the panel, the Government felt able to relax the law in September last year to allow drivers of small lorries to renew entitlement obtained before 1 January 1997, provided that they can satisfy specified conditions. I shall of course draw the attention of the relevant Minister to the debate. I am also aware, as is the hon. Gentleman, that the Science and Technology Committee is currently considering diabetes and driving licences.
Mr. Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I realise that the issue that exercises me is the responsibility of another Department, but when he draws the debate to the attention of the relevant Minister, will he stress that the arguments are fundamentally underpinned by a desire for the Department to treat people with this disability as individuals, not a coherent group? We are arguing for an approach that recognises people's individuality and that would reflect the stance that other European countries appear to be adopting.
Mr. Denham: I repeat my undertaking to draw the appropriate Minister's attention to the points that have been made in this debate. However, it is not for me to intrude on the responsibilities of another Department.
The hon. Member for Torbay expressed concern about the inadequate diabetes care suffered by some elderly people in residential care homes. That issue was highlighted recently in a report by the BDA. Among the deficiencies identified by the BDA were a lack of diabetes care planning, inadequate dietary advice, a lack of specialist health professional input, high ratios of staff with no experience of diabetes and a lack of diabetes training for care home staff. The report raised serious issues and made important recommendations, which we shall consider further. In particular, I confirm that this aspect will fall within the scope of the national service framework for diabetes. The BDA report will help to inform its development.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the care standards Bill announced in the Queen's Speech is relevant because it is designed to drive up standards in care services, with a new independent regulatory system to inspect care homes and other services against national standards. Also relevant is the consultation document "Fit for the Future?", which includes proposed standards for older people in residential and nursing homes.

283
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the availability of insulin injection pens and needles on GP prescription. We consulted between February and April this year on a proposal that was designed to open the way for insulin pen needles and reusable insulin injection pens to be available on GP prescription on the NHS. Reusable pens and needles would be free to people with diabetes who need treatment with insulin and who produce the necessary prescription charge exemption certificate.
The proposal on which we consulted was to prevent GP prescribing of pre-filled, disposable, insulin injection pens because it was significantly more expensive to administer insulin using those pens than using reusable pens, and they seemed to offer no clinical benefits or benefits of patient convenience or comfort to justify the extra cost.
Most of the organisations consulted responded, including the companies that market insulin pens and needles, which have proposed to equalise the costs of pre-filled and reusable pen-based insulin regimes by adjusting their pricing. We thought that this proposal, which would have avoided the need for the proposed blacklisting of pre-filled pens, was well worth exploring with the companies. It was clear from the consultation that some people felt there was a need for pre-filled pens because they are less fiddly to use. Some people with diabetes who could not use the reusable pen may be able to use the pre-filled pen. The companies' proposal offered one way of responding to this need, although not the only way.
We are currently in negotiation with the companies. A central point is agreeing a price for the reusable pens that is fair and affordable to the NHS. We wrote to the companies about a month ago, setting out prices that we believed were fair. We asked for their reactions, and the ball is now in their court. If they agree to our pricing proposals, we can quickly make reusable pens and needles available through GPs on the NHS. If not, we will have to consider what alternative options might be open to us. That may well include making pen needles available on GP prescription while postponing a decision on making some or all reusable pens similarly available. It would not, however, be sensible for us to postpone a decision on pre-filled pens.
Allowing pen needles to be prescribed could make use of the pre-filled pen more attractive than at present, because people would no longer have to buy the needles for them. To forestall growth in this relatively expensive way of administering insulin, we may need to return to the original proposal of blacklisting pre-filled pens, or at least restricting their availability to those who really need them. I share the hon. Gentleman's impatience to see this matter resolved, and I assure him that we are endeavouring to make progress as quickly as possible.
284
I referred earlier to various initiatives to improve services for people with diabetes. They are valuable, but they will have their greatest impact if they have to take place in a clear structure that holds those who deliver services to account.
Shortly after taking office, we set out in the White Paper "The New NHS—Modern, Dependable" and the policy document "A First Class Service—Quality in the New NHS" a range of measures to raise quality and standards and to decrease unacceptable variations in service. We said that standards would be set by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and by national service frameworks. For the first time in the history of the NHS, we are setting clear national standards to guarantee fair treatment wherever patients live.
The national service framework for diabetes will be published in 2001, for implementation in the NHS from spring 2002. The national service framework will set national standards, define service models, introduce strategies to support implementation and delivery, and establish performance measures against which progress within an agreed time scale will be measured and monitored.
We have started work in earnest on the diabetes NSF. We have been putting together a team of officials at the Department to co-ordinate its development, and working out a project plan. As the hon. Gentleman said, last month we announced the appointment of the co-chairs of the expert reference group for the diabetes NSF. We shall soon announce the scope of the NSF and also the terms of reference and membership of the expert reference group. It will bring together representatives of the main interested parties, including diabetologists and other health care professionals and managers, service users and carers and partner agencies.
Mr. Sanders: And patients?
Mr. Denham: Service users will certainly include patients—those who have diabetes. The group hopes to meet in the near future, once we have announced its membership.
Each member of the expert reference group will be expected to play an active role and to take responsibility for advice on specific topic areas within the scope of the diabetes NSF. That scope will be broadly drawn, covering prevention, identification and management of diabetes and its major complications. As well as including people with diabetes on the expert reference group, we shall be looking at other ways to involve them in the development of the NSF, and as part of that the NSF will focus specifically on the needs of minority ethnic groups.
I hope that I have been able to respond as fully as possible to all the points raised by the hon. Gentleman in what was, even at this late hour, an important debate on a subject that interests many people.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Twelve midnight.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Palestinian Refugees
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Dowd.]
10 am
Mr. Peter Viggers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As there has been some uncertainty, can you confirm that contributions to the debate should be made from a standing position and that the switches on the microphones are inoperative because the microphones are operated automatically, so we do not need to touch them?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can confirm that and I hope that everything will work smoothly. Hon. Members should rise in their place, as usual, and they will be heard by all who need to hear them.
10.1 am
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: It is a privilege to be making history by introducing the first debate in this new parallel Chamber. It is a pleasure to see that we have already established a new tradition of hon. Members sitting where they please and not in accordance with their political party.
It is a particular pleasure to me, as a former member of the Modernisation Committee and a signatory to the report that recommended the parallel Chamber, to have been chosen to speak in the first debate. It is fitting that my constituency of Milton Keynes is to be associated for ever with innovation and modernisation.
The subject of our debate is Palestinian refugees. The debate is timely because the issue is one of the most difficult to be resolved during the current final status negotiations in the middle east peace process. Both sides to the negotiations started from heavily entrenched positions. The Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, has said that there can be no return of the refugees, but neither President Arafat nor any other Palestinian leader would be allowed to sign away the Palestinian right to return, given that 70 per cent. of Palestinians are refugees.
The refugee problem is not minor. Palestinians comprise the largest single group of refugees in the world, and one of the oldest. There are 3.6 million Palestinian refugees registered with the United Nations, a figure that has grown from 914,000 in 1950 when the United Nations Relief and Works Agency was established. That population is growing by 3 per cent. a year. Under UNRWA's operational definition,
"Palestinian refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, and who took refuge in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Jordanian-ruled West Bank or the Egyptian-administered Gaza Strip."
2WH
Contrary to the Israeli position, UNRWA also
"covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948."
In addition to registered refugees, an estimated 1 million other Palestinians are unregistered refugees. That includes the 850,000 who represent those displaced in 1967 and their descendants. The number has been augmented by the actions of the Israeli Government in confiscating the identity cards of Palestinian Jerusalemites, effectively deporting them. More than 2,000 Palestinians were deported in that way between 1996 and 1998 alone. In all, 70 per cent. of Palestinians remain in exile against their will.
Most of the refugees are in the immediate area of Palestine. According to UNRWA, one third of registered Palestinian refugees—around 1.1 million—live in 59 recognised refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the west bank and Gaza. The majority of the remainder live in and around the cities of the area. For example, the majority of Palestinian refugees from west Jerusalem still live within 20 miles of their stolen property. That demonstrates the way in which the refugee problem is tied up with the question of Jerusalem and its borders.
There are even refugees living inside Israel. They are internal refugees who fled from their villages and found themselves still within the boundaries of the Jewish state after the cessation of hostilities. Today, they make up a large proportion of the 120,000-strong population of the so-called unrecognised villages—unrecognised in that, although the villages are within Israel, most of them are denied access to municipal services, including running water, electricity, education and health services. It is important that the fate of the internal refugees is not ignored, and that their rights are recognised.
What are the rights of the refugees? International law is clear. The refugees are entitled to return to their homes and entitled to compensation. UN resolution 194, which has been reaffirmed 110 times since 1948, and which even the United States supported in 1993, states clearly in relation to the Palestinians:
"the General Assembly resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of, or damage to, property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the governments or authorities responsible."
Further legal support is given through article XIII of the universal declaration of human rights, through the convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, in which articles 2 and 5d guarantee the right of refugees to return, and through the international covenant on civil and political rights. The right of private ownership—most of the refugees owned land or other property—applies regardless of changes in sovereignty or nationality, and cannot be negotiated away by any government.
Some have sought to suggest that the refugees have forgone their rights, alleging that they left voluntarily in 1948 at the behest of surrounding Arab countries. However, there is a considerable body of evidence, now backed up by Israeli historians such as Benny Morris, Illan Pappé and others, that shows that there was a concerted and deliberate effort to expel Palestinians. Massacres such as that at Deir Yassin are well

3WH
documented. Of the 726,000 refugees in 1948, 52 per cent. had been expelled or fled before the Arab forces entered Palestine in May 1948, and 213 villages and towns including Jaffa, Tiberias, Safad, Beisan and Acre had been forcibly depopulated.
Many of the areas attacked by Jewish forces before May 1948 were outside the area proposed under partition for the Jewish state. Why people fled is, in any case, irrelevant. As in Kosovo and Chechnya today, people flee any theatre of war. As far as international law is concerned, it matters not why a person has left. That person cannot be denied the right to return to his or her home. Legally, the Palestinians have a right of return that cannot be denied.
However, anyone who has visited Palestinian refugee camps and spoken to refugees cannot be in any doubt about their strong and abiding desire to return. A couple of years ago, in a refugee camp in Gaza, I spoke to a woman who lived with her family of four other adults and six grandchildren in five rooms. She had come from Hebron in 1948, still regarded Hebron as her home and longed to return. In the camps, people retain their community links with refugees from the same village or town. Marriages are arranged within those extended village communities, re-creating within the camps a network of virtual Palestinian villages. Over and over again, people show the key to their house, or the title deeds to their property in Palestine. The children, although born in Syria or Jordan, describe in loving detail the topography of family homes that they have never seen—family homes now expropriated and lived in by others.
The sense of injustice among refugees is fuelled by the appalling conditions in which many live. Most camps are desperately overcrowded, with extended families living in breeze-block dwellings that are far too small and often do not have proper sewerage or clean water. In Beach camp in the Gaza strip, more than 71,000 Palestinian refugees live in three quarters of a square kilometre. Children in the camps have nowhere to play but in the sand; by the age of four, 85 per cent. are infected with roundworm. In schools, double—or even treble—shifts for teachers and pupils are the norm. Unemployment is rife, and the refugees, unlike Gazan residents with Palestinian citizenship, cannot legally travel into Israel to seek employment.
The refugees in Lebanon have suffered especially badly. Many were killed during the civil war in Lebanon, and others continue to live there under frequent Israeli bombardment. The refugees' presence in Lebanon is unwelcome to the Lebanese, who are concerned about the destabilising effect that they have had, and may continue to have, on the complex communal politics of Lebanon. In Syria, and especially in Jordan, the refugees' situation is better, but their desire to return home is still strong.
The refugees' right to return is incontrovertible, and the rights of the 1967 refugees, at least, were recognised by Israel in the Oslo agreement. However, that raises the question whether it is feasible for them to return. Is there sufficient land? Currently, more than 80 per cent. of the Jewish population live in 15 per cent. of Israel. The remainder, including most of the extreme religious settler groups, live on relatively large areas of rural land
4WH
and the population density is very low. Whereas Palestinian refugees in the Gaza strip live on land with a population of 4,000 people per square kilometre, their kibbutz neighbours across the fence enjoy density levels of three people per square kilometre—that is, more than 1,000 times fewer people per square kilometre.
Israel is used to accommodating large numbers of immigrants. During the 1990s, the number of Jewish immigrants from Russia alone roughly equalled the total number of refugees in the Gaza strip and Lebanon. Since the beginning of the waves of immigration from the former Soviet Union in 1989, more than 770,000 immigrants have emigrated from there to Israel out of a total of more than 900,000 during that period. That process of immigration to Israel is continuing. Furthermore, the Israeli law of return allows for the immigration of non-Jews related by marriage or birth, including grandchildren. No one in Israel has suggested that there was not enough room to accommodate those people, yet it is now suggested that the land cannot accommodate returning Palestinians.
If Israel attempts to deny the right of return of refugees from Jaffa, Nazareth or Galilee to their homes in Israel, it presumably expects them to go to the future Palestinian state. However, the current Palestinian-controlled areas are already densely populated. If a future Palestinian state is to become the home of the refugees, it should include at least the entire west bank and Gaza strip—that is, 23 per cent. of what was formerly mandate Palestine. The best offer so far, which came from the left of the governing Israeli Labour party, would mean that only 70 per cent. of the west bank was in Palestinian hands—that is, 16 per cent. of what was formerly Palestine.
The issues of land, refugees, Jewish settlements and Jerusalem are being negotiated bilaterally between Israel and the Palestine National Authority. However, those negotiating partners are very unequal in terms of power, and the details of the final agreement should also concern us in the United Kingdom. Apart from the fact that we have historic links with Israel and Palestine, we will, as members of the European Union, be expected— with the United States of America—to fund whatever agreement is made. The EU is already the largest donor of development aid to the Palestinian authority. We have an interest in ensuring that any agreement is sustainable.
If the refugee issue remains unresolved, it will become a time bomb. Millions of people, over 50 per cent. of whom are children, will lose all hope of ever being able to escape from the appalling conditions of the camps. That will surely be a fertile breeding ground for extremism, spawning even greater problems in the years to come. That cannot be in our interest, or in Israel's interest.
The threat to Israel does not lie in a Palestinian right of return. The far greater threat lies in not allowing a right of return, and not acknowledging the injustice that befell the refugees. President Clinton said in July:
"I would like it if the Palestinian people felt free and were more free to live wherever they like, wherever they want to live."
Without a right of return, that will not be realised.
I hope that the Minister will today reconfirm the British Government's view on the right of return and compensation of Palestinian refugees under

5WH
international law, including UN General Assembly resolution 194. Compensation for damage or loss of property and for the anguish of the past 51 years must, in justice, be provided. If a refugee chooses not to return, compensation for land must also be included. Recognition of the refugees' rights must not be made contingent on the recognition of the rights of others. Just as the payment of compensation by Germany for the property of Jewish victims of the Nazis cannot and should not be made contingent on Israel's paying compensation to the Palestinians, the Palestinians' right to compensation cannot be made contingent on payments to Jews who fled from other Arab countries.
Who should fund the compensation, and the resettlement costs of those refugees who choose to return? Clearly, Israel should contribute, as it has benefited, over the years, from the confiscated property and land. For example, the land that Israel confiscated and leased to kibbutzim—a quarter of the state of Israel, on which fewer than 3 per cent. of Israelis live—is about to be privatised. Its value is estimated at between $50 billion and $60 billion, which could fund some of the compensation.
The international community also has a responsibility, and I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government are pressing that point in the European Union and with the United States of America. There is a real window of opportunity for peace in the middle east. People of good faith in the Israeli Government and the Palestine National Authority genuinely want a solution that recognises the rights of both peoples to security and prosperity.
The refugees cannot be excluded or bought off by a lump sum of compensation to a Government. We have just fought a war to ensure that the Kosovan refugees could return to their homes, and the Palestinian refugees could reasonably ask why their right to return home appears to be less important. A cynic would say that the lack of mass television coverage of the Palestinian exodus in 1948 is the reason.
I hope that the British Government will ensure that the injustice done to the Palestinians 51 years ago is finally recognised and made good, so that we can start the next millennium with a real and sustainable peace for Israelis and Palestinians. The land that they share is, after all, where the event that marked the start of the first millennium took place.
10.18 am
Mr. Richard Burden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) not only on securing the first debate in this welcome modernisation initiative but on her ingenuity in linking her constituency with such innovation, which I am sure that her constituents will appreciate.
The change of Government in Israel has been welcome. The peace process, which was stalled for so long under the previous Government of Israel, is on track once again. It has been relaunched on the principle that always underlay it—land for peace. Inevitably, when international attention is focused on that process, the most commonly discussed issues are the withdrawal from occupied land, security for Israel and the right of
6WH
the Palestinian people to self-determination in their own land. All those factors are important; indeed, they are vital to the success of any peace process.
However, the Oslo process and countless United Nations resolutions on events in the middle east focus on other issues that must also be addressed if we are to see lasting peace there. That is why I particularly welcome this debate. At the centre of those issues is the question of Palestinian refugees. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West has already talked about United Nations resolution 194, the right of Palestinians to return and their right to compensation. Since that resolution was made, a number of others have raised similar points.
My hon. Friend rightly referred to the scale of the problem, which exists to this day. More than 1 million people still live in 59 camps scattered throughout the west bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. They are overcrowded, neglected and marginalised, and half the refugees are children, who are growing up with an uncertain future. Education and health services in the camps are poor. There is insufficient space for children to play, and many leave school early to find work to help support their families. In the Nahr E1 Bared camp, in Lebanon, more than 26,000 refugees live within 1.9 square kilometres. In the Balata refugee camp, on the west bank, there are just four UNRWA schools for 3,431 schoolchildren.
A couple of weeks ago, I tabled a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development on water resources in the west bank and Gaza. Her answer was most revealing. She said:
"Most water is used for irrigation"
in that area. However,
"A United Nations report from 1990 indicated that the total annual capita consumption for Palestinians in the West Bank was 139 cubic metres, compared to that for settlers of 1,143 cubic metres. Figures for Gaza were 172 cubic metres for Palestinians and 2,326 cubic metres for settlers. Annual per capita consumption in Israel was 411 cubic metres."—[Official Report, 10 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 554.]
That graphically illustrates what life is like for all Palestinians on the west bank and Gaza, not just refugees, but it is clear that life is worse for those who live in the camps.
Last week, I was fortunate enough to host an exhibition, called Eye to Eye, which was sponsored by the Save the Children Fund, and which took place in the Upper Waiting Hall in this place. That exhibition enables Palestinian children to tell their own story by capturing on film everyday life in the camps. An interactive web site based on their images and stories provides a channel of communication between young Palestinians and children in other countries. During the coming months, the exhibition will tour the middle east and this country; I believe that it will visit Cairo next month, followed by various cities in the UK. I shall place on record the web site address, which is www.savethechildren.org.uk/eyetoeye/.
Let us hope that the exhibition will allow more people to see the circumstances in which Palestinian refugees live, and thereby bring a sense of perspective. It is perhaps all too easy to see the middle east solely in geopolitical terms—as a region dominated by the question of what negotiations are under way and what

7WH
agreements have been reached or are under discussion. In terms of finding a solution to the problem, that is right and understandable. Nevertheless, we should not lose sight of the fact that the heart of the problem affects real people with real lives here and now.
I first became interested in the situation of the Palestinians in the 1970s. I was then at university and I used to talk to Palestinian students, many of whom came from refugee families. They would talk about what happened to their parents; the older ones would speak about what they could remember of Palestine before 1948. Palestinian students talk now not only of what happened to their parents, but of what happened to their grandparents—the situation has continued for that long. The same families have experienced displacement not just once, but several times.
The principle of the right to return, which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West mentioned, and the issue of compensation are important. It is also important that not only the international community but Israel comes to terms with what happened in 1948 and with the question of the Palestinian refugees. For Israel to do so would not be to deny the fact that many Israelis have suffered over the past 51 years or that Israeli families have lost loved ones. However, if Israel is to have a secure future, it must come to terms with its past—the bad bits as well as the good. Finding a solution to the plight of Palestinian refugees is an essential part of that process. The existence of Palestinian refugees, and the continuing denial of their rights, is an enduring embodiment of what has gone wrong. It behoves everyone in the international community to do what we can to put that situation right.
Last week, there was a lobby of this place about the Palestinian refugees. I chaired one of the meetings connected with that lobby, at which there was much discussion about initiatives that could be taken. A woman stood up and said that talk was all very well—that there was much talk in the international community and in the House—but that she came from a refugee Palestinian family and that she wanted to know what was going to be done. No easy solution can be magicked out of the air or implemented tomorrow, but after 51 years of the problem we must take on board the fact that we are being asked bluntly what we will do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West made a valid point that, when looking at the rights of refugees and at respect for international law and for United Nations resolutions, the rights of Palestinian refugees should be no less precious to us than the rights of the East Timorese or of those from Kosovo. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure us that the Government stand by what has been stated before about the rights of Palestinian refugees to return and to receive compensation, and that Britain will play an active role in trying to achieve that.
We can contribute to that process on our different levels. I hope that we are doing so by holding this debate and that the Eye to Eye exhibition, which was launched in this place last week and which will tour, will also contribute.
8WH
I shall conclude with a quotation from Nadir, from the Nahr El Bared refugee camp in Lebanon, whose words should be heard by us all—they sum up the problem and explain why we must listen. She said:
"No one sees like our children's eyes can see—the life, school, streets—all of this our children show us through their photographs. Is there anyone in the world who understands what our children want to say?"
It is time for the world to understand what the Palestinian children are saying, to respond and to ensure that Palestinians have a right to return to their homelands.
10.28 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I, too, welcome the new Chamber. It is a grown-up place as, so far, the boys have demonstrated. I hope that it will continue to be so.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on securing the debate. It coincides with the start of a momentous year for the middle east peace process, which, in the past 50 years, has raised hopes over and over again, only for those hopes to be dashed. It was estimated at the beginning of the process that there were 700,000 Palestinian refugees; the registered number now exceeds 3.6 million and there is a diaspora of 5 million Palestinians around the world. A huge number of people want a homeland in the same way as the Jews wanted, and were granted, a homeland in 1948. The creation of the state of Israel left a running sore of suffering and deprivation in the middle east which, of all people in the world, the Jews and the state of Israel must recognise.
Palestinian refugees have a right to return to their homeland. As early as 1917, the Balfour declaration stated:
"it being understood that nothing be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".
Since then, countless resolutions and declarations from the League of Nations, the British Government and the United Nations have upheld the human right declared in 1949 that
"everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own and to return to his country"—
everyone, it seems, except the Palestinians, who are denied that right. Israel must be reminded of its legal and unfulfilled obligations. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) rightly pointed out, it is in Israel's interests to do so.
Many of us were lobbied last week by supporters of Palestine who were anxious to remind us of the conditions that have been endured by Palestinians for 30 years since the six-day war. They suffer socially and economically, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West explained. Draconian Israeli security checks and the requirement for travel permits deny them access to employment, education and health care. We have heard about the terrible living conditions in which a quarter to a third of Palestinians receive no running water. It is interesting to note that 3 million people in Palestine consume a sixth of the total amount of water that is used by 6 million Israelis. That does not add up. The infrastructure has been sadly neglected by Israel.

9WH
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency tries to provide basic health, education and social services to Palestinian refugees. The Department for International Development has just produced a pamphlet on the workings of UNRWA, which I have before me, and has pledged to improve the delivery and the amount of relief. However, despite the United Kingdom's £7 million pledge to UNRWA in 1998, the agency remains severely underfunded. What plans do the Government have to improve matters? The international community must increase its contributions and UNRWA must be made more efficient.
Economically, the dice is loaded against the Palestinians. For example, orange juice that is produced in the illegal settlements of Palestine is exported and labelled "Product of Israel", in violation of international agreements that aim to build up the Palestinian economy and encourage stability. Will the Minister ensure that that matter is raised at the World Trade Organisation negotiations in Seattle? In the eyes of the European Union, Israeli settlements in Palestine are illegal. Therefore, are not their products also illegal? Will the Minister remind Israel of the conditions that relate to the rules of origin for exports?
The refugees are the main subject of our debate, but we must remember the outstanding problems that face Mr. Barak and Mr. Arafat in the coming months. The problem of the settlements has been discussed many times in the House. After the six-day war, UN Security Council resolution 242 called for the exchange of land for peace, and the Oslo accord is based on that concept. Of the 144 illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, 42 are to be dismantled, which is good news. All the time, however, more tenders are being approved by the Israeli Government within the existing settlements—more under Mr. Barak than even Mr. Netanyahu approved. If Palestine is to be granted secure territory, are our Government content to see it dotted all over the Israeli-held settlements?
What is the Minister's view on Jerusalem? Some 200,000 Palestinians live in east Jerusalem; how can they accept that Israel should have sovereignty over the city? Does he accept that a Palestine mini-state, if created, will never be able to accommodate the number of refugees who are likely to want to return? Will he support the 1967 borders for Palestine? If not, will he tell us how the Government and the EU propose to help the refugees remaining outside Palestine, generations of whom have been born and brought up in the camps? Are they condemned for ever to live in a world of poverty and deprivation, surrounded by the ever-increasing affluence of the Israelis? Their rights must not be ignored.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I think you still are—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Indeed.
Dr. Tonge: You have suddenly transmogrified Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Palestine was put under our protection after the first world war. After the second world war and the holocaust, the Jews were given their homeland. That was a just, brave and noble act by the international
10WH
community, of which we all approved. However, the United Kingdom has a duty to give the Palestinians their human rights, too. We must welcome the momentum given to the middle east peace process by President Clinton and Messrs Barak and Arafat—and, indeed, the recent meeting between my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and Mr. Arafat—but I urge the Government to play a more prominent role in the resolution of the refugee problem and not always to let the USA take the lead. I urge the Government, as the former mandatory power in Palestine, to put as much effort into this problem as they have put into the Northern Ireland peace process, and to give the Palestinian refugees their homeland.
10.37 am
Mr. John Austin: Before I commence, I draw attention to an entry in the Register of Members' Interests relating to a visit to Jordan earlier this year.
I first visited Palestine before the Oslo accord in 1993, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden). I found there a general despair that there could ever be peace, an acceptable solution for the refugees, or any agreement on Jerusalem. We visited the refugee camps in Gaza and the west bank.
Before I went, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) said that nothing could prepare me for that visit. He was absolutely right. I have seen refugee camps elsewhere in the world, but bad as they were, they always conveyed a sense of being temporary. Other refugee camps were poor and unhealthy; conditions were often squalid and there was malnutrition, suffering and misery, but they were essentially temporary. In Gaza, I was confronted with the fact that the camps had existed there for more than 40 years, as other hon. Members have said. They had an air of permanence, which led to the sense of despair and hopelessness.
Suddenly, after we returned, there was Oslo—a ray of light. Arafat shook hands with Rabin, prisoners were to be released, there would be safe passage between the west bank and Gaza, and land for peace as outlined in the UN resolution was to become a reality. Of course, the return of refugees and the issue of Jerusalem were put on the back burner for the final status negotiations, but they were there. What was not accounted for was the election of Netanyahu, who began to renegotiate Oslo, reneging on what had been agreed by continuing the illegal settlement programme, ethnically cleansing Jerusalem and creating new facts on the ground. The final status talks, which should have commenced in April 1996 and conclude in April 1999, have only just begun. Three and a half years' delay—three and a half years of more settlements and new facts on the ground— have made any solution that is satisfactory to the Palestinians more difficult to achieve.
The Palestinians' demands about refugees are simple and straightforward and are in accord with UN resolution 194, which involves the right either to return to the homes that they have lost or to receive compensation for that loss. The Israelis either regard refugees who are permanently settled outside Palestine as citizens where they are now refugees or hope that those refugees will be shipped out to countries that

11WH
require an expanding labour force and encourage immigration. Even Iraq featured in speculation about a possible deal to bring Baghdad back into the international community. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will reassert the British Government's view of the right of Palestinians to return to their homeland.
Perhaps the Israelis hope that, if they drag out the final status talks, there will be fewer refugees alive who remember 1948 and that the refugees' children will not have the same emotional ties to Palestine. If so, as other hon. Members said, the Israelis are sadly mistaken. They fail to understand the basic nature of Palestinian society and of Palestinian communities, which was eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey).
It is not only the refugees and their children who must keep alive the memory of what happened 50 years ago. We must never forget. In the final years of this millennium, the Palestinians constitute the largest refugee population in the world. The Zionist plan Daled, which was the master plan for the conquest of Palestine, began the expulsion of the population from Palestine before the creation of the Israeli state, when the territory was still under the British mandate. In the massacres that followed, of which Deir Yassin is the most famous, thousands of Palestinian men, women and children were murdered, mosques were destroyed, homes and villages were burned, property was looted and women were raped. Those were war crimes. We should never forget that waging a war on a civilian population, expelling the inhabitants and looting and destroying property are all war crimes. There may be doubts about whether it is now possible to pursue those war criminals, but there should be no doubt about the right of those who were driven from their homes to return or to receive compensation. It may be relatively easy to calculate the material losses, but how does one put a cost on the loss of a homeland and 50 years of suffering and subjugation?
The Palestinian sense of family, community and village is enormously strong, and has continued throughout 50 years of exile. The grandchild of a 1948 refugee will still identify with his or her grandparents' village and be a part of that village's family and community. It is the Palestinian's moral right to return and, as other hon. Members said, they also have a legal right to do so. UN resolution 194 recognises the fact that none of the agreements that dispossessed them involved their participation or consent. That resolution has been reaffirmed by the UN practically every year since it was passed.
We must not let the Israelis convince us that return is not feasible. The Israelis refer to abandoned villages, but those villages were not abandoned—their inhabitants were forced out. The villages remain in the memory of the refugees and are mentioned in thousands of well-documented title deeds, records and maps. Land that is now barren was once cultivated and could blossom again. Much of the Palestinian land remains empty and return would not result in the mass dislocation of Jewish immigrants, although some have alleged that it would. If, for example, the refugees in Lebanon were to return to their former home in Galilee, it would hardly affect the present Israelis—either Jews or Palestinians.
12WH
The Palestinian refugees could return to their villages and fields, and peace would be restored to southern Lebanon and northern Israel.
I first visited Gaza in 1993, and I visited it again in 1996 with my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). At that time, we saw some benefits from Oslo. There was still no free movement of people or goods, and the Israelis controlled checkpoints and borders in the occupied territories and externally, but there were signs of regeneration, including the beginning of building. My hon. Friend will remember that the hotel in which we stayed was half built, and many of the storeys above our rooms were unfinished.
I regret that we were unable to visit the camps during that visit because of the security situation following the Israeli assassination of Ayash, who was known as "The Engineer". I returned in 1998 and visited the camps to which hon. Members referred. The hotel in which the Minister and I had stayed had been finished, there were new homes and offices, and the airport had been built, but was not operating. When I visited the camps, nothing had changed since 1993. There was still degradation, water supplies were still toxic and children were still playing by open sewers. Refugees were packed in like sardines, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West said, at 4,000 per square kilometre. They peered over the barbed wire to see their land to the east empty with between three and six people per square kilometre. Let no one say that there is no room for the Palestinian refugees to return.
During the Minister's visit in 1996, the Palestinians outside the refugee camps were starved of water by the Israelis, denied access to markets, faced with prohibitive taxes and licence fees to move their goods, and prevented from moving them so that fruit and vegetables rotted on vehicles. He could see that, despite those adversities, the Palestinians of Gaza outside the refugee camps continued to produce high-quality agricultural products. If only they had equal access to water and freedom to transport their goods, the returning refugees could make the desert bloom again.
Four generations of Palestinian refugees have been looked after by UNRWA. Its job has become increasingly difficult because of donor fatigue and its 59 refugee camps are still marked by overcrowded, squalid conditions that can only breed anger and resentment.
In Gaza, life in the refugee camps has hardly improved since the Minister's visit in 1996. The deterioration in the Palestinian economy has struck particularly at refugees. The closures, which remain a massive burden on the Palestinian economy, are a major factor. Refugees were disproportionately dependent on work inside Israel, and unemployment has soared.
In June this year, I visited the Beka'a camp in Jordan. The conditions there are relatively better for its 75,000 refugees than in the refugee camps of Lebanon and Gaza, but they are still pitiful. The conditions clearly moved the Prime Minister when he visited the camp. Unemployment was high and UNRWA officials were concerned about future funding levels because key services have been cut. Many Palestinians believe that UNRWA is being phased out as a prelude to ending the refugee issue while the refugees remain in exile.
The Israeli position remains inflexible—no to return, no to Israel paying compensation, no to an historic apology. Israel expects the international community to

13WH
pay for the settlement of refugees in Arab countries and that compensation should be dealt with as a lump sum to Governments, not to individual refugees to compensate them for their suffering and losses. It is vital that, in the months and years ahead, we ensure that UNRWA is fully maintained until a final solution of resettlement is achieved and a fund for compensation established.
Israelis can never live in security and at peace with their neighbours or themselves while the dispossessed sit at their borders. A free and independent Palestine would be the best neighbour Israel could ever wish for. If real and lasting peace is to prevail in the middle east, the right of return must be guaranteed by the international community and must be implemented.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Berfore I call the next speaker, may I assist hon. Members who are present for this first sitting in Westminster Hall? The occupant of the Chair is to be addressed as Mr. or Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that is clear and that it will become the custom.
10.48 am
Dr. Brian Iddon: The United Nations recommended partition of Palestine on 29 November 1947 and the state of Israel was declared on 14 May 1948 on 11 per cent. of occupied Palestine land. However before signing the armistice agreement in 1949, 78 per cent, of Palestine had been occupied by the Israelis. During 1948, almost 1 million Palestinians were forced to flee from 531 well-documented localities in what the Palestinians now described as their Al Nakba. That large exodus of Palestinians can be associated with various Israeli military occupations. The words "cleansing" and "broom" were used in at least four reports by Israeli officials about those operations at that time. Some nasty things happened to the Palestinians, and they have been covered by other speakers.
The estimated value of mobile and immobile property confiscated by the Israelis from the Palestinians at that time is £743 million at 1948 prices. The Palestinians claim that the Israeli seizure of their land and property is probably the biggest planned and organised plunder in history, and it resulted in United Nations resolution 194 of 11 December 1948, which has been referred to often during the debate. Ironically, 50 years later, when Jews have received compensation from their German oppressors and are about to have some of their stolen wealth returned from Swiss banks, successive Israeli Prime Ministers have failed to accept this resolution. That was made obvious again last weekend, during an interview with Mr. Barak by Sir David Frost on "Breakfast with Frost".
The Israel Land Administration, among other organisations, has kept careful records of what was hitherto Palestinian land. Moreover, pre-1948 aerial maps exist that compare well with today's satellite mapping techniques. Not only are there questions of compensation, but, if the land-for-peace deal is to be meaningful, the Palestinians who previously lived on that land should be allowed to return. Mr. Barak ruled
14WH
that out again on "Breakfast with Frost" last weekend. Even a phased partial return of refugees seems out of the question at the moment.
While that view persists, can there ever be a lasting peace in the middle east? Let us hope that these are negotiating postures, rather than hard and fast views. It would be a nice gesture if the Israelis gave up one or more of their settlements on Palestinian land to allow at least some Palestinians to return to what was previously their land, perhaps in one of the less sensitive areas for Israeli security.
More than 50 years after the Palestinian exodus, their numbers in exile have grown to more than 4 million. The figures vary according to which source one takes them from—those are Palestinian figures. The refugees are, as has been pointed out, scattered round the Arab world, but they are principally located in the Gaza strip, the west bank, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.
There are 59 official camps administered by UNRWA around the Arab world, but two thirds of Palestinian refugees live outside them. Many refugees living in the camps, especially children, suffer from illnesses related to poor and damp accommodation, and from problems associated with their environment generally. Conditions in the camps on the west bank, the Gaza strip and Lebanon are among the worst, with open drainage channels for waste water, open sewage outlets and garbage dumps putting everyone's health at serious risk. I have seen the conditions at Jabalia camp on the Gaza strip. Its population density is among the highest in the world. Houses are primitive and overcrowded, separated by alleyways so narrow that it is impossible to transport large goods, including coffins, which have to be carried over the fragile corrugated roofs of people's homes.
Eighty per cent. of the children have dental caries caused by poor diets, and the people of Jabalia have access to only one half of one hospital bed per thousand people. The World Health Organisation minimum requirement is two hospital beds per thousand people. The quality of life is also reflected in poor educational standards. Few classes contain fewer than 48 children, and schools regularly run a daily double shift system. UNRWA does its best in extremely difficult conditions. It receives its money from many nations, but is underfunded by an estimated £20 million and has recently had to shed many staff.
Mr. Oliver Heald: It is nice to be the first person to intervene on this special day. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a figure of about 4 million refugees, yet he is talking about a limited return to the lands that were occupied. How is that practical? Is it possible for 4 million people to return? Is that an estimate of the number of people who would want to do so? Four million sounds like a large number in relation to that area of land.
Dr. Iddon: I shall answer that question during the remainder of my speech.
In mid-1996, so as to focus its efforts, UNRWA moved its headquarters from Vienna to the Gaza strip. The United States of America and, I am pleased to say, the European Union, are two of its largest funding bodies. Only 150,000 rural Jews live on the land of the

15WH
expelled Palestinians. Indeed, 78 per cent. of Jews live in 15 per cent. of Israel, mainly in urban environments. Ironically, as has already been pointed out, the Gaza refugees are fewer in number than Russian immigrants to Israel. Indeed, a quarter of Jewish Israelis have chosen voluntarily to live in Israel.
The Palestinians claim that the Gaza refugees—1 million people crammed on to just 360 sq km of land—could return to almost unoccupied land, while most of the refugees in Lebanon could return to Arab territory in Galilee. It is obvious to any observer of the middle east peace process that there cannot be a permanent and stable peace until the question of the refugees has been resolved. They cannot be allowed for much longer to live in the conditions that currently prevail in the camps. The peace process appears to be making progress. Let us hope that that progress can be maintained until all the issues, including that of the Palestinian refugees, have been dealt with.
10.56 am
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I congratulate you, Mr.Winterton, on your promotion to Deputy Speaker. At least someone has gained something from this Milton Keynes of debating chambers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on securing the first debate in this Room, but I regret that a subject of such enormous importance has been thus relegated. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) described the proceedings so far as "grown up". They are so grown up that the atmosphere is already dead.
I agree with the arguments that hon. Members have presented, although I regret that they tended to read them into the record. This subject should be debated in the main Chamber with a real sense of outrage about the scale of injustice that has been suffered by Palestinian refugees over the past 50 years. I shall not add to the cases that hon. Members brought up to demonstrate the scale of the continuing injustice of what is happening to Palestinian refugees because the record will show that they made their cases thoroughly.
Her Majesty's Government look ridiculous when they wrap their foreign policy in a so-called ethical dimension—such as their use of an ethical justification to go to war over Kosovo—given the scale of the injustice to 4 million refugees that has gone on for more than 50 years. Where, we are entitled to ask, is the ethical consistency in that policy? I hope that the Minister will say that the Government intend to continue to put increasing pressure on the Government of Israel to start to deal with the people of Palestine with the same sense of justice that they demanded for themselves in the wake of the appalling atrocity that happened to the people of the Jewish nation during the second world war. A holocaust of equal proportions has happened to the people of Palestine, who have been evicted from their homes and suffered disruption to their lives, and it has gone on for far too long.
Dr. Tonge: Were the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks intended to suggest that this country should go to war with Israel?
Mr. Blunt: I was not suggesting that, but the hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the fact that the Government's policy is inconsistent. When we went to war over Kosovo, the reasons for doing so were dressed up in the supposedly ethical dimension of being the right and proper thing to do. I do not think that war was the right course of action for us to take over Kosovo. If the Government choose to present their foreign policy in terms of ethics and morality, they will rightly be asked why they have taken one course of action over one set of injustices, while failing to act over another.
I hope that the Government will stop trying to con us, in a sense, that we can deal in an ethically consistent way with an issue as difficult as this. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) rightly referred to the unequal negotiations that the Palestinian people face. I hope that the Government will use their influence to ensure that the negotiations are a little more equable by supporting the interests of Palestinian refugees.
11 am
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on securing this debate. The middle east peace process will shortly enter the crucial final status negotiations stage, in which the Palestinian refugee issue will be discussed for the first time. It is vital that that and the status of Jerusalem are addressed head on, rather than marginalised. Although it was not discussed during the interim stage of the process, it is essential to understand that the refugee issue is not insignificant but central to the middle east peace process.
The Palestinians are the largest single group of refugees in the world. More than 3.5 million are registered with UNRWA, the agency that is charged with their welfare. In most cases, two or three generations of Palestinians have been forced to live in the squalor and grinding poverty of refugee camps. That must not be allowed to continue. Displacement from their original homes and the abject poverty of those camps has done more to fuel the Palestinians' struggle against Israel than anything else. Unless the Palestinian refugees who are exiled in camps in the occupied territories, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan are allowed to return, we will not have a viable, final peace settlement. Any middle east peace process that does not take into consideration the interests of the vast majority of those refugees will not work.
Denial of the right of return is a continuing breach of articles 2 and 5 of the European convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. The right of return for an estimated 3.5 million refugees is expressed in terms of their moral claim to return to homes from whch they have been displaced, and by reference to a number of United Nations resolutions. My hon. Friends have mentioned General Assembly resolution 194, which was passed in 1948 and states:
"refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date."

17WH
I accept that it will be neither politically nor practically possible to return all refugees to their original homes. There is general recognition among Palestinians that a right of return will mean a right to return to Palestinian national soil, rather than to their 1948 homes. It is necessary to distinguish between the principle of the right of return to Palestine as the national homeland, and exercising that right by returning to the same home or piece of land that refugees owned before 1948. The impossibility of implementing any right of return to the refugees' original homes within Israel proper must not preclude the return of Palestinian refugees to a future Palestinian state in the west bank and Gaza. It must not be used to deflect political attention away from the future of Palestinian refugees. The right of return must be vigorously pursued in the final status talks, and supported by the British Government and the international community. That will need to be backed up by compensation to the Palestinian refugees under General Assembly resolution 194 for lost property. Reparations should be given, especially to those who will not be able to return, in recognition of the historical injustice that created the refugee problem in the first place.
The Palestine National Authority and the Israeli Government will draw up a declaration of principle for the final status talks. It is essential that the declaration should make a specific commitment to the resolution of the refugees issue, as the original declaration of principle to the Oslo accord did. After the delays and stalemate of the Netanyahu Administration, the final status talks will provide an opportunity for resolution. However, the Israelis must not be allowed to disregard or overlook issues that they do not want to address, such as the Palestinian refugees. If the Israelis want a permanent peace, they must implement the United Nations resolution on the return of the Palestinian refugees. If the status of Jerusalem and the issue of the refugees are not decided, resentment and suspicion will build up among Palestinians, providing ammunition for those on both sides who want to wreck the agreement.
It is in the interests of Palestinians and Israelis not to waste the opportunity for lasting peace provided by the final status talks. The British Government and European Community have an important role to play—that of the honest broker. They must bring their influence to bear on the Israeli Government to ensure a just resolution of the refugees issue in the final status talks.
11.7 am
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: It is such a pleasure to refer to you as Mr. Deputy Speaker, Mr. Winterton. This is a historic debate, and I want to observe the usual courtesy of the House by congratulating the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on securing a debate on a subject in which she has shown consistent interest since she was elected to Parliament. I must strike a note of dissent, however, as, like my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), I would like to commiserate with her. The future of the Palestinian refugees warranted a debate in the main Chamber of the House. I am still not sure why I am sitting in an annexe, albeit one that is 900 years old, while visitors are being shown around the Floor of the main Chamber. It feels like not
18WH
the modernisation but the Disneyfication of Parliament, while the serious business of the House becomes a sideshow. I stress that that is a personal view, and I hope that my worst fears are not realised.
The issue that has been so admirably covered this morning is far from being a sideshow—
Mr. Ivor Caplin: The hon. Lady is a Conservative Front-Bench spokesperson. Is she suggesting that modernisation should consist of Tuesday and Wednesday morning debates being taken on the Floor of the House, so that no one could visit—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must point out that we are debating Palestinian refugees and that we have not re-opened the debate about whether or not there should be a parallel Chamber.
Mrs. Gillan: I must stress, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), that I was expressing a personal view. I hope that my worst fears will not be realised.
While I was preparing during the weekend for this debate, I decided to look at the photographs that I took when I visited the occupied territories and the Gaza strip in 1989. The delegation included Members of Parliament and members of the Bow group, who had been invited by the Palestinians so that the problems of the region could be explained to them. We toured the west bank and Gaza under United Nations protection, and we met families, teachers, doctors, local politicians, political activists and the then leading Palestinian advisers to Yasser Arafat. It was obvious that emotions ran exceedingly high. The language used often expressed profound hatred and bitterness, and at that time it was hard to envisage how a solution could ever be reached.
However, a member of the Palestinian host team—a woman—made a profound impression on the delegation. Hanan Ashwari painted a picture of hope and reason that transmitted to me an optimism that I still feel today. I hope that all Members who participate in this debate share that optimism about the Palestinians' future. Hanan Ashwari is a university professor, a Christian Arab and a friend to both Palestinians and Israelis. She has walked a difficult road. When we met her, she focused less on the political and more on the human element in the peace process. Although that dimension is all too easily obscured by hatred and conflict, it is necessary if the Israelis and the Palestinians are to find a solution. Such considerations have brought us to the brink of a solution in Northern Ireland.
I was reminded of the humanitarian element when I looked at my photographs of Hanan Ashwari detailing the problems of the Palestinians, of children chasing our bus and pretending to shoot guns at us and of a woman sitting in the ruins of her house, which had been bulldozed simply because her son was suspected of taking part in the intifada. I also remember the look of fear in an Israeli soldier's eye when he searched the belongings of Palestinian workers on a bus that was crossing into Israel. One of my most poignant memories

19WH
from that visit was of a girls' school in the Gaza strip, where a notice on the wall exhorted the dispossessed pupils, who had little hope, to be a lamp in a chamber if they could not be a star in the sky. Other hon. Members have already discussed the children. It is the children with whom we should be most concerned—future generations of Palestinians must not be blighted by their history.
In the decade or so since my visit in 1989, the peace process has moved forward. With a new Prime Minister in Israel, there is new urgency to that country's endeavours, but there are still many unresolved matters, primarily the refugees and their uncertain future. As other hon. Members have already said, the exact numbers of refugees and their location continue to be pressing issues. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency estimated that there are slightly more than 3.5 million refugees in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and the west bank. The Israeli Government claim that those figures were exaggerated. However, on closer examination, it becomes clear that they do not include countries where UNRWA does not operate, such as Egypt and Iraq. Moreover, they do not refer to Palestinians who were outside Palestine in 1947–48, or people who were expelled by Israel after 1967 or displaced by the June 1967 war. Although the numbers matter, they matter less than the principles of settlement which form a major plank of the permanent status negotiations.
The Palestinians have a justifiable desire to allow all refugees to return to their homes, but Israel rejects that principle on the ground that such a return would ensure conflict between Israel and the Palestinians for centuries to come. Although those positions appear irreconcilable, it is imperative that both sides continue to pursue a solution. After all, when the war ended, there was no mechanism for discussion, but some refugees were returned under the family reunification scheme. How much more could be achieved now that there are negotiations and a political will to find a lasting settlement. Peace in the middle east will not endure without resolving the problem of the Palestinian refugees.
The Conservative party will support the Government whenever they use their influence to urge everyone in the region to participate in negotiations and abide by international agreements. We are prepared to back them while they follow the aim, as set out by their predecessor, of achieving a lasting peace that is accepted by all and founded on the principle of respect for international law. Peace should mean security for Israel and prosperity, justice and self-determination for the Palestinians.
Britain's historic links give us a special interest in the peace process, and successive Governments have provided aid and support. Other hon. Members mentioned UNRWA. I hope that the Minister will reassure me on the continuation of aid and suport for the work of UNRWA. Although there is justifiable optimism that the refugee issue is now closer to resolution, the work of UNRWA needs to continue. It has successfully provided its services directly to refugees, including help with education, health care and social services. Indeed, it has supported Palestinian
20WH
refugee families that are unable to meet their own basic needs and promoted self-reliance through community programmes. It is essential to the welfare of many.
Recent financial difficulties have resulted in austerity measures and a reduction in the support that is provided to refugees. What assessment has the Minister made of those difficulties and what actions can the Government take to alleviate the problems? Although there is international agreement that the work of UNRWA must continue until the Palestinian entity can take over its role, recent developments have caused uncertainty. The Minister should explain what has happened and shed some light on what actions are open to the Government.
A disturbing report in The Times today claims:
"At least eight leading figures, among them academics and heroes of the Palestinian struggle against the Israeli occupation, were being held in detention and under house arrest".
Although that is a recent development, I hope that the Minister, who no doubt has his finger on the pulse of the middle east peace process, is able to enlighten us on the reasons for those arrests.
This is a short debate on an important international problem which both Opposition and Government Members want to see successfully resolved. Peace will bring humanitarian and financial dividends, and the peaceful option can provide greater prosperity and security for everyone in the region. We all share the sentiments that were expressed by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West. While I was researching this issue, I came across the Arabic proverb,
"One's parents cannot be replaced; so, too, is it impossible to replace one's homeland."
We will support the Government if they use our membership of all international institutions to encourage progress towards a lasting solution. If they work to that end, they will have the support of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition.
11.19 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) expressed delight that hon. Members were sitting where they pleased, but I hope that no one will read too much into the fact that Liberal Democrat Members are cosying up to the Government on the Front Bench. I noted that the hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) displayed some signs of rigor mortis at the modernisation process on which Parliament has decided, but I am sure that they will soon come back to life.
I am advised that its semi-circular lay-out makes this the first non-confrontational Chamber that Westminster has experienced in 800 years of political sparring. I know that everyone will expect straight answers to questions, even if they are posed from a semicircular position.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West for the opportunity to debate the issue of the Palestinian refugees. She, along with many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, spoke in moving detail about the refugees' plight, and her speech was based on and shaped by personal

21WH
knowledge, as were the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin), for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar).
My hon. Friends have rightly reminded us that the refugee issue is one of the most important and difficult obstacles in the permanent status negotiations that are now under way between the Israelis and Palestinians to secure a lasting settlement in the middle east peace process. I am grateful for the fact that hon. Members displayed a unanimity rarely seen in the House. There was a consensus between the Opposition and Government Front-Bench spokesmen—as shown by the speeches of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge)—that the issue of the Palestinians must be addressed as part of the peace process.
As we have heard, the problem is enormous. There are 3.5 million Palestinian refugees registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the west bank and Gaza strip. Others are dispersed throughout the world. Some lost their homes in 1948 and have been in refugee camps ever since, some lost their homes in 1967 and others were born in the refugee camps. They are victims of an appalling historic injustice. No lasting peace settlement is possible without addressing their plight, however difficult that will be politically, logistically and financially.
As we have been told, the condition of the refugees has been a matter of international concern for more than 50 years, during which Britain and the United Nations have provided practical support. Most of our support is channelled through UNWRA, which provides accommodation for more than 1 million refugees and practical support for many others. It provides education, health care and relief aid that is a lifeline for many in the camps.
In addition to accommodation, UNWRA provides education to 460,000 schoolchildren, primary health care to more than 1 million refugees and emergency relief for 200,000 of the poorest refugees. The member states of the European Union together form the largest donor to UNWRA, Britain being one of the largest individual donors. The hon. Member for Richmond Park asked us to do more, and we are. In 1997, our bilateral contribution, excluding contributions through the European Union, was £6 million. This year we are contributing £9 million in bilateral aid, which is £3 million more than the previous Government's total.
In his visit to the region at the end of October, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave expression to our support and concern for the Palestinian refugees when he visited Deir al-Balah refugee camp. I know that he was shocked at the conditions there, which hon. Members described. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield gave a graphic account of the conditions that he had seen, and I acknowledge his long involvement in and commitment to the issue, which dates back to the 1970s.
It is intolerable that no end is in sight to the refugees' plight. We must all contribute to such a resolution as part of the middle east peace process. We are committed to doing all that we can to achieve a successful outcome
22WH
to that process. We are in regular touch with all the parties, providing support for them in their efforts to find a just, lasting and comprehensive peace. President Arafat was in London for meetings on 9 November; I was present at some of those meetings. Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Egyptian Foreign Minister Moussa were here last week. We are also in regular contact with the Syrians and the Lebanese. Negotiations between the parties occur against a background of international standards. The international standard for refugees is United Nations General Assembly resolution 194, which dates from 1948, and for which Britain voted. That resolution states that
"refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so…and compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return".
Resolution 194 has been the basis of the United Kingdom's position since 1948. We have repeatedly made that clear, and I am happy to do so again, especially in response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead, whose personal commitment, as I saw at first hand when, as he described, I visited the middle east in January 1996, is widely recognised and admired.
A peace deal, including agreements on how to implement resolution 194, would give Palestinian refugees a real opportunity for a stable and prosperous future. Today, partly because of the visionary leadership shown by Prime Minister Barak and the Israeli Government, the prospects for such a deal look better than they have for a long time—perhaps better than ever. There is an historic window that all the parties at the negotiations must keep open, through which they must all climb together.
The interests of the refugees and their right to live with justice and in freedom must not be forgotten. It is for the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a way forward—nobody outside that process should pre-empt their decisions. However, the immediate parties to the peace process negotiations cannot alone find the huge resources needed for them to begin to solve the refugee problem.
Mr. Blunt: Does the Minister think that Mr. Barak has shown visionary leadership on the issue of settlements?
Mr. Hain: We do not agree with the settlement process long adopted by Israel. Although Prime Minister Barak has taken important steps forward on the settlement issue, he has a long way to go.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West asked a specific question. Those involved should know that Britain acknowledges that the European Union and the United States especially have a responsibility to contribute to a solution of the refugee issue, as does Israel. Indeed, it is more than a responsiblity—a moral and political duty is on us all. Countries elsewhere in the middle east, including the Gulf states, can also play an important role. The Palestinian refugees are some of the most serious casualties of a post-second world war history largely shaped by—and, in many respects, won by—the west. It is time for the world to redeem the debt owed to the

23WH
Palestinians and, by so doing, to create a lasting peace by which the security of all in the middle east, especially Israel's, is guaranteed.
I shall respond to the final point made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham about reports this morning that Palestinians are being placed under house arrest, and to the dinosaur-like point of the hon. Member for Reigate. Human rights are indivisible across the globe. The Palestinians must respect the human rights of those living within Palestine, just as the Israelis should recognise the human rights of refugees and others living within Israel and the territories that it currently controls. The matter of refugees is ultimately one of human rights. The Government are determined to help to address that matter, however difficult—in terms of logistics, finance, resources and, of course politics—that task will be.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The first debate is now at an end. Although there may be slight difficulties because of changes of Ministers and of civil servants, we move to the second debate, which has been initiated by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), on the subject of road access to RAF Fairford.

RAF Fairford (Road Access)
11.29 am
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, and to Madam Speaker for affording me the opportunity to initiate the second of the Adjournment debates in this alternative Chamber. I am also grateful to the Under-Secretary for being present and agreeing to reply. I am glad to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), whose constituency adjoins mine and who therefore has part responsibility for this problem.
Mr. Chairman, one of the main reasons—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. "Mr. Deputy Speaker" is the order of address to the Chair in this parallel Chamber in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker—no discourtesy was meant. The newness of this procedure is the reason for that slip of the tongue.
One of the main reasons for requesting the debate is to establish which Department will take a lead role in this matter; that, at least, is now clarified. In order to set the problem in context, I should point out that RAF Fairford is one of the main strategic NATO bases in this country. It has one of the longest runways, which straddles the Wiltshire-Gloucestershire border, and is one of the few bases in this country where the massive American C117 Galaxy transport planes can land.
I am sure that you will be interested to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that RAF Fairford was used during the invasion of Libya and in the Gulf and Kosovo conflicts as the launch base for American B52 bombers. Furthermore, it has also become the home of the three-day international air tattoo. The result of all that activity is that the main runway needs to be completely refurbished at a cost of more than £60 million. Most important, it is estimated that that will involve some 60,000 heavy goods vehicle movements. It is that aspect which causes my constituents concern.
I should say straight away that my constituents welcome the base and all the associated business that it brings. I understand, therefore, that Cotswold district council, which will take the lead in this matter, is not likely to object to the planning application for the project. Nevertheless, it is also concerned about the 60,000 heavy goods vehicle movements, which will come from either the A417 at Fairford or the A419 from Latton via the C124. The latter is a minor public road which is in places single track. There are two single-track bridges on it which form an S-bend. Until recently, they had no traffic control at all, but I am glad to say that they now at least have some traffic lights.
It has been agreed that approximately £1 million will be generated by the lorry movements levy as a result of the 60,000 movements. However, that is sufficient to carry out only comparatively minor road works such as strengthening traffic lights signing. That is inadequate. Clearly, my constituents' lives are going to be put at risk by huge, heavily loaded juggernauts going up and down single-track roads with deep drainage ditches on either side. Imagine what will happen when a cyclist meets one of those lorries on a dark and icy winter's night, and indeed, when the lorry tries to pull up in time to avoid the cyclist.

25WH
In addition to that huge civil engineering product, tens of thousands of car and lorry movements are generated over the three days of the international air tattoo, which will become an annual event once the runways are refurbished.
Mr. James Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although most of the traffic problems that he described will affect his constituency, during the air tattoo and also because of the refurbishing of the airstrip there will be a significant increase in traffic through Ashton Keynes and other villages in my constituency?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The problem is complicated because it involves several Westminster constituencies and several local authorities. Indeed, the mere fact that the base is bisected by the Gloucestershire-Wiltshire border makes it doubly complicated.
It cannot make any sense for a major NATO base to be served by such a minor, public, single-track road. One can imagine all sorts of reasons for vehicles having to move rapidly in and out of the base—for example, with casualties, ordnance, fuel and other stores required by such a large base. They could be transported in and out by air, but that may not always be possible due to weather and other circumstances. It may not be cost-effective to move heavy goods in and out of the base by air. The most cost-effective way is by road.
It is not my function today to provide specific, costed proposals to solve the problem. That is for experts from the Gloucestershire and Wiltshire highways authorities and other planning authorities such as Cotswold district council, North Wiltshire district council and Thamesdown borough council—now the unitary authority of Swindon—which also have responsibility in the matter. Those authorities are all working with the Highways Agency and the Government office for the south west to provide a satisfactory solution for a safe access road to the base.
The Minister may say that it is for the highways authorities of the two county councils to put in a bid for the road scheme to be considered, but that would be an inadequate reply. The situation is unique. Due to its huge refurbishment, the base has a new lease of life and, judging from the number of confidential letters that I receive from the Ministry of Defence about one huge NATO exercise after another, it is clear that it will be used more and more. Its servicing and the enormous increase in local traffic compared with when the base was originally used, and even in recent years, mean that current road access is totally inadequate.
My constituents believe that, as the Americans are paying a large proportion of the cost of the refurbishment through their NATO contributions, they should make the major contribution to the local road system, which they use. I emphasise again that my constituents are pleased to see the Americans and welcome them. Many friendships have been made between Americans and local people and my constituents enjoy the benefits of the spin-off from the base, but they fear the danger posed by the road.
26WH
If the Government are not prepared to approach NATO or the Americans, a Government Department must provide the funds. I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary here today because my constituents believe that the MOD should provide the funds in this unique situation. If the MOD cannot, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions must. Either it must fund a Highways Agency project to build a proper access road or, as the final alternative, it must fund a joint county council bid for the county highways authority to build the road. That is the least attractive method of funding the road, because it would have to compete with all the other badly needed road schemes in both counties and that would be unacceptable.
I am grateful to the Minister for coming to listen to the problem this morning. I have no idea what his response will be, but I hope that it will be sympathetic because the current position is unsatisfactory not only for the base but, above all, for the quality of life of my constituents and those in the adjoining constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire and the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), who join me today in pressing the Government to find a solution.
I hope that it will not take a fatality or other serious accident to persuade the Government to sit up and take notice of the problem. There is a straightforward and constructive way forward. It is a relatively simple road to build and will not require a huge amount of money. It needs to be a fairly straight, two-way road. It does not need to be an A or B road. An example has already been set in the western part of the water park by the western spine road—a straightforward road which was built from gravel money. If we could have a similar road in the eastern part, the problem would be solved. I look forward to the Minister's response.
11.39 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): It is not the first time that I have laboured under your adjudication, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although it is the first time in this Room, and it is a novel experience.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on securing this Adjournment debate in this new setting. Clearly, road access to RAF Fairford has generated considerable public interest and is a matter of great importance to his constituents. He is evidently concerned about the project on two counts. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has expressed similar concerns. The first count is the construction activity over the next two years—the project is scheduled to finish in about November 2001—and the second is the impact on the C124 road.
It may be helpful if I briefly put the project into its historical context. After the second world war, the United States corps of engineers extended RAF Fairford to its present size between 1949 and 1956. It was designed for the aircraft of the time, notably types B47 and KC97—the type of aircraft that you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, assembled in the form of Airfix models when we were boys. Since that time, no major surfacing work has been carried out, apart from a contract in 1977 to overlay the main runway and taxiways with asphalt. Over most of the airfield, the concrete and asphalt surfacing is very old and has deteriorated to the point at

27WH
which major reconstruction is needed to maintain the integrity of the runway and provide a safe operating base for visiting aircraft.
It is, therefore, necessary to undertake a major reconstruction project to bring the airfield infrastructure back to a safe and satisfactory standard. At the same time, the runway and pavements will be redesigned to cater for the size and weight of modern military aircraft. The overall estimated cost of the project is slightly more than £60 million, to which the hon. Member for Cotswold referred. It is about £65 million, and construction is programmed over 21 months from spring 2000. The contract will also encourage the contractor to re-use excavated material and local resources whenever possible, to minimise the transporting of material to and from the site.
Nevertheless, it is recognised that the construction work will generate a considerable amount of lorry traffic in and out of RAF Fairford. The current estimate is that 120,000 lorry movements could be required. Therefore, a decision was made in June 1998 to have early consultations with the planning and highway authorities. Extensive consultation and discussion was undertaken with the highway authorities of the two county councils concerned, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, and with representatives of the local councils, the results of which determined that access to the base for construction traffic will be from the A419 via a minor road, the C124.
The highway authorities have stipulated that the installation of traffic lights, road strengthening and a degree of repair work should be undertaken to ensure the continued safety of the road, as part of the enabling works before any base construction work begins. All this additional work is to be carried out by my Department at a cost of about £640,000.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister in what is proving to be an extremely constructive and useful reply. My constituents are worried about whether one-way traffic from the A419 at Latton—rather than access to the base from the A417 at Fairford—will be rigorously enforced by the MOD, or whatever body is to be in charge of this huge contract. In that case, at least there would be traffic into the base from only one way, rather than two ways.
Mr. Kilfoyle: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I am not in a position to speak for the agencies that are charged with the enforcement of traffic law and regulation. Those are matters beyond my competence, and certainly beyond my wit.
I emphasise that the work on this construction project is absolutely necessary to ensure that the essential facilities at Fairford, which have deteriorated over the past 20 years or so, are brought up to the standard that is needed to guarantee its continued use as an essential operating base in times of crisis. That role was aptly demonstrated and reinforced during our recent operations in Iraq and Kosovo. I point out to the hon. Member for Cotswold, in the kindest possible way, that it was not an invasion of Libya but a bombing expedition that was mounted from Fairford, which is
28WH
not quite the same thing. I should point out to him that Fairford is not an operational base except in times of crisis. The base's normal staffing comprises about 400 souls. A comparison with RAF Lyneham, which has about 5,000 people, puts Fairford's level of use into perspective. However, it remains an essential staging post.
The hon. Member for Cotswold mentioned the number of letters that he receives from the MOD about exercises constantly taking place. I take that as a backhanded compliment, in that we keep local Members well informed about our intentions. In reality, however, NATO exercises involving Fairford take place only once a year. It is not regularly used in the way in which they, perhaps inadvertently, suggested.
Mr. Gray: The Minister is right to say that RAF Lyneham, which is in my constitutency, has 5,000 service personnel—plus a further 5,000 spouses, which takes the total number of people to 10,000. However, Lyneham, the town that is associated with the base, is well served by major roads. The problem with Fairford is that, by contrast, a tiny single-track road with a small bridge will take the hundreds of thousands of lorries that the Minister described. Is £640,000 rather a modest sum for the repair of a road that will be under such immense pressure?
Mr. Kilfoyle: That sum has been computed as being appropriate to the demands that will be made of the road. I remind the hon. Gentleman that extensive consultation with both of the relevant district and county councils has taken place. It was in that spirit of partnership that the proposal was agreed.
I am aware that for many years, the district and parish councils have been trying to get the C124 upgraded. I do not dispute the fact that that is a long-standing local bone of contention that existed before we made our proposals on undertaking these works. However, although the road has been designated as the eastern spine road for the future of gravel extraction in the area and the development of the Cotswold water park, I understand that the highway authorities have given it no priority for upgrading. The locus for comments on upgrading belongs with those authorities rather than the MOD. We are talking about a completely ad hoc use of the road for specific periods and the amount of money that has been agreed will allow for the remediation of that road. The upgrading will include not only the installation of traffic lights but kerbing, channelling and other necessary improvements.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am not sure that the Minister is entirely correct. I know that high-level meetings have taken place between his Department, the Government office for the south west and the Highways Agency to try to solve the problem. Would he and his senior officials be prepared to meet a delegation from the relevant councils, perhaps attended by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire and me?
Mr. Kilfoyle: We could have pre-empted this debate if such a meeting—which has, I believe, been arranged—had already taken place. I am always glad to meet relevant local authorities where the matter is of local interest. However, local councils and some residents, at

29WH
least, will perhaps have regarded news of the proposed refurbishment of the Fairford base as a blessing in disguise. Although the subject of today's debate is the disruption and inconvenience caused by the construction traffic, which is recognised by all parties, there is an opportunity to upgrade the C124, and largely at someone else's expense.
I should make it absolutely plain that this is not a decision for the Ministry of Defence. The role of RAF Fairford is unchanged and the project will not generate an increase in traffic in the long term. As such, the MOD sees no requirement permanently to upgrade the road, and will take only such measures as are required by the highways authorities of Wiltshire and Gloucestershire county councils. Therefore, works are limited to those measures that are designed to meet the temporary increase in construction traffic.
I should also disabuse the hon. Member for Cotswold of the notion that we have in some way established that we are the lead Department for road upgrading in the area; we are not. That remains wholly within the remit of the highways agencies. Our concern is ensuring that, during the Fairford refurbishment programme, all appropriate steps are taken to ensure the road's integrity and safety, and its refurbishment to the required standard.
I welcome the opportunity to make it clear that, as a responsible Department, the MOD has acted within the letter and spirit of the relevant planning laws, and has also taken fully into account the various local issues that have arisen. I can assure the hon. Members for North Wiltshire and for Cotswold that it will continue to do so. I should also place on record the MOD's gratitude for the constructive co-operation shown by local council authorities in helping to resolve planning issues at RAF Fairford and permitting a major NATO project to proceed on schedule. However, the MOD is not a regeneration agency and cannot carry out public road improvements.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister has been very generous in giving way. He seems to be saying that the MOD wants to have its cake and eat it. It wants to upgrade the base, but that will disrupt local people who, at the moment, are showing considerable good will. If the MOD is not prepared to fulfil its responsibilities by ensuring my constituents' safety, some of that good will might rapidly ebb away.
Mr. Kilfoyle: It is difficult to substantiate that charge; indeed, I would argue the reverse. In fact, the MOD has shown a willingness to consult and negotiate with all those involved—county and district councils—that is above and beyond the call of duty. We have not merely met but exceeded our obligations to upgrade the road. The hon. Member for Cotswold shakes his head, but he cannot expect me to accept on the MOD's behalf the responsibilities of other Government agencies in this regard. As I have said, we are doing all that we can to restore the true integrity of the Fairford base and to cater as far as is possible for the difficulties that will arise in respect of the C124.
Mr. Gray: We have a little time in hand, so perhaps the Minister will not mind giving way for a second time. The point that he makes—that maintenance of RAF
30WH
Fairford is a matter for the MOD, but maintenance of the road is a matter for the local highway authority—is probably a good one, and may well be correct in terms of the machinery of government. However, does he accept that the standard spending assessment and the revenue support grant settlements for Wiltshire have been reduced substantially in recent years, and are ill-equipped to provide the extra money for upgrading the road to which he refers? Will he write to the Deputy Prime Minister to encourage him to increase the revenue support grant for Wiltshire to take account of the extra cost that we have discussed?
Mr. Kilfoyle: I am tempted to write to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister about many matters, but the SSA for Wiltshire is not among them—although I might be tempted to write to him about the SSA for my local authority.
I told the hon. Member for Cotswold that we had gone beyond the call of duty. One of our more innovative steps involved the levy that he mentioned. Placing a £5 levy on every movement will inhibit the excessive use by vehicles of that road. When the contract goes out to tender, it will be difficult for anyone to meet the tender criteria and submit a successful bid unless they maximise the use of vehicles and minimise the number of lorry runs along the road. We are trying to be as innovative as possible and minimise disruption on the road.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: To be honest, the levy is peanuts. It would fund slapping a bit of tarmac in some potholes, but that would come out when the first heavy goods vehicle went over it. More money is needed to build a proper road that provides access to and from the base.
Mr. Kilfoyle: I can only ask the hon. Gentleman to reexamine our proposal, which involves widening stretches of the road, kerbing and channelling, installing traffic lights and upgrading the road. Yes, potholes will be filled in, but every constituency in the land has potholes that need to be filled in. We are trying to do the best that we can to minimise disruption.
Before I gave way for the umpteenth time, I was saying—I do not mean this to be harsh—that self-evidently the MOD is not a regeneration agency. We cannot carry out public road improvements other than those that arise as a consequence of our obligations to meet operational objectives within the established planning processes. I am sure that no hon. Member who has spoken would argue that we have not made sure that the district and county authorities were fully cognisant of all of our intentions and moves. Moreover, we have taken those authorities on board with us.
With the exception of the construction, access and traffic management that is associated with the Fairford project, the status of the C124 is properly the responsibility of other Departments and of the Highways Agency. I am not trying to divorce my Department from its responsibilities—quite the reverse. We have taken on board responsibilities that technically and legally we could have argued were not ours. However, we did not argue that because of the spirit of

31WH
partnership with local councils and out of consideration for the people who will be disrupted by the necessary work at RAF Fairford.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I had thought that I was going to have to suspend this first sitting in Westminster Hall, but the Minister and the initiator of the next debate are now both present, and we can move on to it.

Children and Tobacco Products
11.58 am
Ms Claire Ward: I am pleased to be one of the first Members to initiate a debate in this Chamber. I must admit to having some reservations about the idea, but I trust that it will give Back Benchers an ample opportunity to raise issues of concern to them and their constitutents and to get a thorough reply from the Government. I hope that I shall succeed in that today.
I want to set in context the reasons for my concern about the increased use by children of tobacco products, and about their increased availability. We all know about the undeniable link between smoking and cancer, but far fewer people are aware of the link between chewing tobacco products and the incidence of oral cancer. I recently met surgeons who specialise in the maxillo-facial work that is associated with the damage that cancer does to the mouth and face. Frankly, I was appalled and sickened by the devastation that cancer can cause to the mouth and face. The surgeons showed me slides of their many patients who suffer from this debilitating illness. Perhaps the most worrying aspect of that meeting was my introduction to a new product that is being cynically marketed to children, especially within the ethnic minority community.
The Minister will be aware that it is an accepted culture within some sections of the Asian community, mainly among Indians and Bangladeshis, to chew tobacco or paan. Such products often take the form of betel nut leaf parcels, containing tobacco, betel nut, lime and other ingredients, and are considered beneficial to digestion and overall health. Bidis, which are unfiltered cigarettes, are also on the market. In addition to the paan products—the leaf-based parcels—a new generation of tobacco products has begun to enter the market. Gutkha is a sweetened tobacco which is packaged in brightly coloured foil parcels—sometimes with children's faces on them—and is marketed in newsagents throughout ethnically diverse communities for as little as 20p.
Although chewing paan is a traditional habit brought from south Asia, it was hoped that the habit would fade rather than passed on to the next generation. That fear has provoked the Indian tobacco manufacturers to seek new ways of gaining a market. Their cynical marketing tactics are designed to attract a new generation, who may be more likely to chew products flavoured with chocolate or sweeteners, as the leaf parcels are a more acquired taste.
Gutkha is not illegal. Hon. Members may remember the introduction, in 1989, of Skoal Bandits, which were pouches of tobacco that resembled tea bags and were designed to be sucked. They brought concern and action from the Government of the day. The then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), said in a written answer that he was acting to prevent children and young people from taking up such a dangerous habit. He stated that there was evidence that the habit could result in mouth cancer, which is particularly difficult to treat. As a result, the Tobacco for Oral Use (Safety) Regulations 1992 were introduced. They banned the supply of
"any oral product made wholly or partly of tobacco which is intended for oral use unless it is intended to be smoked or chewed".

33WH
I am pleased that that legislation was passed. Unfortunately, by specifically excluding other products that are chewed or smoked, it left no room to apply the regulations to gutkha or any similar product that is chewed rather than sucked. I hope that the Minister will agree that it is strange to distinguish between products that are put into the mouth on the basis of whether they are chewed or sucked.
Although such products are still legal, it is an offence to supply them to minors under the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991. Just as it is illegal to sell cigarettes to under-16s, it is illegal to supply gutkha. According to reports and media investigations, however, young children from across the cultures are now buying these products. They are a cheap, easy and tastier alternative to cigarettes, but they are equally harmful, if not more so. Research from India gives an insight into the problems that such products can cause to children's health. Children as young as 12 have already been diagnosed with pre-cancerous mouth lesions due to gutkha use. Every year, thousands of British children visit the Indian sub-continent and pick up the habit, which they can continue when they return home because access to gutkha remains so easy. Many of the packages have no description of their contents, although other harmful substances, such as lead and silver, have been found to be present.
The incidence of oral cancer is especially high in India, and has been linked to the use of chewing tobacco. India is the third largest manufacturer of tobacco, behind China and the USA, and produces almost 8 per cent. of the world's tobacco, 75 per cent. of which is used for internal consumption. Pakistan is the 10th leading producer, and Bangladesh is the 17th. Furthermore, children are involved in the production of such tobacco products in harsh labour conditions in India and other parts of south Asia.
We also know that chewing tobacco products is a popular habit in the United Kingdom. A survey of Bangladeshi women in West Yorkshire found that 95 per cent. chewed paan. A study by the university of Birmingham school of dentistry reported that 92 per cent. of males and 96 per cent. of females interviewed chewed paan on a daily basis, and that 39 per cent. and 82 per cent. respectively included tobacco within their paan.
We need only look at the incidence of oral cancer to realise the health implications of using tobacco products, whether they be chewed, sucked or smoked. Oral cancer in the UK accounts for 1.6 per cent. of cancer cases and 1.2 per cent. of all deaths. More than 2,000 cases are diagnosed in England and Wales each year and more than 60 per cent. of patients die as a result of oral lesions. The figures are higher than those for cancer of the cervix or skin cancer, yet, because both those cancers feature more prominently in the debate on cancer, people are more aware of them than they are of the causes of oral cancer. In addition to the huge personal and social costs of oral cancer, the cost to the national health service is estimated to be £50,000 a case. If we are to avoid a massive national bill and thousands more deaths each year, the Government must get a grip of the issue.
It would be strange to have a debate on the subject of children and tobacco products and not deal with the problems of under-age smoking, which is more common
34WH
than tobacco-chewing among the young. The effects of smoking on health are well versed. They account for more than 120,000 deaths each year and cause a range of respiratory and heart problems. However, despite the obvious health risks, a significant number of under-16s smoke, and 450 children are believed to start smoking every day. Surveys in 1997 classed 11 per cent. of 11 to 15-year-olds as regular smokers. They also found that more girls smoked than boys. Various reasons were given for that, including the perception of smoking as a cool activity and the desire to copy celebrities and pop stars. In addition, many young girls believe that smoking will help them to control their weight. But the factor that most influences a child's decision to smoke is whether either, or both, of his or her parents, or an older sibling, smokes. Children with two smoking parents are three times more likely to be regular smokers than children who live in households where neither parent smokes. A child whose older sibling smokes is five times more likely to be a regular smoker than a child who does not have an older sibling who smokes.
There is no doubt that the younger a person starts to smoke, the more difficult it is to quit and the more detrimental smoking is on health. Some 82 per cent. of adult smokers start smoking as teenagers. Smokers who start smoking at the age of 15 are three times more likely to die from lung cancer than those who start in their mid-20s. Despite legislation that bans the under-16s from purchasing cigarettes, surveys show that smoking remains an activity for a significant number of children in this country. But few of us need statistics to confirm what we know from observations. How many times have we seen children walking around our towns smoking? Children who hardly look old enough to be out on their own are indulging in an activity that threatens their health.
I am concerned about how children get hold of cigarettes and chewing tobacco. In 1992, the previous Government set a target to reduce smoking among 11 to 15-year-olds from 8 per cent. in 1988 to less than 6 per cent. in 1994. Last year, the Government set a new target to reduce smoking among children from 13 per cent. in 1996 to 9 per cent. or less in 2010. Those figures are still too high. The Government must take a much tougher line on the supply of tobacco products to children.
Far too many newsagents, garage forecourt shops and other retailers are willing to sell cigarettes to children without checking how old those children are. Of course, children often look much older than they are these days—we all know that, and even I find it difficult to distinguish between a 13-year-old girl and a 16-year-old girl. Make-up, clothes and sheer confidence allow children to masquerade as adults. People might suggest that it is also difficult to know how to spot an MP these days. Whatever they wear and however they look, under-16s should not have access to tobacco products. Retailers should be required to ask for identification for all sales to young people who look as though they might be under 16.
Trading standards officers have an important duty to perform—they must be more proactive in seeking out retailers who continue to flout the law and put our children's health at risk. Not only must there be more spot-checks on retailers, but the penalties on those found supplying to under-16s must be stricter. Trading standards officers should be more involved. I was

35WH
concerned to learn from a written answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry a couple of weeks ago that levels of funding given to trading standards officers varied. That must have an impact on the work that they are able to do within their community.
It is not good enough for retailers to claim that they believe a young person to be 16—they must demand identification and refuse to sell cigarettes and other tobacco products on a failure to produce identification. I trust that the Government will review seriously the penalties in place—only the most severe sanctions will bring to the attention of retailers the seriousness of the issue.
We know that not all under-16s who smoke buy their cigarettes personally—many get friends, relatives or even strangers to purchase them. That activity, too, must be a target for the Government. Better education on the health risks and on the law regarding under-age smoking is essential if we are to convince people that they must do everything in their power to prevent children from smoking, and if we are to deny the tobacco manufacturers a new generation of smokers.
When I recently visited a school as part of the UNICEF "Put it to your MP day", I was concerned to hear from one of my constituents that children under 16 believe that it is easy to obtain cigarettes. They have merely to stand outside a newsagent and ask an adult or an older friend who is going in to buy cigarettes for them. It must surely be for us to raise awareness of such issues among the public to ensure that we all take responsibility for not assisting in supplying cigarettes to young people.
Sir Peter Emery: Will the hon. Lady also urge the Government, as some of us have for many years, to be more stringent on advertising and to make the warning on the back of cigarette packs similar to that used in Australia, which takes up half of the pack and warns of the dangers of cigarette smoking? Too many of our young people are still being encouraged to smoke. As chairman of the National Asthma Campaign, I am most concerned that you should not allow people to be influenced by advertising. Many youngsters follow motor racing and see tobacco advertising. We should be cutting down on all such advertising, and not excluding anybody.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. Before the hon. Lady replies to that intervention, I should point out that it is appropriate for all speakers to address the Chair, even though that might be difficult given the lay-out of sittings in Westminster Hall.
Ms Ward: The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) made important and correct points. I agree that we must look carefully at the issue of advertising and that we should prevent children from seeing advertising as they go into shops. The Government have carefully considered the issues of advertising and tobacco sponsorship and I have no doubt that pressure will remain on them on that issue. The Government must generate a high-profile campaign aimed at educating children and young people about the damage
36WH
to their health that is caused by smoking. By engaging the support of non-smoking pop stars, celebrities and sporting heroes, they may be able to generate a new message that it is uncool to smoke and that it is certainly not an activity that deserves any respect in the playground or classroom.
So far, I have talked about the children who actively engage in smoking or chewing tobacco products, whether or not they are aware of the damage to their health. The debate, however, encompasses another section of that generation—those who suffer from tobacco products through second-hand smoke. All too often, we see children, and sometimes even babies, being smoked over by their parents and relatives. In the home and in public, children—through no choice of their own—are forced to endure others' smoke. Not only can that encourage them to take up the habit, but passive smoking can increase the chances of asthma and lung cancer in children.
Children are subjected to passive smoking in restaurants and other public places, yet there are no laws in place to prevent that. Perhaps if the Government introduced a measure banning children from sitting in any designated smoking area, we would, in some small but significant way, be able to protect them. Parents would not be able to take their children into smoking carriages on trains or sit them in smoking areas of restaurants or other public places. Such a measure would mean that the Government had to require all public facilities, including restaurants and bars, to have designated no-smoking areas, but I, for one, would welcome that.
The Government have a responsibility to prevent children from having access to tobacco products. They must do all that they can to educate children and their parents about the dangers of smoking or chewing tobacco. No one expects that to be an easy task and everyone recognises the influence of the tobacco industry worldwide. Nevertheless, the future health of our nation depends on a robust and determined effort by the Government to prevent under-age access and reduce the number of adult smokers and chewers in years to come.
12.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) on securing the debate and providing me with my first opportunity to speak in this newly formed Chamber. Although I agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that speaking through the Chair may not come as naturally to hon. Members because of the Room's configuration, it is a great pleasure, when replying to an Adjournment debate initiated by a Labour Member, to be able to look at her, rather than having to address an empty space and trying to look backwards. Both Chamber shapes have their advantages; no doubt in due course we will make up our minds about which we prefer.
Children's access to tobacco is an important subject and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford secured time to discuss it. If we do not address the problem when they are young, we as a nation will count the cost in disease and in lives. We do not know enough about the precise health risk posed by oral tobacco, particularly among some of our ethnic

37WH
minority communities, but this much we do know: oral tobacco is a potentially lethal product. I shall focus on the Government's commitment to addressing the particular problems associated with it. I stress that we are concerned about getting the message across to both children and adults that oral tobacco products are dangerous in whatever form they are taken. I shall go on to describe the Government's wider tobacco control campaign.
We need to take a three-pronged approach. First, we must find out the scale of the problem. Secondly, we should consider the law and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford said so poignantly, better enforcement of existing law. Thirdly, we must examine education and how we can get our health messages over more effectively to this audience.
On the scale of the problem, although we have some information on tobacco chewing habits, it is by no means comprehensive and we are looking at ways of improving our knowledge. I have asked my officials to consider what more we can do. I want to know how prevalent oral tobacco use is among children and adults. Beyond survey evidence, I am also anxious to hear from experts. My hon. Friend recently wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), offering her an opportunity to meet surgeons who deal with the effects of oral tobacco every day. We are grateful to her for that and my hon. Friend would like that meeting to take place before Christmas.
We need to enforce the powers that are available. I remind hon. Members that legislation to prevent the sale of tobacco products to children has been on the statute book since 1908. The Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 strengthened the law and made it an offence to sell any tobacco product to children. The definition of tobacco product included any product containing tobacco intended for oral or nasal use. I was struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Watford said about whether a product could be chewed or used in another way, and I was reminded of the sophistry that one may smoke but not inhale. We must look at the product rather than make distinctions between uses that would be difficult to regulate.
Local authorities are required to review their enforcement of the law annually. The law also requires tobacco retailers to display a warning notice at the point of sale which states that it is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 16. As a mother of a 13-year-old and a 16-year-old, I appreciate how difficult it is to judge the ages of children just by looking at them.
Under the Tobacco Products Labelling (Safety) Amendment Regulations 1993, all tobacco products are required to carry a health warning. There is, however, little evidence that that requirement is being observed by manufacturers and retailers of gutkha-style products. I assure the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) that the draft directive on tobacco labelling will require the health warnings on packets of tobacco products to be bigger.
Sir Peter Emery: When will that come about?
Ms Stuart: The precise date has not been determined, but I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman with precise details. I am sure that he is aware that matters European can take longer to implement.
There is little evidence that labelling requirements for gutkha-style products are being observed by manufacturers. The legal position is not clear. No child should be sold a tobacco product, whether it be cigarettes, gutkha or other forms of oral tobacco. Any tobacco product should carry a health warning, but the key to the problem is enforcement of the law, which is not always straightforward—for example, not all gutkha contains tobacco—hence the lack of prosecution. However, I am not here to make excuses; we must do better.
We are tackling the problem in several ways. First, I have asked my officials to consider whether, in principle, more could be done through legislation to remove items from the reach of children. Secondly, my officials have been working with the Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Trading Standards—LACOTS—for several months. They are developing an enforcement protocol to assess current compliance with the law; to provide education and help for retailers to aid compliance; to produce details of enforcement action taken so that it can act as a deterrent; to consider test purchases and support for proof-of-age cards; and to monitor the results of enforcement action. We expect the protocol to be published shortly. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Watford said about funding, but there is the issue of what priorities local authorities give to different aspects of trading standards enforcement. I hope that the meetings between officials and representatives of local authorities will encourage local authorities to return that to the top of their agenda. We are committed to running several training days next year for local trading standards officers on tobacco-related enforcement issues. Those training days will include the issues surrounding gutkha.
The Government have worked constructively with industry to find a solution to the problem of sales of adult products to children. An industry-led voluntary proof-of-age card is now available to help consumers and retailers to establish young people's age when they try to buy age-restricted products. Citizencard, which was launched nationally last February and covers ages 12 to 18 plus, is run by industry groups and has ministerial endorsement.
My officials have already alerted LACOTS to the situation concerning gutkha. They will discuss with them this week what more can be done and where resources can best be targeted to make an impact. For example, we shall consider how to encourage the prosecution of importers who fail to abide by existing labelling regulations. Those regulations make it clear that no person shall supply, offer to supply or possess for supply any tobacco product that does not confirm with labelling requirements.
Ms Ward: Does the Minister agree that products with children's faces on the packet cannot be considered to be normal adult consumable products and must be targeted at children? Such products must surely be in line for a ban.
Ms Stuart: The whole labelling issue and how products are made attractive to children will be considered as a package, but a starting point is to deal with products that do not even carry the necessary warning.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his pre-Budget statement the Government's commitment to take further action to tackle smuggling—for example, investment in new technology such as X-ray scanners and vigorous use of confiscating powers.
The third part of our action plan is education. There is considerable evidence that the people using these products are unaware of the health risks. We must get the message across that all tobacco products are harmful, however they are packaged. A three-year, £50 million tobacco education campaign will be launched on 13 December. The campaign materials will be translated into 11 languages. As time moves on, we shall incorporate a number of more targeted campaigns, including programmes aimed at ethnic minority populations.
There is much to be done. Few people are unaware that cigarette smoking is dangerous, although there is still much ignorance about how great the risks are. Unfortunately, knowledge about the health risks of oral tobacco is not so high. Some excellent services exist—for example, Quit's Asian Quitline—but not enough of them. We must make it clear to both adults and children that taking oral tobacco is a big risk to health. The terrible effects of facial cancers are frightening enough, but we must make it clear that the danger does not end there. Nicotine addiction from chewing tobacco can lead to cigarette smoking with its huge risk of cancer, heart disease and other deadly health problems. We hope that children will take our health messages home and thereby help us to reach their parents and grandparents.
Smoking kills. That is a simple and important message. I do not want the problem and the Government's reaction to it to be seen in isolation. I have referred to the tobacco education campaign, which aims to persuade smokers to quit and non-smokers not to start—especially the young and above all young women. Another matter of great concern is the high number of pregnant women who continue to smoke.
We shall develop programmes aimed at youngsters. We know that such campaigns have an impact on the wider adult population. We are determined, despite recent challenges, to ban tobacco advertising and we know that the cigarettes most often smoked by children are those that are most heavily advertised.
I am grateful for the success of the hon. Member for Watford in securing this Adjournment debate and hope that she is satisfied with some of our responses.

Pensions Mis-selling
12.29 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: It is a privilege to be able to round off the first day's proceedings in this very pleasantly appointed new Chamber. Moreover, it is a considerable advantage to Members to have a desk on which to distribute their papers in a case as complicated as this.
Had my constituent been Mr. T. Blair, he might have had less difficulty in resolving a case that has now lasted for nearly six years. In 26 years as a Member of this House, I have never seen a worse case of bureaucratic lassitude, incompetence, delay and serial buck-passing than this one. Its victim, Mr. William Blair, is a caring and patient man, who is amazingly calm and rational in the face of treatment that would try the patience of a saint. We have become good friends, as he has become a regular visitor to my constituency surgery over the years, during which we have tried to resolve it. I am grateful to yet another Minister for entering into the fray and trying to assist in dealing with a matter for which the Government have some responsibility, as they are seeking to sort out the mess left by pension mis-selling.
Mr. Blair was a miner in the Northumberland coalfield and a member of the mineworkers pension scheme. In the 1980s, the then Government loosened restrictions on company pension regimes and more than 5 million personal pensions were aggressively sold. Some advisers went round miners, nurses and other groups, trying to persuade them to take out personal pensions. I detect the flavour of that in a letter from the advisers in this case, Ridley Devine and company, of Ponteland, who wrote to Mr. Blair in 1989, to say:
"With no further increases and a fairly modest growth of 13 per cent., you would have £12,800 tax-free cash and a pension of around £100 a week."
If the Economic Secretary could guarantee 13 per cent. growth on equity investments and pensions, she would be very pleased. The letter ends:
"I would also like to take this opportunity to wish you a very merry Christmas and a happy new year."
Mr. Blair faced many years of anxiety following that letter and that advice. The only question that the advisers asked him was whether he could afford the premiums, which is in breach of all the guidance about how pensions should be sold.
Like many other miners in Northumberland, Mr. Blair had to leave the industry and he began working for Northumberland county council. He then transferred his Scottish Life pension to the Northumberland county council local government superannuation scheme. However, he discovered that, had he kept his miners pension and transferred it directly instead of transferring a personal pension, he would have been credited with more years of service than under the new pension, and been much better off in retirement.
Following that discovery, he approached me in February 1994. I offered to take up the matter with the regulatory authority, but he then appeared to make some progress, and the county council advised him to contact the mineworkers pension scheme. In December 1994, the pension provider, Scottish Life, confirmed that

41WH
Mr. Blair had bought a pension from it, but insisted that Bain Hogg, the company that had taken over Ridley Devine, was responsible for review under the Personal Investment Authority rules. The PIA confirmed that to me. I wrote to the director of Bain Hogg, who passed the file on to the company's compliance officer. Bain Hogg then became Hogg Robinson Financial Services, regulated by the PIA.
In February 1995, I wrote to Hogg Robinson's compliance officer, whose reply anticipated a final response in two weeks. In March 1995, Hogg Robinson wrote to Mr. Blair requesting further details. In May 1995, it interviewed him, and had at least, by then, worked out that he was four years and one month short of pension entitlement. It wrote to the local authority superannuation scheme for an assessment of the benefits that he would have received. That takes us to May 1995, when Philip Smith, a director of Hogg Robinson, wrote to me:
"I wish to confirm that the case is proceeding quite quickly."
In May 1995, Hogg Robinson offered to pay to Northumberland county council the amount that Mr. Blair had lost by not staying in the mineworkers pension scheme. However, Northumberland county council then put a spanner in the works by saying that it could not accept payments to boost pension entitlements and that Mr. Blair had therefore to transfer back into the mineworkers pension scheme. So after a year and a half, yet another impasse was reached. Hogg Robinson approached the mineworkers pension scheme and passed the case on to its northern executive director, and contact continued.
In August 1996, Hogg Robinson requested Mr. Blair's reinstatement into the mineworkers pension scheme, with an additional payment to be offered for stress and distress. A dispute arose between Mr. Blair and Hogg Robinson as to the amount to which he was entitled. Mr. Blair thought that £1,000 would be reasonable compensation and that that was the PIA-recommended figure. Now only £250 stood between Mr. Blair and a resolution of the matter.
Then a bombshell fell. Hogg Robinson's company secretary insisted that the company had no liability to reinstate Mr. Blair into the pension scheme because it had taken over not the share capital or liabilities of Ridley Devine, the original advisers, but merely its portfolio, and was therefore wholly unconnected with the people who gave the original advice. The papers then had to be passed to the PIA, with apologies for the appalling state of the file.
I then wrote to Colette Bowe—a name that you may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker—who was at that time the chief executive of the PIA. She replied that she hoped that the PIA would be able to achieve a speedy resolution.
In March 1997, I again wrote to the Insurance Brokers Registration Council, the body that was now entrusted with the case and was reviewing the pension transfer. In April 1997, it completed its preliminary inquiries.
In June 1997, I wrote to the PIA to complain that it had still not resolved the case, suggesting that its handling of the case illustrated
"the hopeless ineffectiveness of the system of redress over which the PIA presides".
42WH
It was at about that time that The Observer had reported that the PIA pensions unit had so far compensated only one victim of pension mis-selling. When Colette Bowe replied to my letter, she said that my comments were "misconceived and unfair".
At that point, I wrote to the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), who was then Economic Secretary of the Treasury, asking for her help in looking into the case. In September 1997, she replied that swift action was necessary in such cases and that she had met senior representatives of the life insurance companies and other bodies to insist that it be taken. Also in September 1997, the IBRC appointed independent accountants to review the file.
In December 1997, there was a new development. With the case still unresolved, Mr. Blair faced redundancy from his job. I wrote to the IBRC. The respondent replied that the IBRC was awaiting a report from its actuary, and that
"I anticipate that this may be forthcoming shortly."
By March 1998, I had heard nothing since that response from the IBRC in December 1997. Its independent reviewers of the case had provided estimates for benefits on the basis of redundancy, but as Mr. Blair had not been made redundant at that point they had to go back to the beginning again to work out a fresh entitlement.
In July 1998, the Government announced that they intended to abolish the IBRC, which gave the IBRC a wonderful excuse to pass the papers on to somebody else. At that point, I recruited the help of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who was a council member of the IBRC. I am grateful for the time and attention that he gave to the matter. At about the same time, I requested a meeting with the new Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt). Following that meeting, she wrote to the chairman of the Financial Services Authority about the case.
In the meantime, I again wrote to the IBRC, which, although it was about to be abolished, was still in existence. In March 1999, it confirmed that it had passed the file on to the FSA. Enter Mr. Howard Davies—another name that you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I raised the matter with him, he said:
"The Unit hopes that they will be able to conclude this assessment within one month."
However, he also said that it would have to be dealt with by the IBRC—which was of course in the process of being abolished. The FSA and the IBRC would have to discuss arrangements for meeting the costs of compensation claims from investors who did business with firms that the IBRC used to regulate.
The FSA then assured me that the assessment would be completed by mid-May 1999 at the latest. Of course, by that time I had heard nothing further about the assessment or anything else. I wrote again to Mr. Howard Davies, who assured me that the assessment had been completed, but that the FSA was awaiting the outcome of talks between the IBRC and the investors compensation scheme about how such claims would be dealt with. In July this year, the hon. Member for Ryedale, who has been involved in negotiations to establish such a scheme, informed me that the IBRC, the ICS and the FSA had agreed in principle a

43WH
compensation scheme for investors such as Mr. Blair. The PIA is passing its pension files to the ICS. The hon. Gentleman made inquiries about the location of Mr. Blair's files.
By September, the ICS received the file, and it sent another set of forms to Mr. Blair to fill in—it appeared that he had to start from the beginning again. It told Mr. Blair that it would carry out a full investigation, which would be a
"detailed and lengthy process which may take some time".
Its representative even said:
"Unfortunately, I am unable to give any specific time frame as to when we will be in a position to review your claim."
Mr. Blair has waited for nearly six years and his case has gone through a series of bodies, but the body that is responsible for such matters cannot even give a time scale within which it will deal with the case. That ICS letter made me realise that I had to raise the case in the House or in Westminster Hall and take it further. Since then, Mr. Blair has had to agree to retire in January on grounds of ill-health. The case has acquired much greater urgency because his pension will form the basis of his retirement income.
Yesterday—surprise, surprise—the ICS phoned Mr. Blair to say that his case would probably be resolved on the basis of a gratuity because there were technical reasons why he could not be returned to the mineworkers pension scheme. In view of the history of the case, neither Mr. Blair nor I place any confidence whatever in such telephone assurances, although I notice that the file has been dug out and that someone might be working on it. However, no assurances are on paper, and I fear that even the offer of a gratuity will be snatched away.
If the gratuity is given to Mr. Blair, various questions need to be answered. Will it be index-linked? His original mineworkers pension would have been index-linked, if he had kept it. Will the gratuity include compensation for all the distress and anxiety that Mr. Blair has been caused for many years? We should remember that compensation of £750 was on the table in 1996, and that he has suffered three and a half years of further distress since then.
Howard Davies sent me a letter in April 1999 in which he said:
"any compensation paid to Mr. Blair will take account of all the delays he has experienced."
I sincerely hope that someone somewhere will assure us that the ICS will be bound by Mr. Davies' assurance that compensation will be forthcoming.
I appreciate that the Minister bears no personal responsibility for this appalling state of affairs. However, she is responsible for regulation in such areas and for ensuring that the system works effectively. Clearly, the system worked hopelessly and was lamentably ineffective in this case. What has she been told will happen next in Mr. Blair's case? I am sure that she sought information on it—no doubt that is why he got a telephone call yesterday. Will she keep an eye on the case until it is resolved? Although she is not responsible for individual cases, this case is a vivid example of the way in which the system can go wrong.
44WH
She should follow it through and ensure that the wrongdoing is put right. Has the case taught her any lessons about the system's effectiveness? I should be grateful for any assistance that she can give me and the long-suffering Mr. Blair.
12.43 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on securing the debate and on fighting so hard for his constituent. Before I respond to his speech, it might be helpful if I remind hon. Members about the progress that we have made in tackling the pensions mis-selling scandal that we inherited when we took office. To some degree, that sets the scene for Mr. Blair's case, to which I shall return later.
The situation in spring 1997 was that firms had not given the review that was launched in 1994 anything like the necessary priority. The target was to compensate all priority cases—those who had retired or were close to retiring—by December 1996. However, by March 1997, only 15 per cent. of cases identified for review had been resolved, and only 2 per cent. had been compensated.
The Government wasted no time in getting to grips with the overall problem. In May 1997, the then Economic Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), met senior executives from the 24 firms that were responsible for about three quarters of all cases to secure their personal commitment to giving the review a higher priority within their organisations. I am pleased to say that phase 1 of the pensions mis-selling review, which covers priority cases, is now almost complete. So far, more than 400,000 people who were mis-sold a pension have been offered, or have accepted, redress worth £2.7 billion. Firms now recognise that it is in their interests to complete any outstanding phase 1 reviews as soon as possible. The Government and regulator reinforce that message in their dealings. We have made it clear that firms also need to make speedy progress with phase 2. We will not tolerate the delays associated with the early days of the priority review; with the lessons to be learned from phase 1, there will be fewer excuses.
The Government have no plans to publish information on firms' progress on phase 2, as we did in respect of phase 1, but the industry is aware that we reserve the right to do so if necessary. We continue to support the regulator's action to ensure that all victims of personal pensions mis-selling receive appropriate redress.
The Financial Services and Markets Bill, on which I have just participated in Standing Committee deliberations, will deliver a regulatory regime that will make it more difficult for firms to mis-sell financial products. The Financial Services Authority's programme of raising consumer awareness will include the publishing of comparative information on financial products—the so-called league tables—and help consumers to make better informed choices. These measures are designed to ensure that scandals such as the mis-selling of personal pensions are not repeated. That is the most important lesson that we can draw.
Having listened to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, I understand the frustration that

45WH
he feels on Mr. Blair's behalf. Mr. Blair first took up the issue in 1994, and it is regrettable that he has yet to hear the outcome of his case, particularly given that it seemed close to being settled on two previous occasions. The Government are aware of the time that has been taken to clear up some cases. That delay is a result of the complexity of the process and the number of organisations involved. On the regulatory side alone, the organisations include the FSA, the Insurance Brokers Registration Council and its grant scheme, the Personal Investment Authority and the investors compensation scheme. Those are all dedicated organisations that have done good work to help and protect savers, but it is clear that people such as Mr. Blair have suffered unacceptably. First and foremost, he suffered because of the initial mis-selling of the pension. That was bad enough. He then suffered because of the time taken to resolve uncertainties about compensation. Would he receive redress? How much would it be? When would an offer be made?
Resolving complex cases such as Mr. Blair's was bound to take time, because the extent of the loss suffered needs to be quantified and an entitlement to redress established. However, such work cannot be done in a hurry without, for example, information from existing and past schemes. Of course, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed clearly stated, the process has not been helped by the number of organisations involved and the manner in which they exchanged information.
Moreover, in this case, the pension was mis-sold by a small firm that went out of business several years ago. That necessitated some one-off detective work to establish what had become of the firm. Dependent on the outcome of that work is the vital question of whether Mr. Blair is entitled to redress from the investors compensation scheme.
That is the system that we inherited, and which continues to apply. To simplify the arrangements, the Financial Services and Markets Bill will establish a single financial services and markets compensation scheme, which will pay compensation to consumers who suffer financial loss when an authorised firm cannot meet its liabilities. That will make compensation easier and simpler to obtain in such cases.
All that is of little comfort to Mr. Blair. His case reached the existing investors compensation scheme in late August this year, and action can take up to six months. The Financial Services Authority's pensions unit sought to keep Mr. Blair informed about what has been happening this year. The ICS 1999 report acknowledged that
"Without establishing the insolvency of the firm, we are unable to take the claims further. This was, at times, a lengthy and cumbersome process".
The case is being dealt with by the ICS and is at a final stage. It has sought to keep Mr. Blair fully informed on what is happening, and has been in touch with him in the past few days.
46WH
I am pleased to be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman news of the results of the investors compensation scheme review today. The ICS is satisfied that Mr. Blair is entitled to receive redress. The amount of that redress, and the manner in which it is to be paid, remains to be finalised in detail. The purpose of that redress is to put him, as far as possible, in the position in which he would have been had the mis-selling not taken place. That is his right. ICS staff have spoken to Mr. Blair and discussed what form the redress might take. Usually, reinstatement or augmentation of the existing pension arrangement would be sought, although that might not be possible in Mr. Blair's case, for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman. That will be disappointing, but it is because of the policies adopted by his other pension schemes. Instead, the ICS will probably buy an annuity to compensate Mr. Blair for any future losses.
Mr. Blair was pleased to know that his claim was finally progressing. The ICS knows that I will continue to take a close interest in his case, and I also give that assurance to the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Blair has had to wait far too long, and I am glad that the ICS has been in touch with him to provide good news.
Mr. Beith: Can the Minister confirm, or at least show an interest in, the compensation aspect, to which I referred earlier? Taking account of indexation means that putting Mr. Blair in the position in which he would have been is difficult enough. However, it is also important that the assurances given by Howard Davies and others in relation to compensation for all the delay and distress that have occurred are kept to by the ICS, which is not the body that originally gave them.
Miss Johnson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I shall write to him in greater detail on the compensation issue, although I assure him that I continue to take an active interest in it.
It is a tribute to the right hon. Gentleman that he has fought so hard and long for his constitutent. Some hon. Members have not been in Parliament long enough to have fought for such a length of time, but certain cases have to be fought persistently. Any Member of Parliament who sustains a battle on behalf of a constituent for such a long period should be congratulated. In securing this debate, the right hon. Gentleman has achieved some progress. I hope that the case can soon be brought to a conclusion that is satisfactory to him and to Mr. Blair.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): I hope that I can express the view that this first sitting in Westminster Hall has been constructive, interesting and civilised.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to One o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Estate
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee (1) if he will estimate construction expenditure on the Parliamentary Estate in each of the past five years; [100032]

  (2) how much the refurbishment of the Parliamentary Estate has cost in each of the past five years; [100034]

  (3) if he will estimate expenditure on Portcullis House (a) during the next year and (b) before the next comprehensive spending review; [100025]

  (4) if he will provide a breakdown of expenditure on Portcullis House; [100024]

  (5) if he will list the intended expenditure on the refurbishment of the Parliamentary Estate (a) during the next year and (b) before the next comprehensive spending review. [100026]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  These are matters for the Director of Parliamentary Works; I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

PRIME MINISTER

  EU Fundamental Rights Charter
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has appointed a representative to serve on the body to draft a European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, as agreed at the European Council in Tampere; and what guidance he plans to issue to that person. [99444]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Goldsmith will be my representative on the Charter drafting body. The Government's view is that the charter should make the fundamental rights which already exist, and which are applicable at Union level, more visible to the Union's citizens. It should take the form of a political statement, rather than a legal text to be incorporated into the Treaties.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with(a) France and (b) Russia on the operations of KFOR designed to protect the remaining Serb populations in Kosovo. [99436]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 November 1999]: NATO Allies and Russia discuss all aspects of KFOR operations on a regular basis and Kosovo was discussed at the Ministerial Anglo/French Summit on 25 November.
  82W
  Protection of the Kosovo Serbs and other minorities is one of KFOR's top priorities, with around half of KFOR manpower currently involved in minority protection duties. Security for all communities remains our central objective.

DEFENCE

  Mental Incapacitants
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the review of the information available on the chemical warfare mental incapacitants known as Agent 15. [100910]

  Mr. Spellar
  In accordance with the undertakings given by the then Secretary of State for Defence on 9 February 1998 and by my predecessor on 22 April 1998, a review of the research on glycollates (of which Agent 15 is an example) and related compounds carried out at CBD Porton Down has been completed. A copy of the unclassified summary of this review has been placed in the Library of the House. The report explains that Agent 15 has been used in animal studies at Porton Down, but not in any work involving humans. Research on related compounds (glycollates and benzilates) involving human volunteers found that all the observed effects of the compounds were resolved within four days.

  A more extensive research programme involving human volunteers was undertaken at the time of the CBD research in the United States. Follow-up studies in 1980 led to the conclusion that subjects exposed to anticholinergic agents (glycollates) reported no differences in their current health status compared to control groups. However, the methods and the group sizes used were such that only large effects were likely to be uncovered.

  There is no evidence that UK troops were exposed to Agent 15, nor that Iraq used Agent 15. There are therefore no plans for further research into this agent at this time.

  Project Capital
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are employed on Project Capital. [100286]

  Mr. Spellar
  Following roll-out and proving of the Departmental Financial Management System, Project Capital was formally closed in October 1999. Accounting, in-year management and Planning and budgeting—using the Capital systems—are now largely integrated with teams working on cash management systems.

  Clyde Base
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made as a result of the management review of the Clyde Base. [100287]

  Mr. Spellar
  Following a scoping study at the Clyde Base in 1997, Ministers decided to retain work in-house through a joint Management/Trades Union proposal to establish Neptune Services Direct, which is successfully delivering hotel and related services increasingly efficiently. In addition, a rationalisation programme was set in hand to optimise the use of resources and skills in the Engineering and Facilities Support departments.
  83W
  These changes are still being implemented but, in producing a more effective and efficient organisation, some 161 service and 182 MOD civilian posts have been lost. Through a policy of employing casual staff and fixed term appointees, the civilianisation of some service posts, and the fact that a number of posts had been held vacant, the changes are being achieved without redundancies.

  Departmental Land
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to ensure that his Department's land is not used by the US Government for purposes which breach international treaties signed by that Government. [99884]

  Mr. Spellar
  Her Majesty's Government retains legal possession of and control over all sites made available for use by the United States Visiting Forces. The interpretation of an international treaty is a matter for the parties to that treaty.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests were applied to clear each target engaged by British forces according to international law during the Kosovo conflict from March to June. [98563]

  Mr. Hoon
  UK air operations were conducted in strict compliance with the requirements of international law, including the UK's obligations under international humanitarian law, and targeting decisions took the legal considerations fully into account.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total replacement value of the ordnance expended by British forces during the Kosovo crisis to the end of August. [98566]

  Mr. Hoon
  The indicative cost of ordnance consumed during the period of offensive operations in Kosovo is some £45 million. This is an estimate, based on a set of average historical prices for the ordnance in question, and does not represent actual expenditure. Final decisions on the replenishment of ordnance consumed during the campaign have yet to be taken.

  Chinook HC2
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date DRA Boscombe Down carried out electron-magnetic interference testing during the airworthiness proving trials on Chinook HC2; and if recommendations were made as a result of that testing. [100144]

  Mr. Spellar
  A full electron-magnetic interference assessment of the Chinook Mk2 was completed by Boscombe Down in January 1994. Recommendations were made concerning the introduction and use in flight of UHF on-board transmitters and walk-on equipment, and High Intensity Radio Transmission Avoidance Areas (HIRTA) within the UK.

  AWE Aldermaston
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many full-time equivalent MOD police officers were employed at AWE Aldermaston in each month from November 1998 to November 1999. [100682]
  84W
  Mr. Spellar
  I am withholding this information in accordance with exemption 1(a) (national security) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance he has issued to the MOD police in respect of overtime worked by officers at AWE Aldermaston. [100686]

  Mr. Spellar
  No specific guidance has been issued to the MOD police at AWE Aldermaston in respect of overtime. It is force policy to minimise the use of overtime commensurate with meeting the operational requirement. All overtime working is voluntary.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average number of days sickness leave taken among MOD police officers at AWE Aldermaston in each month from November 1998 to November 1999. [100685]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is not collected in days, but rather in hours. The table records the average number of hours of sickness, per officer, per month at AWE Aldermaston.

  Month

  Average number of sickness hours, per officer, per day

  November 1998

  10.2

  December 1998

  9.6

  January 1999

  13.6

  February 1999

  10.4

  March 1999

  11.5

  April 1999

  10.4

  May 1999

  11.9

  June 1999

  12.5

  July 1999

  10.0

  August 1999

  10.5

  September 1999

  9.1

  October 1999

  11.6

  Note:

  The figures for November 1999 are not available at this time

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average amount of overtime worked by MOD police officers at AWE Aldermaston in each month from November 1998 to November 1999. [100683]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Month

  Overtime hours per officer/month

  November 1998

  38.0

  December 1998

  30.2

  January 1999

  31.7

  February 1999

  32.4

  March 1999

  40.4

  April 1999

  39.4

  May 1999

  38.0

  June 1999

  42.4

  July 1999

  38.9

  August 1999

  39.4

  September 1999

  42.9

  October 1999

  31.7

  Note:

  The figures for November 1999 are not available at this time
  85W

  NATO
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions(a) the United Kingdom and (b) all other NATO countries have exercised a national veto on proposed actions during a NATO operation since 1989. [99466]

  Mr. Hoon
  Decisions at NATO are taken by consensus. During operations and deployments, procedures allow national commanders to satisfy themselves that a proposed course of action complies with the basis on which the operation was approved, consulting national authorities as required. Neither the UK nor NATO maintains records of how many times these procedures have been used since 1989.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Post Offices
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the principal activities of his Department and its agencies which provide business for(a) Crown post offices and (b) other post offices; if he will assess whether the level of business generated in each case is likely to increase or decrease over the next five years; and which new areas of business for post offices are likely to be developed by his Department and its agencies over the same period. [99551]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department and its agencies have no functions which directly provide business for(a) Crown post offices or (b) other post offices. It is not likely that this situation will change in the future. However, we have significant business with both Royal Mail and Parcelforce, who provide the bulk of our mail collection and delivery services.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what projections his Department has made of the number of households with digital television in 2006(a) with a digital licence fee supplement as proposed by the Independent Review Panel into the future funding of the BBC and (b) without such a supplement. [100046]

  Janet Anderson
  We do not have these specific figures at present. However, DCMS commissioned an independent report from Nera in 1998, which suggested between 13.8 million and 18.5 million households would have digital capability by 2008. The potential impact of a digital licence supplement on take up of digital television is something we are considering in reaching our conclusions on the independent review panel's recommendations. As part of that process, we will look at all the available evidence on this issue.

  Recognised Sports
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what sports are recognised by the Sports Councils within the United Kingdom. [100292]
  86W
  Kate Hoey
  The Sports Councils do not 'recognise' sports, but there are 112 sports that are eligible for funding and other support. These are:Aikido, American Football, Angling, Archery, Arm Wrestling, Association Football, Athletics, Australian Rules Football, Badminton, Ballooning, Baseball, Basketball, Baton Twirling, Biathlon, Bicycle Polo, Billiards and Snooker, Bobsleigh, Boccia, Bowls, Boxing, Camogie, Canoeing, Caving, Chinese Martial Arts, Cricket, Croquet, Crossbow, Curling, Cycling, Disability Sport, Dragon Boat Racing, Equestrian, Fencing, Fives, Flying, Gaelic Football, Gliding, Golf, Gymnastics, Handball, Hang/Para Gliding, Highland Games, Hockey, Horse Racing, Hovering, Hurling, Ice Hockey, Ice Skating, Jet Skiing, Ju Jitsu, Judo, Kabaddi, Karate, Kendo, Korfball, Lacrosse, Lawn Tennis, Life Saving, Luge, Modem Pentathlon, Motor Cycling, Motor Sports, Mountaineering, Movement, Dance and Fitness, Netball, Orienteering, Parachuting, Pentaque, Polo, Pony Trekking, Pool, Quoits, Racketball, Rackets, Racquetball, Rambling, Real Tennis, Roller Hockey, Roller Skating, Rounders, Rowing, Rugby League, Rugby Union, Sailing, Sand/Land Yachting, Shinty, Shooting, Skateboarding, Skiing, Skipping, Snowboarding, Softball, Sombo Wrestling, Squash, Skater/Street Hockey, Sub-Aqua, Surf Life Saving, Surfing, Swimming, Table Tennis, Taekwondo, Tang Soo Do, Tenpin Bowling, Trampolining, Triathlon, Tug Of War, Unihoc, Volleyball, Water Skiing, Weightlifting, Wrestling, Yoga.

  Lottery Funding
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the amount of funding given by the National Lottery to disabled projects for disabled people in England and Wales during the last 12 months. [100443]

  Kate Hoey
  National Lottery projects are designed to benefit all sections of society, including people with disabilities. Since November 1998, around £280 million has been awarded to over 4,000 projects designed primarily to benefit people with disabilities.

  Royal Opera House
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what Government financial grants have been made available to the Royal Opera House modernisation programme. [100441]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No grants have been made directly from Government to the Royal Opera House for its redevelopment. The Arts Council's National Lottery capital programme awarded the Royal Opera House £78.5 million for the restoration, refurbishment and extension of the Covent Garden site.

  Departmental Estate
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his estimate is of the value of land, property and heritage assets(a) in Scotland, (b) in England and (c) in total (i) owned by or (ii) under the responsibility of his Department. [99827]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The Department is at present implementing resource accounting and values have been derived from audited accounting information. The first year of published resource accounts will be in respect of 1999–2000.
  87W
  The Net Book Value of assets held by the Department as at the end of March 1999 was £40.398 million (including the Royal Parks Agency). This figure relates to land, property and heritage assets in England only as my Department does not hold any such assets in Scotland.

  The Heritage Assets held by the Department are valued at nil. These assets include Trafalgar Square, Apsley House, part of Osborne House, Wellington Arch, Marble Arch and nine statues (and the Government Art Collection, which has some 11,500 items).

  Bournemouth Sinfonietta
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reasons the Bournemouth Sinfonietta's funding has been ended. [100791]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Arts Council announced on 13 October its plans for giving the subsidised orchestras a fresh start backed by at least £10 million to enable them to move to a more flexible way of working and to enable them to have scope to offer a more imaginative repertoire to audiences. The Council made it clear at the time of the announcement that they would be in immediate discussions with Bournemouth about a new model for their work. Out of those discussions has come the decision by the Bournemouth Orchestra's Board to close the Sinfonietta as a regrettable preliminary to securing the long-term future for orchestral provision in the South and South-West.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid Board
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the Legal Aid Board's policy is on seeking possession of vacant properties when an outstanding debt to the Board is secured against the property. [100123]

  Mr. Lock
  The Legal Aid Board secures debts against property in a number of circumstances.

  Where an assisted person wins his or her case but some costs are outstanding, section 16 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 allows the Board to recover them from the property that was in dispute, through the "statutory charge". Where the assisted person's home was in dispute, or the winnings in the case are to be used to purchase a home for the assisted person, enforcement can be postponed and the Board will register a charge against the home. In those circumstances the property in question is not vacant. Should it become vacant, the Board will expect the property to be sold and the statutory charge paid off immediately.

  The other circumstances are: where the court has made a costs order in favour of an assisted person, and the Board is seeking costs from the other side; where the assisted person has failed to make the required contributions towards the cost of their legal aid; where a legal aid certificate has been revoked, in which case the full cost of the help given has to be repaid; and where an assisted person has been granted an emergency certificate but has not been given a full certificate. In all these
  88W
  circumstances the Board can secure debts owed to it on any property, including vacant property, and will be in the same position as any other secured creditor.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average length of time between debts to the Legal Aid Board being secured against domestic property and being settled. [100124]

  Mr. Lock
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the value is of debts to the Legal Aid Board that are secured against(a) domestic property and (b) vacant domestic property. [100125]

  Mr. Lock
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. As at 31 March 1999, the principle value of all debts to the Legal Aid Board that are secured by way of the statutory charge was £206,792,000. The total value of other secured debts to the Board, in respect of liabilities such as unpaid contributions, costs owned under revoked certificates, or costs awards in favour of assisted persons, is not recorded centrally.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what statistics are collected(a) nationally and (b) by region, on the time it takes to process housing benefit; [99865]

  (2) which national organisation monitors and investigates performance in processing housing benefit claims within target periods. [99867]

  Angela Eagle
  The Audit Commission in England and Wales, and the Accounts Commission in Scotland, collect and publish data annually for all local authorities administering housing benefit. This includes data on the number of claims determined within 14 days. Data are also collected and monitored by this Department. The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate is responsible for reporting to the Secretary of State on the administration of housing benefit by local authorities.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to bring the housing benefit service within the Best Value Framework. [99868]

  Angela Eagle
  A comprehensive range of best value performance indicators for the delivery of housing benefit was included in the recent joint Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions and Audit Commission consultation exercise ("Performance Indicators for 2000–01"). Indicators will be finalised by the end of 1999 and will cover the key aspects of local authorities' performance in delivering housing benefit. We are committed to driving forward improvements in the benefit services authorities provide so that they are faster, more accurate and more secure while also achieving value for money and taking account of the views and needs of local people.
  89W
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to introduce measures to reform housing benefit. [99011]

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the timetable for bringing forward his proposals for housing benefit reform. [99901]

  Angela Eagle
  We intend to publish a Housing Green Paper in due course. This will present proposals for housing benefit within the overall strategy for housing.

  Students (Benefits)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what benefits are available to students who are(a) pregnant and (b) single mothers; [100121]

  (2) what recent representations he has received on the incomes of students and their ineligibility to receive benefits; and if he will make a statement. [100036]

  Angela Eagle
  Most full time students are not eligible to claim income-related benefits—their primary source of financial support comes from the education system. However, certain students in vulnerable groups, for example lone parents or disabled students, can claim these benefits.

  A full time student is not eligible to claim an income-related benefit on the grounds of her pregnancy. However, students who are also working and earning at least £66 a week may qualify for Statutory Maternity pay from her employer, or Maternity Allowance from the Benefits Agency.

  If she or her partner were in receipt of Income Support, income based Jobseeker's Allowance, Working Families Tax Credit or the Disabled Person's Tax Credit she would be able to claim a Social Fund Maternity Grant payment.

  During the last three months we have received a small number of letters concerning students, their incomes and benefits.

  Departmental Estate
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what his estimate is of the value of land and property held by his core Department(a) in Scotland and (b) in total; [99820]

  (2) what his estimate is of the value of land and property (a) in Scotland and (b) in total held by (i) the Benefits Agency (including freehold, leasehold and historical leasehold offices), (ii) the Child Support Agency, (iii) the War Pensions Agency, (iv) the IT Services Agency and (v) the Independent Statutory Bodies; and what is the total value of assets for each of these bodies. [99819]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: In early 1998 all of the Department's land and property throughout the UK, both freehold and leasehold, was transferred to the private sector under two separate Private Finance Initiative contracts. We now no longer own nor hold any land or property. Instead serviced office accommodation is purchased from our two private sector partners, Trillium and the Newcastle Estate Partnership.
  90W
  Under the PRIME contract, assets related to the properties were transferred to Trillium. The Department, however, retains a relatively small amount of low value property related assets in the Newcastle Estate.

  The total net book value of all fixed assets held by the Department's Executive Agencies at 31 March 1999 is as follows:

  £

  Benefits Agency

  34,220,000

  Child Support Agency

  7,327,000

  War Pensions Agency

  1,035,000

  Information Technology Services Agency

  25,153,000

  For the Department's Independent Statutory Bodies, valuation information is being developed as part of the implementation of resource accounting. This information is currently being audited. The first set of resource accounts will be published in respect of 1999–2000.

  Inter-departmental Group (Poverty and Social Exclusion)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how frequently the inter-departmental group that met to advise on the report from his Department, "Opportunity for All, Tackling Poverty and Social Exclusion" (Cm 4455), will meet in future, with representatives of which Departments, under what terms of reference, and with what involvement of representatives of voluntary and community organisations. [100724]

  Mr. Bayley
  In preparing "Opportunity for All", our first annual report on its strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion, all relevant Government Departments met frequently to discuss the report. We are currently considering the terms of reference and membership for the inter-departmental group that will steer the second report.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to allow people with severe and enduring mental illness, who have been discharged from hospital and whose circumstances remain unchanged, to claim Disability Living Allowance and severe disablement premium without having to complete any additional forms. [99877]

  Mr. Bayley
  Scope already exists for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) claimants discharged from hospital on a long-term or indefinite basis to have their benefit reinstated on a weekly basis, providing they notify the DLA unit of their discharge, and providing there is no change to their care and mobility needs. Reinstatement cannot however be automatic; much will depend on the circumstances of the individual case. For example, a person who has been discharged from hospital may have greater or lesser care needs than they had before they were admitted and this could alter the rate of benefit to which they are entitled.

  We recognise the special problems that people with mental health problems face when dealing with the benefits system. We are currently looking at different ways of gathering information necessary to deal with claims for DLA that will place less reliance on lengthy

  91W
  forms, allow more face to face contact with claimants, and develop a system which is more sensitive to the needs of individual disabled people. As part of this, we have been working with organisations representing people with mental health problems to address particular concerns about DLA periodic inquiries. Discussions have been constructive, and are being taken forward in a revised approach, which we believe should lead to an improved service for such people.

  Invalid Carer's Allowance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of invalid carer's allowance are estimated to have earnings per week of(a) 0–£10, (b) £10–£20, (c) £20–£30, (d) £30–£40 and (e) £40–£50; and how many carers who would otherwise be entitled to invalid carer's allowance are estimated to have earnings per week of (i) £50–£60, (ii) £60–£70, (iii) £70–£80, (iv) £80–£90 and (v) £90–£100 or earnings in other ranges for which estimates are available. [99921]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available.

  Pension Scheme Trustee Boards
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to improve the representation of pensioners on the trustee boards of pension schemes. [99999]

  Mr. Rooker
  We believe that member trustees add value to pension schemes, and want to increase their coverage.

  Our priority is to ensure that schemes have member-nominated trustees, and that members have a fair say in determining the arrangements for appointing them.

  The consultation document, "Strengthening the Pensions Framework", which was issued in December 1998, made a number of proposals on member-nominated trustees, including a proposal that large mature schemes should be required to reserve a place on the trustee board for a pensioner member. Responses showed widespread support for the principle of member trustees, but concern about the practical implications of some of the proposals, including that for a reserved place for a pensioner member in large mature schemes.

  In the light of the concerns, we set up a working group with the pensions industry and other representative bodies to review the proposals. A further consultation document with revised proposals was issued on 7 October 1999.

  The changes we are proposing do not require schemes to have a pensioner trustee, but will ensure that pensioners are given a fair say in the procedures.

  Responses to the revised proposals were mostly very encouraging, and we plan to legislate in the forthcoming child support, pensions and social security Bill.

  Personal Pension Schemes
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to allow unmarried members of personal pension schemes to buy annuities where the rate is determined on the member's life only. [99891]
  92W
  Mr. Rooker
  All members of personal pension schemes are already able to choose to purchase a single life annuity with their entire fund, provided that the pension contains no element of protected rights.

  Members of appropriate personal pension schemes, which consist wholly or partly of protected rights, are required to purchase a joint life annuity with the protected rights element of the accumulated fund which accrued before 6 April 1997. Unmarried members may use all of the rights accrued from 6 April 1997 to purchase a single life annuity.

  We are considering whether a further change should be made to the legislation in respect of the requirement to purchase a joint life annuity for pre-6 April 1997 protected rights.

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have called the National Benefit Fraud Hotline in each of the 12 weeks for which he has the most recent data. [100694]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Numbers of people who have called the national benefit fraud hotline in the most recent 12 week period, 30 August-19 November 1999

  Week commencing

  Calls answered

  30 August

  2,311

  6 September

  2,902

  13 September

  2,669

  20 September

  2,619

  27 September

  2,470

  4 October

  2,371

  11 October

  2,445

  18 October

  2,336

  25 October

  2,139

  1 November

  2,749

  8 November

  3,060

  15 November

  4,367

  Total

  32,438

  Note:

  On occasion people call the hotline but ring off before the call has been answered. Over the 12 week period, 1,109 calls were lost in this way (3.3 per cent. of all calls made).

  Child Support White Paper
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to respond to the report of the Social Security Select Committee, the 1999 Child Support White Paper [HC 798]. [101124]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government's response to the Committee's report has been laid before Parliament today, Cm 4536.

WALES

  Birth Certificates
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what purposes his Department and its executive agencies require a birth certificate to be provided by(a) employees, (b) contractors and those applying for employment and contracts and (c) other persons. [99332]
  93W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department requires those applying for employment to provide either a birth certificate, passport, or driving licence in order to prove identify. Contractors, potential contractors, and other persons are not required to provide their birth certificates.

HEALTH

  Gender Reassignment Surgery
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department issues to health authorities who have a blanket policy not to offer gender reassignment surgery on the National Health Service. [98632]

  Mr. Denham
  Our advice is that each case should be considered on its individual merits.

  Alder Hey Hospital
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Chief Medical Officer's investigation into the post-mortem removal and retention of organs at children's hospitals, with particular reference to Alder Hey, will be completed; and if it will be made public. [98625]

  Mr. Denham
  The Chief Medical Officer's investigation will look at what has happened not only at the Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital (Alder Hey) but in the country generally and at the implications for the National Health Service. He hopes to complete his investigation by summer 2000 and will publish the results.

  Nurses National Register
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a minimum time ban for registered nurses struck off the national register held by the UK Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. [98471]

  Mr. Hutton
  Decisions on the length of time before which a practitioner who has been removed from the register may reapply are a matter for the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Emergency Services (Millennium Celebrations)
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the plans being made to cope with the expected extra demand placed on emergency services during the millennium celebrations. [99560]

  Ms Stuart
  Preparations for the millennium began well in advance. All National Health Service organisations, including Ambulance Trusts, were assessed as presenting no risk of material disruption to services due to the millennium bug. Ambulance services have detailed plans and robust contingency arrangements in place to cope with expected extra demand over this period.

  Transplants (Waiting List)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in each health authority are awaiting(a) heart transplants and (b) other organ transplants; and if he will make a statement. [99763]
  94W
  Mr. Denham
  Copies of the information requested have been placed in the Library.

  We are concerned about the shortage of organs for transplantation and that was why we launched the organ donor publicity campaign in October 1998, reinforced in February by a campaign targeting the south Asian community. We shall continue to build on these campaigns to encourage people to join the National Health Service organ donor register, to carry the donor card at all times and most importantly make their wishes known to their family and friends.

  We shall be developing a further campaign to inform the medical profession about best practice in requesting organ donation.

  Additionally, in line with the drive to improve the quality of care for all users of the NHS, we shall seek to ensure that best practice is adopted in all units involved in donation and transplantation. We shall also support best practice in live donation, which has increased significantly over the last few years.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are in place in each health authority area to provide a specialised service to patients with epilepsy. [99759]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not available in the format requested. Regional specialised commissioning groups are accountable for ensuring that effective arrangements for commissioning specialised services are in place in each region, including those specialised services required for the treatment of complex epilepsy.

  Under the present system it is, of course, for health authorities and primary care groups to plan and arrange the services available to people in their care. They are closest to the patients and best placed to respond sensitively to their needs.

  The Clinical Standards Advisory Group (Epilepsy Committee) has undertaken a study to investigate standards of clinical care for, and access and availability of services to, patients with epilepsy. The aim of this research is to review the services that are currently available. We have recently received this report and are currently considering its conclusions and recommendations and the implications they have for epilepsy services and for the National Health Service as a whole. We hope to publish the report within the prescribed 90 days, together with the Government's response.

  "Fit for the Future?"
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the research on which the consultation document, "Fit for the Future?", was based. [99850]

  Mr. Hutton
  Details of the reference material used by the Centre for Policy on Ageing (CPA) and the Advisory Group in formulating their proposals for national standards are set out in the consultation document, "Fit for the Future?", along with details of the CPA's consultation process and the membership of the Advisory Group.
  95W

  Social Services (SSAs)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the standard spending assessment for social services in each health authority area in(a) the last year for which figures are available and (b) 1997. [99913]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on standard spending assessments by health authority area are not available. Details of the standard spending assessment for social services in each local authority in 2000–01, the latest year for which figures are available, and 1997–98, are given in the table.

  Personal social services standard spending assessments 1997–98 and 2000–01

  £ million

  PSS SSA

  1997–98

  2000–01

  Inner London

  City of London

  1.561

  2.235

  Camden

  61.539

  65.514

  Greenwich

  53.365

  62.961

  Hackney

  75.700

  75.201

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  46.983

  49.839

  Islington

  61.641

  67.978

  Kensington and Chelsea

  40.373

  46.555

  Lambeth

  86.801

  90.889

  Lewisham

  69.408

  75.348

  Southwark

  73.657

  85.608

  Tower Hamlets

  59.032

  73.568

  Wandsworth

  66.987

  73.669

  Westminster

  57.804

  67.916

  Total Inner London

  754.851

  837.281

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  30.899

  42.402

  Barnet

  51.638

  60.393

  Bexley

  27.410

  36.592

  Brent

  57.553

  60.340

  Bromley

  39.743

  47.489

  Croydon

  51.948

  59.903

  Ealing

  57.287

  65.432

  Enfield

  43.305

  54.127

  Haringey

  58.229

  59.422

  Harrow

  30.748

  37.674

  Havering

  28.742

  36.345

  Hillingdon

  35.322

  42.248

  Hounslow

  38.979

  44.092

  Kingston Upon Thames

  19.135

  22.461

  Merton

  28.333

  34.075

  Newham

  60.752

  66.500

  Redbridge

  35.115

  43.807

  Richmond Upon Thames

  25.255

  29.178

  Sutton

  25.415

  30.160

  Waltham Forest

  48.411

  56.133

  Total Outer London

  794.220

  928.773

  Total London Boroughs

  1,549.071

  1,766.054

  Metropolitan Districts

  Barnsley

  36.429

  42.926

  Birmingham

  191.972

  225.012

  Bolton

  40.229

  49.321

  Bradford

  75.447

  87.681

  Bury

  24.157

  29.599

  Calderdale

  28.077

  32.336

  Coventry

  43.305

  57.366

  Doncaster

  42.686

  51.369

  Dudley

  40.206

  51.788

  Gateshead

  34.634

  41.824

  Kirklees

  56.626

  64.763

  96W

  Personal social services standard spending assessments 1997–98 and 2000–01

  £ million

  PSS SSA

  1997–98

  2000–01

  Knowsley

  25.670

  37.973

  Leeds

  114.303

  129.248

  Liverpool

  88.990

  117.144

  Manchester

  97.719

  110.582

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  51.633

  61.709

  North Tyneside

  32.743

  39.622

  Oldham

  34.744

  41.299

  Rochdale

  32.480

  39.794

  Rotherham

  38.936

  48.236

  Salford

  43.219

  52.505

  Sandwell

  52.882

  65.532

  Sefton

  43.411

  56.079

  Sheffield

  95.829

  111.761

  Solihull

  22.140

  29.077

  South Tyneside

  28.062

  35.478

  St. Helen

  25.361

  34.018

  Stockport

  34.842

  45.480

  Sunderland

  49.391

  60.395

  Tameside

  33.526

  41.735

  Trafford

  30.056

  35.724

  Wakefield

  45.645

  56.499

  Walsall

  43.629

  51.672

  Wigan

  42.069

  54.070

  Wirral

  50.170

  64.099

  Wolverhampton

  40.783

  51.322

  Total Districts

  1,812.001

  2,205.040

  Shire Counties

  Bedfordshire

  42.201

  49.329

  Berkshire1

  91.439

  n/a

  Buckinghamshire

  50.856

  57.694

  Cambridgeshire1

  82.510

  71.051

  Cheshire1

  117.590

  93.808

  Cornwall

  66.035

  80.833

  Cumbria

  62.999

  77.302

  Derbyshire

  93.704

  113.478

  Devon1

  150.872

  107.139

  Dorset

  49.460

  58.202

  Durham

  79.015

  93.748

  East Sussex

  76.306

  86.702

  Essex1

  206.992

  196.593

  Gloucestershire

  66.678

  78.881

  Hampshire

  137.052

  153.061

  Hereford and Worcester1

  84.392

  n/a

  Hertfordshire

  134.650

  154.619

  Kent1

  208.470

  207.259

  Lancashire1

  200.097

  182.804

  Leicestershire

  59.501

  72.569

  Lincolnshire

  80.602

  91.628

  Norfolk

  105.747

  121.769

  North Yorkshire

  70.297

  75.996

  Northamptonshire

  71.409

  85.391

  Northumberland

  43.653

  48.531

  Nottinghamshire1

  146.546

  110.286

  Oxfordshire

  70.860

  78.168

  Shropshire1

  52.074

  40.695

  Somerset

  62.493

  72.150

  Staffordshire

  91.191

  109.971

  Suffolk

  83.259

  97.914

  Surrey

  130.363

  143.522

  Warwickshire

  57.743

  70.602

  West Sussex

  102.060

  112.675

  Wiltshire

  48.547

  53.766

  Worcestershire

  n/a

  74.424

  Total Counties

  3,277.661

  3,322.562

  97W

  Personal social services standard spending assessments 1997–98 and 2000–01

  £ million

  PSS SSA

  1997–98

  2000–01

  Shire Unitary Authorities

  Isles of Scilly

  0.282

  0.249

  Isle of Wight

  18.798

  23.070

  Bath and North East Somerset

  21.229

  24.671

  Blackburn

  n/a

  26.184

  Blackpool

  n/a

  31.264

  Bournemouth

  29.672

  32.681

  Bracknell Forest

  n/a

  14.130

  Brighton and Hove

  47.223

  52.088

  Bristol

  63.766

  74.797

  Darlington

  14.800

  17.272

  Derby

  35.075

  41.732

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  35.546

  42.357

  Halton

  n/a

  22.517

  Hartlepool

  14.219

  17.661

  Herefordshire

  n/a

  24.383

  Kingston upon Hull

  49.478

  57.422

  Leicester

  54.311

  59.978

  Luton

  23.984

  29.898

  Medway Town

  n/a

  33.434

  Middlesbrough

  24.171

  29.166

  Milton Keynes

  22.638

  27.961

  North East Lincolnshire

  21.940

  26.857

  North Lincolnshire

  19.306

  23.024

  North Somerset

  23.346

  27.391

  Nottingham

  n/a

  62.419

  Peterbrough

  n/a

  24.682

  Plymouth

  n/a

  44.878

  Poole

  17.612

  22.060

  Portsmouth

  31.254

  35.662

  Reading

  n/a

  23.110

  Redcar and Cleveland

  21.095

  24.851

  Rutland

  3.377

  3.702

  Slough

  n/a

  21.683

  South Gloucestershire

  21.661

  27.605

  Southampton

  35.513

  40.959

  Southend-on-Sea

  n/a

  34.311

  Stockton-on-Tees

  23.313

  29.341

  Stoke-on-Trent

  38.102

  49.075

  Telford and the Wrekin

  n/a

  23.335

  Thamesdown

  20.113

  24.565

  Thurrock

  n/a

  22.689

  Torbay

  n/a

  26.333

  Warrington

  n/a

  27.880

  West Berkshire

  n/a

  15.583

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  n/a

  17.636

  Wokingham

  n/a

  12.170

  York

  21.562

  25.031

  Total Unitaries

  753.385

  1,399.745

  Total Shire Areas

  4,031.046

  4,722.307

  Total England

  7,392.117

  8,693.400

  1 These shire counties were reorganised on 1 April 1998 and therefore figures for the two years are not comparable

  National Care Homes
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he proposes to announce his response to the Consultation Document on National Care Homes Standards. [99989]

  Mr. Hutton
  The consultation document "Fit for the Future?—National Required Standards for Residential and Nursing Homes for Older People" was issued for formal consultation nationally on 8 September. The consultation period ends on 21 January 2000.
  98W
  We will carefully consider all the comments we receive before finalising any regulatory standards and the arrangements for implementing them.

  Physiotherapy
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many physiotherapist posts are unfilled in the NHS at the latest date for which figures are available; and how many physiotherapists(a) left and (b) joined the NHS during the latest full year for which figures are available. [99995]

  Mr. Denham
  The available information is given in the tables. The Department's Recruitment, Retention and Vacancies survey collected data on the numbers of unfilled posts in NHS trusts in England as a 31 March 1999. Information is not collected centrally on the numbers of physiotherapists joining and leaving the NHS, but the annual non-medical workforce census gives total numbers of physiotherapists at 30 September each year.

  Physiotherapist vacancies in NHS trusts in England at 31 March 1999

  Total vacancies (whole time equivalents)

  Physiotherapists

  990

  Source:

  Department of Health Recruitment, Retention and Vacancies Survey March 1999

  NHS hospital and community health services physiotherapists in England at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  1997

  18,180

  1998

  18,530

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census

  Pharmaceutical Packaging
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what impact the EU directive on pharmaceutical packaging, which came into force on 1 January, has had on the availability and cost of generic drugs to the NHS. [99994]

  Ms Stuart
  Although it does not require them to do so, many manufacturers of generic medicines have decided in the light of European Community Directive 92/27, and other considerations, to change their production from bulk supplies to patient packs. It is likely that this change has contributed to recent problems in the availability of generic medicines and their increasing cost to the NHS. It is, however, only one factor and not, in our view, the most significant.

  NHS Magazine
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to public funds in the last year for which information is available of publishing NHS Magazine. [99894]
  99W
  Mr. Denham
  NHS Magazine was first published in June 1995. The net cost of publishing four issues of NHS Magazine in 1998 was £161,311.48. This averages a cost of £1.04 per copy.

  Health Care Spending
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government have a long-term target figure for the percentage of gross domestic product that it wishes to see devoted to health care spending. [100006]

  Mr. Denham
  No.

  Patients Association
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding his Department has provided to the Patients Association in each of the last five years. [99990]

  Ms Stuart
  The main source of Departmental funding for voluntary organisations is the Section 64 General Scheme of Grants. Over the last five years the Patients Association has received the following Section 64 funding:

  £

  1995–96

  14,000

  1996–97

  6,000

  1997–98

  25,000

  1998–99

  20,000

  1999–2000

  15,000

  NHS Consultants
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of serving NHS consultants intending to retire(a) before the age of 65 years and (b) before reaching the age of 60 years. [99888]

  Mr. Denham
  Information about the number of consultants in the National Health Service intending to retire is not collected centrally. For workforce planning purposes, we use data provided by the Medical Royal Colleges, where available.

  A and E Waiting Times
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to establish a task force to monitor the number of patients who wait on trolleys for treatment in A and E departments. [99998]

  Ms Stuart
  Earlier this year we announced a £115 million programme to modernise, expand and update accident and emergency departments. At the same time we announced that we were setting up a team to spearhead improvements in services and to set standards of care in accident and emergency departments, including the care provided for people awaiting admission to hospital. The team is led by Mr. Mike Lambert, an experienced accident and emergency consultant, and draws upon the expertise of professionals in all relevant fields. Their report will be presented to Ministers next spring.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the(a) effect to date and (b) likely effect during the remainder of the current financial year of primary care group budget overspends on the prescribing patterns of those primary care groups. [99991]

  Mr. Denham
  Current pressures do not justify a reduction or withdrawal of services to patients. Primary Care Groups should monitor all aspects of their prescribing and continue their efforts to reduce wasteful and inappropriate prescribing.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are waiting for(a) 12, (b) 18 and (c) 24 months for hospital treatment; and how many people were waiting for hospital treatment on 1 March in each year from 1990 to 1999 in the North Staffordshire Hospital Trust area. [99881]

  Mr. Denham
  The following table contains data for 31 March figures each year. Data are only available from March 1994 for North Staffordshire Hospital Trust as it exists today. However, the table supplies data for North Staffordshire District Health Authority before this time. Please note that this information will not be directly comparable with later years as it may not cover exactly the same area as the current trust.

  Total

  12 months plus

  18 months plus

  24 months plus

  31 March 1999

  7,051

  519

  0

  0

  31 March 1998

  9,877

  392

  0

  0

  31 March 1997

  6,988

  93

  0

  0

  31 March 1996

  7,307

  0

  0

  0

  31 March 1995

  8,486

  8

  0

  0

  31 March 1994

  9,170

  0

  0

  0

  31 March 1993

  8,206

  3

  0

  0

  31 March 1992

  7,254

  251

  5

  31 March 1991

  8,026

  952

  565

  31 March 1990

  10,019

  1,170

  1,282

  Voluntary Organisations
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the voluntary organisations which received section 64 financial support in 1998–99 and 1999–2000, indicating the amount of each award and the number of years each organisation has been funded through section 64. [100495]

  Mr. Hutton
  The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Dental Services
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many vacant posts there are for Community Dental Service dentists; [100501]

  (2) how many dentists have been employed in the Community Dental Service over each of the last five years; [100500]

  (3) what was the budget for the Community Dental Service for each of the past five years. [100502]
  101W
  Mr. Hutton
  There is no overall community dental service (CDS) budget. The level of investment in the CDS is a matter for individual health authorities to decide in the light of local need and priorities. Funding comes from health authority baseline allocations. Information about spending on CDS, recruitment and vacancies are matters for health authorities and data are not collected centrally. Overall CDS workforce statistics are given in the table.

  Staff in the community dental service (England): all figures as at 30 September

  Head count

  Year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Honorary

  Total

  Whole time equiv. (wte)

  1994

  740

  560

  0

  1,300

  1,030

  1995

  760

  560

  —

  1,320

  1,040

  1996

  750

  630

  0

  1,380

  1,060

  1997

  740

  630

  —

  1,380

  1,090

  1998

  690

  690

  0

  1,380

  1,030

  Note:

  All figures are rounded to nearest 10

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where the new dental phone-and-go schemes will be based. [100503]

  Mr. Hutton
  Two phone-and-go dental access centres have already opened in Cornwall and Shropshire. A further six will begin to open from the autumn in Wolverhampton, Bromley, Gloucester, Swindon, Worcester, and Manchester. Expressions of interest for further dental access centres are currently being considered and an announcement will be made shortly. Those that are successful will be given financial support to help them work up a full business case.

  New Variant CJD
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died of new variant CJD in each month since 1 May 1997. [99467]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Year and month

  Number of deaths

  1997

  May

  2

  June

  1

  July

  1

  August

  0

  September

  0

  October

  1

  November

  0

  December

  1

  1998

  January

  1

  February

  0

  March

  1

  April

  1

  May

  1

  June

  0

  July

  0

  August

  2

  September

  0

  October

  5

  November

  3

  December

  3

  102W

  Year and month

  Number of deaths

  1999

  January

  1

  February

  3

  March

  0

  April

  0

  May

  0

  June

  0

  July

  1

  August

  2

  September

  1

  Barnet General Hospital
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when phase 1B of the redevelopment of Barnet General Hospital will be open. [100217]

  Mr. Denham
  Work on Phase 1B development at Barnet Hospital is progressing well. The private finance initiative agreement states that construction work should be completed within 38 months of its signing, that is, by April 2002.

  Health Trusts (Fundraising)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the advice he gave to health trusts on fundraising activities, indicating what controls he has put in place. [100138]

  Mr. Denham
  The Charity Commission, as the regulator of charities, is responsible for issuing guidance to trustees, including National Health Service trustees. It has issued specific guidance to NHS bodies in the form of a manual, "NHS Charities a Guide" which provides advice on fundraising.

  Electro-convulsive Treatment
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish his Department's latest advice on electro-convulsive treatment. [100797]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Royal College of Psychiatrists has issued guidance on the use of electro-convulsive therapy. A joint letter from the Chief Medical Officer and the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in September 1998 was sent to all consultant psychiatrists, health authorities and NHS trusts indicating that it was expected that clinical governance arrangements would ensure compliance with this guidance in ECT clinics.

  ECT is an effective treatment particularly for patients with very severe generally psychotic depression which is life threatening if left untreated. People who are this severely depressed may refuse or be unable to eat and drink, with a consequent high mortality, as well as being at very high risk of suicide. ECT produces a faster onset of therapeutic action in such cases than is the case with drug treatment.

  ECT also has a more limited place in the treatment of other disorders such as mania and schizophrenia. Its role in these latter conditions is generally when drug treatments have proved ineffective or for some reason inadvisable.
  103W

  Non-moulded Hearing Aids
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rules cover the sale of non-moulded hearing aids in retail outlets. [98619]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 November 1999]: I have been asked to reply as the Minister responsible for the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968, which regulates the supply of hearing aids, whether moulded or non-moulded. The Act requires that the dispensers of hearing aids must be registered as such with the Hearing Aid Council in order to supply hearing aids. The standard of competence for registration of dispensers is contained in the Hearing Aid Council's Code of Practice, copies of which will be placed shortly in the Library of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who has awarded the contract to conduct the research into stipendiary and lay magistrates by the Lord Chancellor's Department. [101120]

  Mr. Straw
  A contract was signed on 22 November on behalf of Professor Rod Morgan of the University of Bristol, who will lead a team consisting of colleagues in the Faculty of Law at the University of Bristol, researchers from Taylor Nelson Sofres (covering the fieldwork), and CRG Consultants (for the cost-benefit analysis).

  The team will undertake research commissioned jointly by the Hone Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department, to assess the relative costs, effectiveness and other benefits or disadvantages of stipendiary and lay magistrates, taking into account all related costs including those of other agencies. It will be used to assess whether the current balance between the use of lay magistrates and stipendiaries is satisfactory; whether each set of magistrates is deployed in the most effective way; and the weight of arguments that are heard for and against the use of lay and stipendiary magistrates in particular circumstances.

  The research is due to be completed in September 2000. The report will be published.

  Policing Objectives
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what objectives he will be determining for policing in 2000–01. [101121]

  Mr. Straw
  The Police Act 1996 allows me to set objectives, or ministerial priorities, for policing. The objectives for 2000–01 are:to reduce local problems of crime and disorder in partnership with local authorities, other local agencies and the public; and
  to increase trust and confidence in policing among minority ethnic communities.
  I have reduced the number of priorities from four to two as I believe this helps focus attention on two key areas of policing—reducing crime and rising to the challenges of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the achievements of staff in the immigration and nationality directorate over the past year. [101122]

  Mrs. Roche
  Staff in the immigration and nationality directorate (IND)—both at the ports and at headquarters—have faced greatly increased workloads during 1999 as a result of the large increase in the number of asylum applicants. Much has been achieved, but much more remains to be done and staff will face a continuing challenge next year. In addition, staff are now taking on new responsibilities to make asylum procedures operate more effectively.

  I have, therefore, authorised a special payment of £150 for all staff, except members of the IND board. This recognises the extra duties and responsibilities of IND staff in this period of change.

  Road Rage
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many attacks by motorists against other motorists have been reported during 1999; how many people have been charged as a result of such reports; and how many such people have been(a) sent to prison, (b) fined and (c) acquitted. [99527]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Incapacitant Sprays
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions incapacitant sprays have been used in each month in each Metropolitan Police division in the past 12 months; and what records are maintained of each use of the spray. [99601]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has provided the following information on the use of CS spray by borough operational command units (OCUs) for each quarter of the last 12 months.

  1998

  1999

  Borough OCU

  4th Qtr

  1st Qtr

  2nd Qtr

  3rd Qtr

  City of Westminster

  4

  8

  1

  3

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  8

  0

  5

  1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  3

  2

  1

  Barking and Dagenham

  5

  0

  5

  3

  Barnet

  0

  5

  2

  3

  Brent

  5

  5

  8

  5

  Camden

  6

  2

  6

  3

  Ealing

  9

  8

  6

  9

  Enfield

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Hackney

  2

  4

  2

  2

  Haringey

  2

  3

  3

  2

  Harrow

  3

  4

  2

  5

  Havering

  3

  2

  6

  7

  Hillingdon

  8

  6

  5

  9

  Islington

  5

  1

  0

  1

  Newham

  5

  3

  3

  3

  Redbridge

  2

  4

  2

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  3

  3

  4

  1

  Waltham Forest

  2

  5

  5

  1

  Bexley

  1

  2

  0

  1

  Bromley

  5

  4

  3

  2

  Croydon

  2

  3

  5

  6

  Greenwich

  5

  8

  5

  8

  Hounslow

  5

  2

  2

  5

  105W

  1998

  1999

  Borough OCU

  4th Qtr

  1st Qtr

  2nd Qtr

  3rd Qtr

  Kingston upon Thames

  6

  4

  3

  5

  Lambeth

  6

  4

  7

  11

  Lewisham

  6

  4

  3

  13

  Merton

  6

  0

  3

  2

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  1

  1

  3

  Southwark

  7

  5

  6

  7

  Spelthorne

  1

  1

  2

  0

  Sutton

  4

  6

  4

  11

  Wandsworth

  0

  2

  2

  2

  Totals

  127

  112

  114

  135

  The Commissioner tells me that a monthly breakdown for each borough OCU is not readily available.

  Reasons for, and the circumstances of, each use of CS spray are recorded in the arresting officer's notes; if no arrest is made, a local record is kept. Each time CS spray is used, details are copied to the relevant Metropolitan Police policy branch and, in many cases, to OCU and area senior management.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what rules, guidelines or other instructions are given to officers of the Metropolitan Police concerning the circumstances in which they may use incapacitant sprays; and what precautions officers must take to avoid danger to(a) members of the public, (b) the person being targeted and (c) fellow officers. [99602]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner tells me that training in the use of CS spray for his officers is based on principles contained in the Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines on police use of incapacitant spray.

  Metropolitan Police officers are taught that CS spray is a tactical option when the use of force is justified, but it must be used lawfully. Where any use of force is contemplated, officers are trained to take full account of the circumstances and any likely dangers before deciding which tactical option to use. Their training explains the effects of CS spray on the person being sprayed and on others; they are also trained in aftercare procedures for persons sprayed. Custody officers have specific guidance on how to deal with those arrested following the use of CS spray.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been received in the last year concerning the use of incapacitant sprays by the Metropolitan Police; on how many occasions disciplinary action has been taken against officers for misuse or other incidents involving an incapacitant spray; how many officers charged with such an offence were disciplined; and what sanctions were applied. [99603]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner tells me that between 1 November 1998 and 31 October 1999 there were 38 public complaints by members of the public concerning the use of incapacitant sprays. These complaints involved 41 specific allegations. Of these, 16 have been investigated and found to be unsubstantiated. The remaining 25 allegations are still being investigated.

  No disciplinary action relating to the use of CS spray has been taken against any Metropolitan Police officer during the same 12-month period.
  106W
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date divisions of the Metropolitan police were issued with incapacitant spray; what type of spray is available to them; how many canisters have been purchased and at what cost; how many officers have been trained in the use of spray; how many hours of such training are set as the minimum training for an officer; and how many officers routinely carry canisters. [99604]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan police Commissioner tells me that the date of issue of CS spray varies between divisions because of the lead-in time necessary to train officers. All officers receive four hours initial training before being issued with CS spray; competence in its use is checked at least once a year thereafter. By March 1998, most divisional officers had been issued with CS spray.

  The Metropolitan police do not record centrally the number of officers trained in the use of CS spray, nor the number who routinely carry it, but the Commissioner tells me that the majority of operational officers would routinely carry it.

  The CS incapacitant spray issued by the Metropolitan police is manufactured by SAE Alsetex in France and supplied in the United Kingdom by Primetake Ltd. This spray contains a 5 per cent. solution of CS in the solvent MIBK (Methyl iso butyl ketone) and the propellant used is nitrogen. Since September 1997, the Metropolitan police has purchased 30,200 canisters at the cost of £196,000.

  Euro 2000
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total costs were of policing the England v Scotland Euro 2000 play-offs match at Wembley on 17 November. [99528]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan Police advise that the total cost for policing around Wembley Stadium and in Central London was £525,777. Policing costs inside the stadium were met by Wembley plc.

  Officer Training
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training is given to police officers on effecting an arrest on board a bus, and what factors must be taken into account by the arresting officers. [99605]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Police officer training is an operational matter for individual chief officers.

  The Commissioner tells me that during Metropolitan police officers probationer continuation training, they receive a session on public transport disputes and legislation. This covers assaults on bus crews and the conduct of passengers. This complements training on issues such as the handling of assaults in public places, powers of arrest and public order offences.

  Bus Routes (Crime)
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the past year and in what circumstances police have been called to deal with incidents on buses in the police district covering Hackney;
  107W
  on how many occasions police have made an arrest; and what offences were alleged to have been committed by those arrested. [99600]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner tells me that between 1 October 1998 and 1 October 1999, 283 allegations of crime on bus routes in Hackney borough were recorded. These break down as follows:

  Number

  Theft (from the person)

  116

  Theft (other)

  63

  Violence against the person

  51

  Robbery

  27

  Indecent Assault

  5

  Other offences

  21

  The Commissioner tells me that statistics on the number of occasions the police have been called to deal with incidents on buses in Hackney borough, and related arrests, are not recorded specifically.

  Human Fertilisation Act 1990
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been instigated under the Human Fertilisation Act 1990 on embryos experimented on in advance of 14 days. [99749]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  From 1991 to 1998 inclusive, the Home Office court proceedings database shows no defendants proceeded against under the Act for this offence.

  Marchioness Disaster
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers and boats were available to the Metropolitan Police Thames Division(a) at the time of the Marchioness disaster and (b) in 1999. [99623]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner tells me that in 1989 there were 146 police officers attached to Thames Division, and 23 boats were deployed from five bases along the length of the River Thames. Today there are 89 police officers and 18 boats all operating out of central headquarters at Wapping, where activity is focused on river traffic monitoring, central London security patrol and emergency response. The fleet has been substantially modernised since 1989 and an additional two boats are due to be delivered before the end of the year. A more diverse range of specialist resources is also now available to Thames Division than in 1989, including digital marine radio, inflatable pathways and vessel tracking.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK in 1998. [98565]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of nationals of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom in 1998 was 870. Other 108W
  information on nationals from the former Yugoslavia was published in Table 6.1 of "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom, 1998", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Police Numbers (Hillingdon)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what staffing levels will be in operation in each of the police stations within the Metropolitan Police Service Hillingdon division on(a) 25 December, (b) 26 December, (c) 31 December, (d) 1 January 2000 and (e) 2 January 2000. [99610]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner tells me that planning is taking place to ensure there are sufficient officers on duty to meet the demands over the Millennium period. The planning process has taken into account the need to retain operational flexibility.

  Police Act 1997
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in the implementation of Part V of the Police Act 1997. [99597]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The project to set up the Criminal Records Bureau to implement Part V of the Police Act 1997 is being managed within the framework of a Public-Private Partnership. A business prospectus was issued on 8 October and a bidders conference was held on 14 October. Bids were received on 19 November and are under evaluation. I have been reviewing the timetable and delivery of the project and I shall announce the outcome shortly.

  Burglar Alarms
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers over the problems caused by rogue burglar alarms in commercial properties. [100796]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None. I am not aware of any representations to the Home Office on that matter.

  Representation of the People Bill
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for what reason no regulatory impact study of the financial and other effects of the Representation of the People Bill has been issued by his Department in advance of the publication of the Bill; [100673]

  (2) when his Department intends to issue a regulatory impact study of the financial and other effects of the Representation of the People Bill; [100674]

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost to(a) business and (b) other organisations of proposals in the Representation of the People Bill to limit the commercial availability of the electoral register; and for what reason no regulatory impact statement has been produced. [100399]
  109W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A regulatory impact statement relating to the Representation of the People Bill was placed in the Library on 18 November to coincide with the Bill's introduction.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that use of the full electoral register by commercial and charitable groups should become a criminal offence. [100675]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Representation of the People Bill allows regulations to be made prescribing those persons who may purchase or be supplied with the full electoral register and for what purpose. Prohibitions or restrictions may be imposed as to the extent to which information from the full register may be used for purposes other than those for which it was supplied, and it can be made an offence to contravene those prohibitions or restrictions.

  Eurodac Regulations
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what position will be taken by the Government when the European Commission's proposal to transfer to the Commission competence over the implementing provisions of the Eurodac Regulations is discussed at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 2 and 3 December. [100798]

  Mrs. Roche
  A copy of an explanatory memorandum has been sent to the scrutiny committees setting out the Government's position on the draft regulation. A copy will be available in the Library of the House. On implementing powers, we will judge at the Council itself what is in the United Kingdom's best interests in the light of all the proposals then under discussion.

  Passport Fees
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) of 24 November 1999,Official Report, column 125W, if he will place in the Library details of the options regarding passport fee levels which have been submitted for consideration. [100799]

  Mrs. Roche
  The options for the levels of passport fees are a matter for internal discussion and deliberation between Passport Agency officials and Ministers.

  Gurpal Virdi
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long was the last request by Gurpal Virdi for postponement of the Metropolitan Police discipline hearing; how long the postponement was; and whose availability caused the extra delay. [100031]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner tells me that solicitors representing Sergeant Virdi sought an adjournment of the Metropolitan Police discipline hearing on or around 31 August 1999. The adjournment was sought to allow expert witnesses, acting for the defence, sufficient time to examine the evidence in the case.
  110W
  Both parties have agreed the hearing should now start on 7 February 2000.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will authorise Gurpal Virdi to meet the police inspectorate before the resolution of the outstanding employment and discipline hearings involving the Metropolitan Police Service; [100029]

  (2) if he will authorise the police inspectorate to meet Gurpal Virdi before the resolution of the outstanding employment and discipline hearings involving the Metropolitan Police Service. [100028]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Whether Sergeant Virdi meets a member of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) is a matter for them. I understand that HMIC, in order to avoid any suggestion of compromising proceedings, would not expect to meet a police officer engaged in disciplinary and employment tribunal proceedings until those proceedings, and any related appeals, were complete.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Metropolitan Police Service first received notice of the employment claim by Gurpal Virdi; and what the reasons have been for the delay in the tribunal hearing. [100030]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner tells me that the originating application for the employment tribunal in Sergeant Gurpal Virdi's case was presented on 28 June 1998. The Metropolitan Police Service served notice of its intention to contest the matter.

  The tribunal was made aware that there are outstanding disciplinary matters relating to Sergeant Virdi, which are linked to the employment claim. As evidence that will be used both by the defence and the prosecution in the disciplinary hearing will also be used at the employment tribunal, the tribunal cannot proceed until the disciplinary hearing is concluded.

  The employment tribunal has been made aware of the mutually agreed revised date to commence the disciplinary hearing on 7 February 2000. The employment tribunal has set the date of 5 May 2000 for a directions hearing with the full hearing due to commence on 14 June 2000.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what work is being undertaken by his Department to assess the additional training and other costs if, as a result of the introduction of community treatment orders proposed in the consultation paper "Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983", the police are increasingly engaged in conveying people to hospital. [100720]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government's proposals for the review of the Mental Health Act 1983 were published for consultation in a Green Paper on 16 November. The proposals do not include any additional statutory responsibility for the police to convey people to hospital. However, we shall consider carefully any evidence the police service offers about the implications for them of any aspect of the proposals.
  111W

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effect of the fuel duty escalator on the budgets of(a) the police, (b) the fire and rescue service and (c) the ambulance service. [100062]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Budgets for police forces and fire brigades are set locally by their respective police and fire authorities. These budgets reflect local decisions on the authorities' priorities and expenditure needs. It is not possible to discern whether or to what extent fuel price changes have been a factor in these decisions, but we have no evidence to suggest that they have been a consideration of any significance.

  The ambulance service is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. However, I understand that the increased costs in fuel duty for the ambulance service since 1996–97 are estimated at £3.73 million. This amounts to less than 0.075 per cent, of hospital and community health services spending over the two years since 1997.

  Pilot Election Schemes
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that local authorities are able successfully to run pilot election schemes, as set out in the Representation of the People Bill, by March 2000. [100658]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We hope that it will be possible for local authorities to run the first pilot schemes at the local elections in May 2000, though this will depend on when the Bill receives Royal Assent.

  The Home Office has issued a circular to all local authorities explaining how to apply to run a pilot scheme and has produced guidance on how to undertake an evaulation.

  Firearms Surrender Compensation
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for what reason the claim by Mr. R. Knappe of Ferndown, Dorset, for firearms surrender compensation in respect of firearms surrendered over two years ago has not yet been paid; [99455]

  (2) how many claims for firearms surrender compensation have been received by the Firearms Compensation Section from Dorset Constabulary; how many have been completed; how many are still outstanding; and how many have been closed in error; [99451]

  (3) how many claims for firearms surrender compensation are still outstanding; and on what date he expects all cases to be completed. [99456]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office Firearms Compensation Section (FCS) received 1,428 compensation claims from the Dorset Police area, of which five were ineligible under the terms of the compensation schemes. As at 22 November, 1,403 claims had been completed and 20 remain outstanding, of which 18 are those where payment offers have been made to the claimants in question and are awaiting acceptance.
  112W
  As at 22 November, a total of 994 claims remain outstanding, of which 795 are those where payment offers have been made to the claimants in question and are awaiting acceptance. It is not possible to predict exactly when all claims will be completed as this will depend on a number of factors outside our control, including, for example, the receipt of suitable evidence from claimants as to the value of their surrendered property, the outcome of an independent valuation where this is necessary, and claimants acceptance of the payment offers that have been or will be made to them.

  The compensation claim made by Mr. Knappe of Ferndown, Dorset was received in the FCS on 26 August 1997. Payment of the Option A and B elements of the claim was made on 22 January 1998 and the case is recorded as having been completed at this point. The claim will be re-examined by the FCS in order to process the outstanding Option C element of the claim.

  It is not possible to say how many claims may have been closed in error. They will come to light only when a claimant inquires about progress on a claim which is recorded as completed. Once identified, any such cases are dealt with promptly.

  Serious Assault
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to magistrates on the criteria for releasing persons on bail charged with a serious assault rather than remanding them in custody; and if he has any plans to review this guidance. [100347]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: Within the statutory framework laid down by Parliament, in the Bail Act 1976, the decision to grant bail is a matter of independent judicial discretion. For this reason, the Government do not issue guidance to magistrates. However, magistrates are trained to adopt a structured approach to decision making, taking into account a range of factors, including the nature and seriousness of the offence, the possible sentence and whether the defendant is likely to surrender to bail or commit offences while on bail.

  Reserve Budget (Police)
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what recent advice the Audit Commission has given to police authorities on the appropriate proportion of their budget to be held in reserve; [100669]

  (2) on the basis of the most recent information available, what proportion of total budget police authorities in the UK hold as reserves. [100668]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  An Audit Commission report published in July 1999 reported that the average police fund balance in England and Wales (including earmarked and general reserves) at 31 March 1998 was £7.6 million, which represents 6.2 per cent. of average net operating expenditure. However, the level of reserves varies greatly between authorities.

  The Audit Commission also reported that the level of general reserves—that is reserves other than earmarked reserves—is often a better indicator of the financial health of an authority. I attach information published by the

  113W
  Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA), showing that at 31 March 1998 police authorities in England and Wales had general reserves totalling £181 million. This represents about 2.6 per cent, of net expenditure.

  The Audit Commission noted that general reserves, or balances, ranging from 2 per cent. to 5 per cent. of net operating expenditure are typically seen as reasonable by auditors. CIPFA has issued advice to police authorities recommending that general reserves or balances should be within that range, depending on local circumstances. According to CIPFA figures, 12 police authorities had general reserves below 2 per cent. of net expenditure as at 31 March 1998.

  Reserves as at 31 March 1998

  Net expenditure £000

  Reserves £000

  Percentages

  Avon and Somerset

  152,673

  2,539

  1.7

  Bedfordshire

  58,570

  1,549

  2.6

  Cambridgeshire

  68,681

  1,755

  2.6

  Cheshire

  104,005

  6,162

  5.9

  City of London

  57,893

  —

  0.0

  Cleveland

  75,426

  1,563

  2.1

  Cumbria

  61,709

  198

  0.3

  Derbyshire

  95,641

  2,423

  2.5

  Devon and Cornwall

  155,435

  6,064

  3.9

  Dorset

  69,727

  1,227

  1.8

  Durham

  75,166

  1,524

  2.0

  Dyfed-Powys

  50,952

  527

  1.0

  Essex

  157,487

  2,148

  1.4

  Gloucestershire

  58,633

  3,320

  5.7

  Greater Manchester

  353,319

  8,552

  2.4

  Gwent

  64,598

  2,123

  3.3

  Hampshire

  180,791

  7,835

  4.3

  Hertfordshire

  93,011

  3,514

  3.8

  Humberside

  106,220

  319

  0.3

  Kent

  174,211

  5,528

  3.2

  Lancashire

  169,275

  7,421

  4.4

  Leicestershire

  98,789

  3,054

  3.1

  Lincolnshire

  66,184

  522

  0.8

  Merseyside

  224,327

  7,452

  3.3

  Metropolitan Police

  1,676,617

  26,495

  1.6

  Norfolk

  80,222

  2,735

  3.4

  Northamptonshire

  64,605

  5,106

  7.9

  Northumbria

  195,092

  —

  0.0

  North Wales

  70,920

  2,036

  2.9

  North Yorkshire

  71,840

  2,873

  4.0

  Nottinghamshire

  120,556

  3,335

  2.8

  South Wales

  159,411

  3,600

  2.3

  South Yorkshire

  166,027

  6,123

  3.7

  Staffordshire

  110,264

  6,996

  6.3

  Suffolk

  63,676

  2,002

  3.1

  Surrey

  90,976

  3,975

  4.4

  Sussex

  157,631

  8,919

  5.7

  Thames Valley

  210,333

  5,130

  2.4

  Warwickshire

  51,003

  1,750

  3.4

  West Mercia

  107,788

  2,880

  2.7

  West Midlands

  360,129

  5,010

  1.4

  West Yorkshire

  281,745

  3,881

  1.4

  Wiltshire

  58,535

  10,907

  18.6

  England and Wales

  6,870,093

  181,082

  2.6

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Trade Agreements
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to review the effect of trade agreements to which the UK is a party on developing countries. [100423]
  114W
  Mr. Foulkes
  The EU is funding a Sustainability Impact Assessment by Manchester University of the next trade round currently underway in Seattle. The study is developing a methodology for sustainability impact assessment and will make a broad qualitative assessment of the next round. It will look at impacts for four groups of countries—the EU, developing countries, least developed countries and the world as a whole. The Government fully supports the EU's approach and will be consulting with the EU and the consultants as the work progresses. In addition, the UK is part funding a World Bank programme of research on trade and development, which will include some work on impact assessment.

  The EU is currently negotiating new trade arrangements with the African, Caribbean and Pacific developing countries as part of the successor agreement to the Lomé IV Convention. The EU funded a consultancy study to investigate the effects of the proposed new arrangements. The results of the study were shared with EU member states and the ACP countries.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received on the effect of trade agreements to which the UK is a party on developing countries. [100421]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received representations from a variety of UK based development agencies and NGO organisations over the past few months. In October, she met with representatives of the British Overseas Aid Group. She gave a speech hosted by the Commonwealth Business Council on 3 November to over 100 NGOs entitled "Making the Next Trade Round Work for the World's Poor". I addressed the United Nations Environment and Development Committee conference "Seattle: A Challenge for Sustainable Development" on 18 November, a conference attended by most of the interested parties within the UK. I represent the Department for International Development (DFID) at the Government's regular meetings with the UK NGO Trade network.

  In the preparatory process for the Seattle Ministerial Meeting which will be held this week all WTO members have had an opportunity to put their points across, including their concerns about existing agreements. We will be working to ensure that these comments are taken forward appropriately in the WTO.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid programmes her Department is supporting in Pakistan; and what criteria she is adopting in determining which aid programmes to support.[99895]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Direct development assistance to the Government of Pakistan remains frozen following my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement of 15 October. Through civil society channels we are continuing programmes that directly help the poor.

  Our priorities include support for improved rural livelihoods, better basic education and health services and assistance to tackle child labour issues. We screen all proposed programmes to ensure they are poverty focused and take account of issues such as gender equality and environmental impact as a matter of course.
  115W

  Private Aid
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what annual assessment her Department makes of private aid and development assistance to the developing world from the United Kingdom. [100051]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International Development reports annually, in our Departmental Report, on the progress of implementation of the Government's official development assistance strategy. Private or non-governmental development agencies are independent organisations, accountable to their own Boards, and to the public and others who provide their funds. We try to ensure, through regular meetings, consultations and monitoring, that there is synergy between the work undertaken by these organisations and the official development programme. We are also about to embark on Partnership Programme Agreements with major non-governmental development agencies which will set out shared objectives over a fixed time-period.

  South Africa
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimates she has made of the effect of UK gold sales on employment in South Africa. [99609]

  Clare Short
  The world price of gold has been in decline for many years prior to the recent announcement of UK gold sales. The relatively modest size of UK gold sales is not sufficient to explain the fall in price of gold earlier this year. The price of gold has risen again since the second auction in September, and continues to fluctuate within a broad margin.

  Employment in the gold mining sector in South Africa has fallen from around 385,000 in June 1995, to around 210,000 at present. South African mines are comparatively high cost producers—the present industry average in South Africa is about $230 per ounce, compared to about ․100 in parts of South America—and their relative contribution to the South African economy has been in decline for decades. Our development co-operation supports South Africa's efforts at economic diversification and employment creation.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement concerning progress made on the extension of the jetty to form a breakwater in Jamestown Harbour, St. Helena. [100119]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The St. Helena Government is presently finalising proposals for a Wharf Improvement Project, including construction of a breakwater. The bulk of the project is expected to be financed from the European Development Fund (EDF). We have advised both the European Commission and the St. Helena Government that we will support the project when it is considered by the EDF Committee. We are also considering the Department for International Development's proposed contribution to the project.
  116W
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement concerning the breakdown of the RMS St. Helena and the future arrangements for transportation of goods and people to and from St. Helena, Ascension Island and the United Kingdom. [100118]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The RMS St. Helena suffered a failure of its starboard main engine on 5 November on its way from Cardiff to the south Atlantic. Technical investigation indicated major repairs were required. The ship is expected to be out of service until 10 February. The operators took immediate action to ensure RMS St. Helena's commitments could be met. Its cargo departed from Brest on 27 November and will arrive at St. Helena on 16 December. Parallel arrangements have been made for the delivery of cargo from Cape Town to arrive at St. Helena on 3 December. The schedule for an interim passenger service, with a first arrival date in St. Helena of 19 December, was published on 26 November.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will estimate the costs of consultants' reports for proposed schemes on the Island of St. Helena in each year since 1995. [100117]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The total value of consultancy contracts entered into for the provision of advice to the Government of St. Helena for each year since 1995 is as follows:

  £

  1995

  88,104

  1996

  97,833

  1997

  400,490

  1998

  188,238

  1999

  46,522

  These figures do not include the value of contracts entered into for the provision of practical support or for the implementation of projects, eg medical personnel, nurse and teacher training, and construction design/supervision.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department has given in the past six months to Chechnya by way of humanitarian aid. [100052]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Government is deeply concerned about the humanitarian consequences of the conflict in the North Caucasus. We are in close touch with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and UN agencies about those displaced as a result of the conflict. We have contributed £0.5 million to the ICRC's appeal for the region. The UK has also contributed through its part of the 1.2 million euro earmarked by the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO); of this 1 million euro has been disbursed to UNHCR.

  Background:

  1. Precise information on the numbers displaced in the North Caucasus is difficult to obtain. The region is dangerous for expatriates.

  2. But following western pressure a UN needs assessment team visited Dagestan and Ingushetia in early November. They reported that there are 185,000 IDPs from Chechnya in Ingushetia; 20,000 IDPs from Chechnya in other regions; and 18,000 IDPs within

  117W
  Dagestan. The team concluded "the humanitarian situation is very difficult and is likely to deteriorate unless humanitarian action is enhanced immediately".

  3. We received an appeal from ICRC to which we contributed £0.5 million. We have now also received a UN inter-agency appeal which we are considering.

  4. This reply is consistent with the draft reply to Lord Moynihan's question answered on 10 November.

  India
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Orissa. [99237]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The cyclone that hit Orissa on 29 August has caused widespread damage and suffering. Millions of people have been affected by the cyclone and its aftermath. Alongside the Government of India's own efforts, we have committed over £2.5 million for immediate relief. Much of this has been channelled through five UK-based non-governmental organisations (CARE, Christian Aid, Save the Children, Oxfam and Help Age International), which are working through Indian partner agencies to help the most seriously affected families. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies has received funding to provide food, as have various United Nations agencies such as UNICEF. A team from our Department concluded an on-the-spot assessment to guide our decisions on targeting the most needy areas and supporting the most effective agencies.

  In the coming months we shall be looking at re-starting our development aid programme in Orissa, alongside the major rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts that will be required.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she expects the £10 million assistance to Sierra Leone announced by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to be available to improve health facilities in the Kambia region; and if she will make a statement. [100063]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International Development (DFTD) is providing the Government of Sierra Leone with assistance for the implementation of the Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) process for ex-combatants (comprising £3 million for logistical support and a £3.5 million contribution to the World Bank managed Multi Donor Trust Fund); over £1 million towards the cost of the Commonwealth Police Development Task Force; support to the Sierra Leone Ministry of Defence for security sector reform projects to help create a civilian structure to manage the armed forces (£1.7 million); the provision of a ferry boat (£0.9 million) and around £2.4 million for a range of non-governmental organisation activities to help the country cope with its humanitarian needs. DFID has also provided £5 million worth of emergency budget support.
  118W
  A number of good governance projects, including assistance to help the country prepare for democratic elections in 2001, are presently under consideration. Also, a second trance of budget support to help Sierra Leone clear its debt arrears to the international finance institutions is likely to be approved before the end of the year.

  DFID does not have any plans at present for funding projects in the health sector. The European Commission is preparing a programme but its implementation will depend upon obtaining access to outlying districts, especially those such as Kambia which is controlled by rebel (RUF) forces who have not yet entered DDr.

  IT Projects
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the information technology projects currently being undertaken by her Department and by agencies responsible to her Department, including(a) the start date, (b) the planned completion date, (c) the current expected completion date, (d) the planned costs and (e) the current estimated cost; and if she will make a statement. [99671]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The only significant current project in the Department for International Development (DFID) is the roll-out of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) to provide on-line access to our major offices overseas. Work commenced in July 1999 and is scheduled for completion on time and within budget (£400,000) in early 2001. DFID systems are small scale and low risk. Our technical architectural values ensure appropriate use is made of packaged software and bespoke solutions. Our total annual IT budget is around £5.5 million. All IT projects have been delivered within 10 per cent. of estimates and implementation schedules.

  DFID has a rolling programme for development of IT infrastructure and Corporate Business Systems. This will include two key corporate systems: a phased development of a Performance Reporting Information System for Management (PRISM), and a resource accounting and budgeting system (CODA). Development work will resume in early 2000.

  Our plans for major IT projects in the future will include: the upgrade of desktop operating systems and applications suite, the upgrade of desktop hardware, the replacement of the Management Information System, an electronic document management system, and contract administration.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how often she meets her French counterpart; and if she will make a statement. [100049]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State frequently meets the French Minister for Co-operation, both bilaterally and at international meetings such as the EU Development Council and World Bank/IMF Development Committee. Their last bilateral meeting was on 18 November and they plan to meet again on 9 December.
  119W

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Care Costs (Children)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of hotel accommodation for children in care in the North and West Belfast Trust in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [99266]

  Mr. George Howarth
  During the last 12 months North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust has used hotel accommodation for one young person in its care at a cost of £975.

  DNA Register
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are registered on the DNA Register in Northern Ireland. [100320]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Forensic Science Agency under its chief

  Greater London1

  Leaside ES District

  Number of lone parents who have received invitation letters

  84,840

  2—

  Number of lone parents attending an initial interview

  12,740

  552

  Number of lone parents agreeing to participate in NDLP

  11,090

  471

  Number lone parents gaining jobs

  2,280

  66

  As a proportion of the number agreeing to participate (percentage)

  21

  14

  1Greater London is defined as the following ES Districts: Thameside; Southwark; Lambeth; West End; Hackney and City; Crawley; Romford; Edgware; Wembley; West London; Ealing; Thames Gateway; Wandsworth; Sutton, Merton and Kingston; Ilford; Leaside; Croydon and Bromley; Lewisham.

  2Data on the number of lone parents contacted in Leaside ES District are not available. The combined figure for the number of NDLP letters issued in Leaside and Edgware ES Districts is 10,680.

  British Teachers (European Schools)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he plans to take to secure an extension of the length of contracts of British teachers working in the European Schools beyond the current nine-year maximum. [100064]

  Mr. Wicks
  None.

  FE Colleges
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to receive the report from the National Audit Office concerning the funding of further education colleges. [100245]

  Mr. Wicks
  The timing of the presentation of National Audit Office reports to Parliament is decided by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

  Liabilities reported in the TECs' accounts for 1998–99

  £

  TEC

  Current liabilities

  Long term liabilities

  Total liabilities

  Isle of Wight

  989,081

  0

  989,081

  Milton Keynes and North Bucks

  2,476,037

  0

  2,476,037

  Sussex

  5,506,000

  0

  5,506,000

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  4,278,665

  354

  4,279,019

  Surrey

  2,077,688

  0

  2,077,688

  Heart of England

  2,152,156

  130,197

  2,282,353

  Hampshire

  4,502,000

  20,000

  4,522,000

  Kent

  7,636,526

  105,434

  7,741,960

  120W
  executive, Dr. Adams. I have asked him for a reply to be given.

  Letter from R. W. Adams to Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson, dated 29 November 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question on how many people are on the DNA Register. At the end of October 1999 the Northern Ireland DNA database held profiles of 11,137 people.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many lone parents have been contacted under the New Deal in(a) Greater London and (b) Leaside District; how many have attended an initial interview; and what proportion has been successfully placed in the employment option. [99634]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  TECs
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what level of provision each TEC has made for the severance packages of its chief executive. [100109]

  Mr. Wicks
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what level of liabilities are reported in the accounts of each of the 72 TECs for 1998–99. [100105]

  Mr. Wicks
  The following table gives the liabilities for each of the 72 TECs as reported in their 1998–99 audited statutory accounts.
  121W

  Liabilities reported in the TECs' accounts for 1998–99

  £

  TEC

  Current liabilities

  Long term liabilities

  Total liabilities

  FOCUS

  12,303,000

  0

  12,303,000

  AZTEC

  3,255,169

  0

  3,255,169

  North West London

  2,212,456

  356,871

  2,569,327

  LETEC

  7,024,701

  120,000

  7,144,701

  West London

  7,670,274

  2,313,248

  9,983,522

  South London

  6,188,000

  0

  6,188,000

  North London

  6,230,962

  0

  6,230,962

  Bedfordshire

  2,572,517

  374,195

  2,946,712

  Suffolk

  2,784,381

  0

  2,784,381

  Greater Peterborough

  2,451,339

  82,676

  2,534,015

  Norfolk and Waveney

  3,858,000

  0

  3,858,000

  Hertfordshire

  6,326,000

  454,000

  6,780,000

  Essex

  5,247,000

  0

  5,247,000

  Cambstec

  1,971,900

  67,103

  2,039,003

  The Link Group (Gloucester)

  1,955,155

  37,785

  1,992,940

  Wiltshire

  3,476,645

  0

  3,476,645

  Westec

  6,321,000

  0

  6,321,000

  Somerset

  1,923,021

  226,906

  2,149,927

  Dorset

  4,316,992

  0

  4,316,992

  Prosper

  6,811,000

  0

  6,811,000

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  5,350,802

  0

  5,350,802

  Dudley

  2,468,992

  148,265

  2,617,257

  Wolverhampton

  2,433,000

  0

  2,433,000

  Staffordshire

  3,938,000

  0

  3,938,000

  Shropshire

  3,036,069

  48,000

  3,084,069

  Walsall

  1,237,523

  0

  1,237,523

  Sandwell

  2,979,456

  33,814

  3,013,270

  HAWTEC

  5,979,665

  699,652

  6,679,317

  Birmingham

  9,712,000

  0

  9,712,000

  North Derbyshire

  1,657,758

  0

  1,657,758

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  1,953,000

  0

  1,953,000

  North Nottinghamshire

  2,219,611

  0

  2,219,611

  Leicestershire

  3,083,678

  0

  3,083,678

  Lincolnshire

  3,479,244

  0

  3,479,244

  Northamptonshire

  1,762,303

  0

  1,762,303

  South Derbyshire

  2,400,000

  0

  2,400,000

  Sheffield

  4,813,000

  0

  4,813,000

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  3,297,581

  0

  3,297,581

  Bradford and District

  2,399,946

  0

  2,399,946

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  4,400,000

  9,000

  4,409,000

  Wakefield

  2,113,181

  0

  2,113,181

  Leeds

  2,362,034

  0

  2,362,034

  Humberside

  4,156,021

  23,711

  4,179,732

  Rotherham

  2,898,837

  326,683

  3,225,520

  North Yorkshire

  2,429,000

  0

  2,429,000

  Rochdale

  1,327,936

  0

  1,327,936

  South and East Cheshire

  2,149,310

  221,009

  2,370,319

  Oldham

  1,423,500

  0

  1,423,500

  Stockport and High Peak

  1,835,083

  0

  1,835,083

  Bolton and Bury

  2,798,985

  1,291,376

  4,090,361

  Manchester

  11,415,200

  0

  11,415,200

  Wigan

  2,890,558

  3,924

  2,894,482

  CEWTEC

  3,735,570

  0

  3,735,570

  Cumbria

  2,299,592

  361,163

  2,660,755

  LAWTEC

  4,617,144

  0

  4,617,144

  Eltec

  6,954,928

  0

  6,954,928

  St. Helens

  1,773,686

  15,000

  1,788,686

  Normidtec

  4,642,854

  0

  4,642,854

  Merseyside

  7,088,309

  15,005

  7,103,314

  Sunderland City

  2,851,917

  6,496,080

  9,347,997

  Northumberland

  4,224,816

  5,819,136

  10,043,952

  County Durham

  4,496,169

  0

  4,496,169

  Tees Valley

  5,998,000

  245,000

  6,243,000

  Tyneside

  3,914,000

  762,000

  4,676,000

  Total Liabilities

  283,515,923

  20,807,587

  304,323,510

  Source:

  1998–99 TEC statutory accounts
  122W 123W
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what contingency plans he has prepared to deal with under-estimated liabilities in the same manner as reserves and assets upon the winding up of the TECs. [100107]

  Mr. Wicks
  As private companies, it is ultimately the responsibility of each TEC to ensure it assesses its liabilities accurately and that it has available sufficient funds to meet these. The Secretary of State has no obligation through the contract to meet any liabilities which cannot be met from a TEC's own resources. However, through its contract with the TEC, the Secretary of State has agreed to put in place arrangements to provide funds to meet the costs arising after 25 March 2001 in respect of those persons already participating under Work Based Training for Young People and Work Based Learning for Adults so that they can complete their individual training plans. Similar arrangements also exist for any non-discretionary activity directly funded by the Secretary of State.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that the level of liabilities reported in TEC accounts is accurate and based on a realistic appraisal of the future costs each is likely to incur. [100106]

  Mr. Wicks
  TEC statutory accounts are required under company law to be audited by the TECs' external auditors. As part of their work, the auditors will have to satisfy themselves that the level of liabilities reported are

  Expenditure by each TEC (1998–99)

  £

  TEC

  Direct expenditure

  Administration costs

  Total expenditure

  Isle of Wight

  2,708,738

  1,168,021

  3,876,759

  Milton Keynes and North Buckinghamshire

  9,790,633

  1,316,444

  11,107,077

  Sussex

  20,555,000

  5,205,000

  25,760,000

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  22,819,163

  3,122,054

  25,941,217

  Surrey

  12,889,884

  2,952,264

  15,842,148

  Heart of England

  10,175,917

  4,174,014

  14,349,931

  Hampshire

  28,245,000

  3,455,000

  31,700,000

  Kent

  26,551,139

  6,782,937

  33,334,076

  FOCUS

  38,353,000

  8,679,000

  47,032,000

  AZTEC

  13,496,011

  1,707,968

  15,203,979

  North West London

  9,835,424

  1,232,898

  11,068,325

  LETEC

  30,088,516

  3,459,854

  33,548,370

  West London

  22,113,840

  1,994,456

  24,108,296

  South London

  31,706,000

  4,956,000

  36,662,000

  North London

  16,661,216

  4,100,121

  20,761,337

  Bedfordshire

  11,933,191

  2,530,158

  14,463,349

  Suffolk

  14,030,940

  1,178,790

  15,209,730

  Greater Peterborough

  9,630,473

  1,935,513

  11,565,986

  Norfolk and Waveney

  15,503,000

  1,114,000

  16,617,000

  Hertfordshire

  21,081,000

  2,753,000

  23,834,000

  Essex

  25,277,000

  3,174,000

  28,451,000

  Cambstec

  7,850,029

  2,189,538

  10,039,567

  The Link Group (Gloucester)

  12,838,177

  2,112,791

  14,950,968

  Wiltshire

  10,006,885

  1,915,598

  11,922,483

  Westec

  18,635,000

  3,060,000

  21,695,000

  Somerset

  9,856,380

  3,488,627

  13,345,007

  Dorset

  13,497,468

  1,460,454

  14,957,922

  Prosper

  36,775,000

  6,138,000

  42,913,000

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  21,660,079

  4,163,847

  25,823,926

  Dudley

  9,238,486

  1,140,324

  10,378,810

  Wolverhampton

  8,910,000

  1,797,000

  10,707,000

  Staffordshire

  26,630,000

  2,500,000

  29,130,000

  Shropshire

  10,534,535

  2,228,184

  12,762,719

  Walsall

  8,152,595

  1,777,744

  9,930,339

  Sandwell

  11,295,422

  1,431,064

  12,726,486

  124W
  valid and that the accounts give a true and fair view of the finances of the TEC. Government Offices are also discussing transition plans with TECs which include a detailed assessment of the assets and liabilities of each TEC.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the moneys each of the TECs is contributing to the legal fund controlled by the TEC National Council is listed as liabilities in their audited statutory accounts 1998–99; and if they are liabilities upon the Secretary of State's funds. [100108]

  Mr. Wicks
  The latest available audited statutory accounts are for the year ended 28 March 1999 and as such precede the announcement of the White Paper "Learning to Succeed". They do not include any liabilities for contributions to a legal fund.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list expenditure by each TEC(a) since the publication of the White Paper, "Learning to Succeed-a New Framework for Post-16 Learning" in June 1999 and (b) in the 12 months preceding its publication. [99935]

  Mr. Wicks
  The following table shows a list of expenditure in the 12 months preceding the publication which has been taken from the audited statutory accounts for the year ended 28 March 1999. For the period since the publication (July to September 1999) the TECs management accounts, although not directly comparable, show total expenditure of £370 million.
  125W

  Expenditure by each TEC (1998–99)

  £

  TEC

  Direct expenditure

  Administration costs

  Total expenditure

  HAWTEC

  16,466,530

  4,009,831

  20,476,361

  Birmingham

  47,966,000

  4,131,000

  52,097,000

  North Derbyshire

  9,854,454

  2,447,470

  12,301,924

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  12,893,000

  2,988,000

  15,881,000

  North Nottinghamshire

  15,200,648

  521,202

  15,721,850

  Leicestershire

  18,721,539

  2,907,925

  21,629,464

  Lincolnshire

  22,773,538

  0

  22,773,538

  Northamptonshire

  11,038,330

  2,185,219

  13,223,549

  South Derbyshire

  12,189,000

  3,948,000

  16,137,000

  Sheffield

  20,924,000

  1,340,000

  22,264,000

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  17,531,845

  3,468,058

  20,999,903

  Bradford and District

  12,224,636

  1,703,641

  13,928,277

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  19,295,000

  3,006,000

  22,301,000

  Wakefield

  7,729,096

  976,419

  8,705,512

  Leeds

  10,832,047

  3,280,970

  14,113,017

  Humberside

  27,044,568

  0

  27,044,568

  Rotherham

  13,171,477

  2,520,521

  15,691,998

  North Yorkshire

  15,262,000

  3,309,000

  18,571,000

  Rochdale

  7,993,177

  1,025,051

  9,018,228

  South and East Cheshire

  14,024,226

  1,310,210

  15,334,436

  Oldham

  7,264,885

  1,852,299

  9,117,184

  Stockport and High Peak

  12,035,779

  755,228

  12,791,007

  Bolton and Bury

  10,858,737

  3,754,613

  14,613,350

  Manchester

  44,686,802

  2,317,647

  47,004,449

  Wigan

  8,043,574

  4,597,510

  12,641,084

  CEWTEC

  16,733,713

  2,578,851

  19,312,564

  Cumbria

  17,880,991

  2,181,318

  20,062,309

  LAWTEC

  26,370,221

  0

  26,370,221

  Eltec

  19,259,316

  0

  19,259,316

  St. Helens

  8,968,581

  1,264,213

  10,232,794

  Normidtec

  14,027,793

  1,221,016

  15,248,809

  Merseyside

  38,832,216

  6,630,355

  45,462,571

  Sunderland City

  13,651,950

  2,353,957

  16,005,907

  Northumberland

  14,736,728

  3,759,216

  18,495,944

  County Durham

  15,655,656

  2,887,453

  18,543,109

  Tees Valley

  28,103,000

  5,968,000

  34,071,000

  Tyneside

  30,584,000

  3,563,000

  34,147,000

  Total expenditure

  1,260,154,194

  193,157,856

  1,453,312,050

  Source:

  1998–99 TEC statutory accounts

  Students (Fees)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of the imposition of higher education tuition fees on student enrolments, broken down by(a) socio-economic class, (b) duration of course and (c) area of study. [99936]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Government believe the new arrangements for paying higher education tuition fees, in which students from lower income groups pay no fees, are fair and just. Students from the lower socio-economic groups have not been deterred from applying to enter higher education. Nor is there evidence that student choice, in terms of subject of study and length of course, has been affected.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of the statutory restrictions on charging full-time students for the setting of fees for modules of instruction in higher education institutions. [99937]

  Mr. Wicks
  Allowing higher education institutions to charge top-up fees would restrict access to students from 126W
  less well-off backgrounds and limit student choice. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that any institution which charges, or announces its intention to charge, top-up fees could incur financial penalties. He is not aware of any evidence that this has had a detrimental effect on the ability of higher education institutions to run the courses they wish to provide.

  Tennis Courts, Banstead Downs
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when his Department will inform Banstead Downs Lawn Tennis Club of its decision on the club's proposal to purchase land owned by Surrey County Council and lay new tennis courts. [99576]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Secretary of State has not yet made a final decision on Surrey County Council's application to sell an area of playing field to Banstead Downs Lawn Tennis Club. He has, however, indicated that he is minded to reject the application and the Council has been invited to comment. He will not make a final decision on this case until he has had the opportunity to consider further representations from the Council.
  127W

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Road Safety
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact on road safety of the introduction of 20 mph zones. [99026]

  Mr. Mullin
  Following their introduction in 1991, monitoring of the first 20 mph zones showed a significant reduction in accident casualties, particularly among cyclists and pedestrians. We legislated in the summer to allow local authorities to make 20 mph speed limits and 20 mph zones without the need to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State. It is too early to judge the effect of that on road safety.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to alleviate traffic congestion problems in Dobwalls, south-east Cornwall. [99027]

  Mr. Hill
  Pending the outcome of the London to south Wales and south-west multi-modal study, the Highways Agency is looking at measures to relieve congestion and improve safety and has started a process of consultation to obtain local views on options.

  Regional Development
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the strategy for regional development in the north-west. [99028]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government are currently assessing the regional strategies of all eight regional development agencies following their handover to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 26 October. We aim to respond to the RDAs by the end of the year.

  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact of the regional development agency in the north-west. [99044]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The North-West Development Agency has already made a good start. It has established itself as a significant regional body with the capability of improving skills and competitiveness and attracting inward investment in the north-west.

  Millennium Villages
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for further millennium villages. [99030]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Deputy Prime Minister announced in October that a further five millennium communities competitions would take place. We are currently reviewing the lessons learnt from the first two schemes. English Partnerships jointly with the RDAs are being asked to come forward, with the support and active involvement of local communities, with options on 128W
  suitable sites/localities for the competitions by February 2000. We have also asked them to examine further the options for delivering the competitive process and to present proposals within the same timeframe. We aim to announce the next millennium communities site in the spring of 2000.

  We are also considering the findings of a research report commissioned by the Department earlier this year to create a framework to evaluate and measure millennium communities and other developments. This will be published in the new year.

  We plan to disseminate the research widely and to promote a debate on its findings, including its proposals for a sustainability framework. We will also be disseminating the lessons learnt from the first two millennium communities so far.

  Transatlantic Air Routes (Heathrow)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make an announcement regarding increasing the number of transatlantic air routes from Heathrow airport. [99031]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK Government are keen to liberalise air services arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United States, but we need to ensure that we do this in a way which is balanced and which enables UK airlines to compete on fair terms.

  Clean Fuels
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage the use of cleaner fuels. [99032]

  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to promote less polluting types of fuel. [99040]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have already introduced fiscal incentives to encourage the use of ultra-low-sulphur diesel, which now makes up the vast majority of diesel supplied in this country, and road fuel gases. We will continue to promote the use of cleaner alterative fuels through the Powershift Programme and, through active participation in European programmes, to improve the environmental performance of conventional fuels. We will continue to look for opportunities for cost-effective ways to promote all cleaner fuels.

  Rail Safety
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce legislation on maximum passenger numbers in railway carriages for safety reasons. [99033]

  Mr. Hill
  I have no plans for such legislation.

  The Health and Safety Executive, which advises the Government on all rail safety matters, regard this issue as primarily one of passenger comfort, not safety.

  Train operators must meet overcrowding standards laid down by the shadow Strategic Rail Authority for passenger comfort.
  129W

  Local Services
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of best value on the provision of local services to the public. [99034]

  Ms Armstrong
  An interim evaluation of the 40 best value pilot authorities, carried out by Warwick Business School, was published on 22 November. All the authorities found the best value framework more challenging than they had expected. After only 12 months work there have been real examples of improved services and cost savings, and real engagement with local people.

  A3 (Hindhead)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to visit the A3 at Hindhead to discuss environmental safety and economic issues. [99035]

  Ms Armstrong
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport met the right hon. Member on 13 September, when they discussed all the principal issues associated with the problems on A3 at Hindhead. He undertook to visit the area when his diary permitted.

  Ofwat
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what effect pricing levels set by Ofwat for 2000–05 will have on the cost of services to consumers. [99037]

  Mr. Mullin
  On 25 November the Director General of Water Services announced his decisions on price limits for water and sewerage services for the period 2000–05. I have arranged for my hon. Friend to receive a copy of the Director General's decision.

  Integrated Transport Strategy
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he intends to proceed with his plans for an integrated transport strategy; and if he will make a statement. [99038]

  Mr. Hill
  Our integrated transport strategy is already delivering results, including 1,800 new or enhanced rural bus services in England, and significant growth in the number of people travelling by train. Our Transport Bill will contain measures that will enable us to build on these achievements, providing more choice and improving everyone's quality of life.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the Government plan to strengthen the protection of sites of special scientific interest. [99039]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government issued "A Framework for Action" in August, setting out proposals for improving the protection of SSSIs.

  It was announced in the Queen's Speech on 17 November 1999, Official Report, columns 4–7 that the Countryside Amenity and Conservation Bill would be included in the legislative programme for this Session.
  130W

  Rail Stations
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to encourage the refurbishment of rail stations. [99041]

  Mr. Hill
  Railtrack is committed to completing its nationwide station regeneration programme by 2001. Station operators also have obligations under their franchise agreement to meet a number of basic standards, such as cleanliness and lighting, within 18 months of taking over the franchise; and within three years, further obligations in respect of public communications systems and waiting accommodation.

  Dumping
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers he has to prevent the dumping in rural areas of worn-out tractors and other agricultural vehicles. [99042]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Secretary of State has no such powers.

  London Underground
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the operation of London Underground's current safety regime. [99043]

  Mr. Hill
  Safety is, and remains, the top priority for London Underground Ltd. (LUL). The Railway (Safety Case) Regulations 1994 require London Underground to prepare a safety case setting out its approach to safety management.

  The most recent version of this safety case was accepted by HM railway inspectorate on 14 September 1999 and LUL's performance against it will be subject to HMRI monitoring and review.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what central Government support the Tube will continue to receive in 2000–01 and 2001–02; and what continuing support he estimates will be required in subsequent years. [99571]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 24 November 1999]: London Transport (LT) have been allocated Government support of £248.7 million for 2000–01. This figure does not include money earmarked for residual expenditure on the Jubilee Line Extension.

  Some of this funding will be transferred to the Mayor in July next year, when Transport for London (TFL) assumes responsibility for LT activities other than the Underground.

  Levels of Government support for the Underground in 2001–02 and thereafter have not yet been determined. They will depend on whether and on what terms Public-Private Partnership (PPP) contracts are let; decisions on the level of Government funding to be taken following the 2000 spending review; and decisions on funding and fares made by the Mayor for London.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what performance targets have been set arising from projected
  131W
  expenditure of £1,190 million on the Piccadilly line and (b) £900 million on the Victoria line of the London Underground over the next 15 years; and if he will make a statement. [99638]

  Mr. Hill
  The figures quoted were London Underground's indicative estimates of the likely cost of achieving the performance specification to be set out in the PPP contracts. In fact, it will be the responsibility of the Underground's private sector partners to determine the actual level of investment required to deliver the improved performance we want.

  Details of the performance targets have yet to be finalised, but they will require improvements in capability, availability, ambience and asset condition. This will enable London Underground to provide passengers with faster, more reliable and more comfortable journeys.

  New Deal for Communities
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of the New Deal for Communities in Sheffield. [99045]

  Ms Armstrong
  I am delighted that Sheffield is one of the 22 areas eligible to put forward proposals for the transformation of a deprived neighbourhood under the second round of the New Deal for Communities. I will ensure that local people, businesses and organisations get the support they need to deliver real equality of opportunity and choice in that neighbourhood.

  Peat Working Group
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made by the Peat Working Group. [100993]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Peat Working Group, which has been reviewing the adequacy of existing planning policies and guidance on the extraction and use of peat since 1997, has published a report of its work today.

  I am grateful to the Peat Working Group for providing this factual assessment of the complex and wide-ranging issues surrounding peat extraction and the use of growing media in horticulture and gardening.

  This Government are committed to ensuring that there is adequate protection for our habitats and wildlife. We are already looking very carefully at the risk of damage caused by peat extraction to sites of national and international importance.

  The group considers that existing Government policy is sufficient to safeguard areas of existing conservation or archaeological value from future proposals for peat working sites. But a number of active sites granted planning permission before their conservation value was recognised continue to be worked, despite their designation or identification as sites of national or international importance.

  We are currently looking at options for bringing forward reviews of consents on Natura 2000 sites. In addition, we have also asked English Nature to look closely at the effects of all planning permissions, not just those affecting peat bogs, on sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs).
  132W
  However, it is clear from the group's work that despite continuing improvements in the quality and marketing of alternatives, there continues to be a strong demand for peat as a growing medium, particularly by the amateur gardener and the professional horticulture sector. I welcome the suggestions made by the working group about how sales of alternative materials for growing plants could be increased, and we shall now be considering how to take this forward.

  A copy of the report has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Bellwin Scheme (Floods)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide financial assistance to Worcester City Council under the Bellwin scheme for costs incurred following the severe flooding in the area between 27 October and 3 November 1998. [101102]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified in the case of Worcester City Council given the exceptional nature of the floods and the damage caused. A scheme will, therefore, be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grant has generally been paid to authorities at a rate of 85 per cent. of their eligible expenditure above a threshold. However, a Bellwin scheme was activated for Worcester as a result of the 1998 Easter floods. Since Worcester have already spent over their threshold for 1998–99 in dealing with that emergency, it seems reasonable that they should not have to do so in dealing with a second incident in the same financial year. I therefore propose to waive the threshold.

  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide financial assistance to Herefordshire District Council under the Bellwin scheme for costs incurred following the severe flooding in the area on three occasions during 1998–99. [101103]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified in the case of Herefordshire District Council given the exceptional nature of the floods and the damage caused. A scheme will, therefore, be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grant will be paid to the authority to cover 85 per cent. of the eligible costs above a threshold which have been incurred by the authority in dealing with the flooding.

  Aviation Safety
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish the Government's reply to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's report into aviation safety published on 21 July. [101123]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government have laid before the House today a Command Paper—4539—which is a consolidated response on behalf of the Government and of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's Fourteenth Report, titled "Aviation Safety", published on 21 July 1999.
  133W
  The Government welcome the "Aviation Safety" report, which covered a wide-ranging and detailed examination of aviation safety issues by the Committee. We note that the evidence the Committee received showed that the United Kingdom has an excellent safety record, particularly in the commercial aviation sector. The Committee seeks reassurance that all necessary steps are being taken to maintain that record in the face of the challenges presented by a dynamic and growing industry, in which the UK is a world leader. The Government and the CAA agree that the current high standard of aviation safety in the United Kingdom must be maintained and, where possible, improved. We fully recognise that aviation safety requires constant vigilance by regulators and the regulated alike.

  The Committee makes 29 recommendations, some to the Government, some to the CAA, and others to both. Both we and the CAA have considered the recommendations fully and carefully and they are dealt with in turn, and in detail, in the Command Paper.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the current legislation relating to telecommunications masts. [99311]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 23 November 1999]: The installation of any telecommunications mast in a National Park, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a conservation area, a Site of Special Scientific Interest and the Broads, or a mast of more than 15 metres in height elsewhere, is subject to a full planning application. In other cases, licensed telecommunications code system operators are authorised under Part 24 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) to install masts of up to 15 metres in height. This is subject to a prior approval procedure, under which the local planning authority has the opportunity to say whether it wishes to approve details of the siting and appearance of the installation.

  These GPDO provisions were amended earlier this year by SI 1999 No. 1661. We have no current plans to make further changes to the GPDO in respect of telecommunication masts.

  The Government are aware of public concern about mobile phone systems and health and has set up an independent expert group to advise on possible risks to public health. The group, chaired by Sir William Stewart FRS, FRSE, is currently holding open meetings around the UK to take views.

  Dry Stone Walls
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what proposals he has to protect dry stone walls in areas of outstanding natural beauty and conservation; and if he will make a statement; [99531]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of dry stone walls which have been removed from upland country over the last (a) five and (b) 10 years. [99530]
  134W
  Mr. Mullin
  This information is not available. However, the Countryside Survey 1990 estimated that the total length of dry stone walls in upland areas of Great Britain in 1990 was 99,710 km, which represented a reduction in length of 13 per cent. since 1984.

  The most appropriate way of tackling the loss of dry stone walls is by encouraging their restoration and maintenance. Grants are currently available in England under the Countryside Stewardship and Environmentally Sensitive Areas schemes operated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Before taking decisions on any legislative protection, we shall need to take account of the possible impact of any regulatory proposals, as well as the results of the Countryside Survey 2000, which will provide up-to-date estimates of the changes in length and condition of dry stone walls.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Peak District and (b) the North Yorkshire national parks about the destruction of dry stone walls. [99532]

  Mr. Mullin
  The destruction of dry stone walls has not been raised in recent discussions held with the Peak District or North Yorkshire national parks.

  GM Oilseed Rape (Royston)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when genetically modified winter oilseed rape was planted at Summerhouse Farm, Royston, Hertfordshire, under consent 98/R19/18; and if he will publish the opinion of the farm-scale evaluations scientific steering committee on the relevance of the planting to biodiversity. [99537]

  Mr. Mullin
  The genetically modified winter oilseed rape planted at Summerhouse Farm, Royston, Hertfordshire, under consent 98/R19/18, was planted between 19 August and 14 September 1999. The trial is for research and development purposes by the consent holder AgrEvo and consists of a number of small field plots each approximately 20 square metres. It is not a field scale release and is not subject to any consideration by the farm-scale evaluations scientific steering committee.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the principal activities of his Department and its agencies which provide business for(a) Crown post offices and (b) other post offices; if he will assess whether the level of business generated in each case is likely to increase or decrease over the next five years; and which new areas of business for post offices are likely to be developed by his Department and its agencies over the same period. [99558]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information is as follows:

  General activities
  My Department uses the Royal Mail for postal services. The level of business is likely to be affected by the increased use of the internet and e-mail.

  Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency
  The DVLA collects vehicle excise duty through 4,000 post offices in Great Britain—of these 584 are Crown Offices. All 18,500 post offices issue licence savings stamps, application forms and

  135W
  information leaflets. Trials are to be introduced under the current contract with Post Office Counters Ltd. to improve service levels and DVLA and POCL are discussing the possibility of introducing an over the counter application form and identification checking service. POCL will be invited to bid when the contract is re-tendered in 2002.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  The Inspectorate, through the DVLA contract, uses the post office network for relicensing vehicles by checking the validity of MOT certificates. The Inspectorate is developing an MOT computerisation project and is exploring ways in which the post office can support the project. This may reduce the level of special deliveries made by the post office on behalf of the Inspectorate.

  Ward Boundaries
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria the Local Government Boundary Commission must follow in the creation of local authority ward boundaries. [99762]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Local Government Commission's statutory criteria for electoral reviews are to secure effective and convenient local government and to reflect the interests and identities of local communities. They must also take into account statutory rules which include that the number of local government electors shall be, as nearly as may be, the same in every ward of the district; that every ward of a parish with a parish council shall lie wholly within a single ward of the district; and have regard to the desirability of fixing boundaries which are and will remain easily identifiable.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend priority red routes(a) in London and (b) to other cities. [100070]

  Mr. Hill
  There are no plans to extend red routes in London. From July 2000, the red route network will be replaced by the GLA road network and will become the responsibility of the Mayor. Elsewhere, it is primarily for local authorities to use their existing traffic management powers to control parking effectively and give appropriate priority to buses. We look to them to so do, in the context of developing their local transport plans and bus strategies.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of priority red routes in London on carbon dioxide emissions; [100069]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of priority red routes on the number of accidents on (a) red routes and (b) other roads; [100071]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the effect of priority red routes on local air quality in each London borough; [100068]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the effect of priority red routes, in each London borough, on (a) the volume of motorised traffic and (b) traffic speeds on (i) red routes and (ii) other roads. [100067]

  Mr. Hill
  The Traffic Director for London monitors the effects of the traffic management measures on the red route network (the network) as a whole (not individually 136W
  by borough) to determine the performance of the network. Reports on these are published annually. His latest report shows:
  (a) traffic volumes have not changed on the network during the period of implementation;
  (b)(i) depending on time of day, average journey speeds on the network were between 17.0 and 22.9 mph in 1998. This is a considerable improvement on the journey speeds of between 14.3 and 18.4 mph in 1994 before red route implementation commenced;
  (b)(ii) The Traffic Director does not monitor journey speeds off the network.
  The Traffic Director for London maintains a record of traffic conditions on red routes from which it is possible to gain a better understanding of the changes in emissions from road vehicles. He does not directly monitor air quality but uses the collected data to model emissions. Between 1995–97 the model shows between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. less carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons emissions on implemented sections of the red route compared with non-implemented sections.

  According to the model used by the Traffic Director for London between 1995–97, emissions of carbon dioxide on the network were approximately 2 per cent. less where red route measures had been implemented in comparison with those sections of the network that had not yet been implemented.

  The Traffic Director for London monitors accidents at the end of each year. His current data on accidents show that the number of personal injury accidents on the network has reduced by 8.8 per cent. compared with a 0.5 per cent. reduction on other roads in London.

  Railway Accidents
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the railway accidents in each year between 1989 and 1999, giving the numbers of fatalities and those injured in each accident. [100188]

  Mr. Hill
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Comprehensive statistics relating to all railway accidents in Great Britain can be found in the Health and Safety Executive's HM Chief Inspector of Railways' Annual Reports on Railway Safety. Latest statistics for 1998–99 are due to be published on 2 December. These figures include an analysis of the number of train accidents, by causation, and the total number of fatalities and injuries each year. The analysis of fatalities and injuries is by type of accident and identity of the person involved, e.g. passenger, member of railway staff. Arrangements are being made for copies of the Annual Report to be available in the House Libraries once published. Copies of previous Annual Reports are already in the House Libraries.

  Bus Services (Regulation)
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce regulation for bus services. [99866]
  137W
  Mr. Hill
  We will be including measures in the forthcoming Transport Bill to fulfil our manifesto commitment to the proper regulation of buses at the local level. We expect to make a further announcement shortly.

  Railway Maintenance Staff
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each year since 1979 for which figures are available the number of maintenance staff who were(a) killed and (b) injured on the railway network. [100058]

  Mr. Hill
  The information is not available in the detail requested, although there are statistics on the total number of railway staff killed and injured in the period in question, as set out in the table. "Railway staff" includes all rail workers (drivers, station staff etc.) as well as maintenance staff.

  Casualties to all railway staff in the last 20 years

  Year

  Fatalities

  Major injuries

  Minor injuries

  1979

  43

  16,122

  1980

  32

  611

  4,591

  1981

  27

  192

  4,591

  1982

  27

  137

  3,816

  1983

  28

  161

  3,010

  1984

  25

  127

  2,544

  1985

  25

  166

  2,551

  1986

  16

  175

  2,733

  1987

  16

  238

  2,672

  1988

  16

  273

  3,022

  1989

  18

  277

  2,858

  1990

  22

  306

  3,051

  1991–92

  17

  278

  3,226

  1992–93

  11

  284

  3,348

  1993–94

  8

  262

  3,590

  1994–95

  9

  252

  3,411

  1995–96

  5

  225

  4,144

  1996–97

  2

  310

  1,842

  1997–98

  3

  351

  2,088

  1998–99

  4

  376

  2,070

  1 Major and minor injuries combined in 1979

  Track Identification
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the advantages and disadvantages in terms of rail safety of changing the system of track identification from the current up and down system to numbering each track. [100060]

  Mr. Hill
  The convention adopted for identifying railway tracks varies from location to location and is the result of historic custom and practice. While it may seem attractive to impose a rationalised uniform system of identification, the risks involved in the transition could outweigh the benefits of the change. Safe operation of the railway often depends on drivers, signallers and other workers correctly identifying tracks; acquiring the necessary knowledge of the geography and layout of the railway is an important part of ensuring their competence. Change to well-established names could well increase the probability of errors.

  Victorian Parks
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he 138W
  has to take action to improve the state of Victorian parks in Britain, in response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's report of Session 1998–99 on Town and Country Parks (HC 477). [100281]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We welcome the recent report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on Town and Country Parks. We share the Committee's concern about the quality and future of Victorian parks. We will publish our full response to the report in the new year.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the Government's carbon dioxide emission targets for(a) 2011, (b) 2012, (c) 2014, (d) 2016, (e) 2018 and (f) 2020. [100481]

  Mr. Hill
  Following Kyoto in 1997, the UK has a target to reduce a basket of 6 greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12. The Government also have a domestic goal to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent. by 2010. The Kyoto protocol requires international discussions about targets beyond 2012 to begin by 2005 at the latest.

  The Government will shortly be publishing a draft UK climate change programme for consultation. The draft programme will recognise that Kyoto is only the start of the process and that greater cuts in emissions will be needed over time. It will therefore set out our policies and measures directed at our current commitments, but also to help prepare the UK for more challenging targets in the future.

  Gipsy Caravans
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many gipsy caravans were counted in each local authority area in the January and July counts of(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999; and how many of those caravans were parked on unauthorised sites; [100485]

  (2) what is his current estimate of the number of (a) gipsy caravans and (b) other travellers' vehicles in England. [100486]

  Mr. Mullin
  The figures for the latest five counts of gipsy caravans broken down by local authority are routinely placed in the Libraries of both Houses as soon as they become available. They include details of the numbers of gipsy caravans on authorised (public and private) sites and on unauthorised sites in every local authority area. Figures for January 1997 to January 1999 are included in the table which was published in May this year, and the figures for July 1997 to July 1999 are included in the table which was published in October this year.

  At the time of the count of gipsy caravans in July this year, there was a total of 13,399 gipsy caravans on authorised (public and private) sites and on unauthorised sites in England. Gipsies are defined in legislation as
  "persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin".

  139W
  The Department does not keep records of the number of vehicles belonging to other travellers who do not fall within that definition.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will reply to the letter of 26 July from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire on behalf of his constituent Mrs. Montgomery. [100400]

  Ms Armstrong
  We have no record of receiving the right hon. Members' letter dated 26 July. If he would like to forward a further copy it will be dealt with promptly.

  Westminster Underground
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when Westminster underground station will be open to Jubilee Line services. [100438]

  Mr. Hill
  London Transport aim to open the Jubilee Line station at Westminster shortly before Christmas. It is, however, a very deep and highly complex station, being constructed on an extremely constricted site. LT cannot therefore guarantee the opening date at present. By early December it should be possible to be more precise.

  Farm-based Tourism
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent guidance he has issued to planning authorities with regard to farm-based tourism and other farm diversification projects; and when such guidance was issued. [100274]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) note 7 on the Countryside recognises the importance of farm-based diversification in a changing rural economy and gives guidance on development related to agriculture and to farm diversification, including tourism. The guidance takes account of the research report "Planning for Rural Diversification", published in 1995, which was accompanied by a good practice guide.

  Rating Revaluation
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that, during the revaluation of non-domestic properties from 1 April 2000, unqualified rating advisers are not able to conduct business. [100268]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Non-domestic ratepayers must remain free to engage the services of anyone they wish. However, they should be aware that unscrupulous operators are active in this field and may not offer a fully professional service.

  Members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers (ISVA) and the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation (IRRV), are regulated by rules of professional conduct designed to protect the public from misconduct, and are required to hold adequate professional indemnity insurance.
  140W
  Before employing a rating adviser who is not a member of one of these bodies, ratepayers should satisfy themselves that he or she has the necessary knowledge and experience, as well as appropriate indemnity insurance.

  My Department will be strongly reinforcing this message in the run up to the revaluation. It will be included in the information that we intend should be sent to all ratepayers early next year.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how agreements entered into by trade associations with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for the purpose of securing 80 per cent. climate change levy discount will be enforced against members of such trade associations. [100460]

  Mr. Mullin
  The agreements are not intended to be legally binding upon members of trade associations or any other entities which the associations may represent. The agreements are a mechanism by which, if environmental targets are met, a reduction in the climate change levy will be made. It is this incentive which will deliver the necessary environmental outcome in the public interest.

  Local Government (Finance)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those local authorities which have negative housing subsidy; and if he will set out in respect of each authority the sum being transferred this year from the Housing Revenue Account to the General Fund and the value of the transfer as expressed in Band D Council Tax per taxpayer. [100318]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: The latest information we have on the authorities that are expected to be in "negative housing subsidy" for 1999–2000 is shown in the table.

  Authority

  Forecast of the amount transferring from the Housing Revenue Account to the authority's General Fund in 1999–2000 (£000)

  Value of the transfer expressed as Band D Council Tax per taxpayer (£)

  Allerdale

  73

  2

  Aylesbury

  2,549

  42

  Bath UA

  2,848

  47

  Bedford

  904

  18

  Bexley

  5,193

  64

  Blaby

  345

  12

  Bracknell Forest

  6,732

  164

  Bromley

  4,382

  34

  Bromsgrove

  432

  13

  Cherwell

  2,352

  53

  Corby

  22

  1

  Crawley

  4,991

  146

  Dacorum

  7,586

  141

  Dartford

  624

  21

  Daventry

  1,559

  63

  East Devon

  1,117

  22

  East Hertfordshire

  1,366

  26

  East Lindsey

  1,047

  25

  East Northamptonshire

  275

  11

  Eastleigh

  556

  14

  Eden

  634

  35

  Epping Forest

  658

  13

  141W

  Authority

  Forecast of the amount transferring from the Housing Revenue Account to the authority's General Fund in 1999–2000 (£000)

  Value of the transfer expressed as Band D Council Tax per taxpayer (£)

  Epsom and Ewell

  1,031

  35

  Forest Heath

  920

  62

  Harlow

  3,307

  125

  Hertsmere

  2,203

  57

  IOW Council

  1,039

  21

  Isles of Scilly

  42

  39

  Lichfield

  1,106

  33

  Mid Bedfordshire

  2,684

  61

  Mole Valley

  579

  15

  North Hertfordshire

  588

  13

  Reigate and Banstead

  1,289

  24

  Rother

  731

  20

  Runnymede

  862

  27

  South Bucks

  1,039

  34

  South Cambridgeshire

  1,685

  33

  South Hams

  1,309

  39

  South Lakeland

  70

  2

  South Northamptonshire

  1,469

  53

  South Oxfordshire

  3,880

  75

  South Somerset

  1,850

  35

  St. Albans

  848

  15

  St. Edmundsbury

  1,823

  54

  Staffs Moorlands

  182

  6

  Stevenage

  2,390

  90

  Suffolk Coastal

  1,026

  24

  Swale

  1,595

  39

  Tandridge

  1,083

  31

  Telford

  1,211

  27

  Tewkesbury

  591

  21

  Three Rivers

  462

  13

  Uttlesford

  1,490

  52

  Watford

  714

  24

  Waverley

  108

  2

  Welwyn Hatfield

  3,678

  97

  West Berkshire

  1,013

  18

  West Devon

  483

  28

  West Oxfordshire

  1,731

  47

  Worthing

  509

  14

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the local authority capping system in relation to housing benefit. [100093]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: My Department will be consulting shortly on the detail of the proposals for changes in the housing revenue account subsidy regime. Consideration of the outcome of that exercise will be required before any decisions are taken. It is too early to say what the impact of any changes will be.

  Local Government (Structure)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he next plans to review the structure of local government in England; and if he will make a statement. [100787]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) on 1 November 1999,Official Report, column 12W.

  Agricultural Land
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to protect high-grade agricultural land from development; and if he will make a statement. [100578]
  142W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government's Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) note 7 on the countryside gives detailed advice on development affecting agricultural land. Local planning authorities should take account of the quality of any agricultural land that would be lost through development proposals, both when preparing their development plans and when considering planning applications.

  Planning Policy Guidance
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the response to the consultation on the revised draft PPG 3 on Housing; and when he expects to publish the new guidance. [100577]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My Department received over 600 responses to the consultation on the draft new PPG3 on Housing, in addition to a report from the Environment, Transport and the Regional Affairs Committee. The final version of PPG3 will be published in the New Year.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change the rules and financial arrangements of the large-scale voluntary transfer scheme for council houses; and if he will make a statement. [100096]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: We have recently proposed several changes to the rules and financial arrangements of the large-scale voluntary transfer programme. Details are set out below:
  proposals to help authorities whose capital receipt after transfer would be insufficient to cover all of their housing debt;
  moving away from the current system of running an annual
  programme to one which gives authorities greater flexibility; changes to the way in which the LSVT levy is calculated.
  In addition, we recently announced that authorities may capitalise the cost of higher rent expenditure for up to three years after transfer, thereby reducing the cost to their general fund.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on large-scale voluntary transfer of council houses; what assistance his Department gives to councils considering such a scheme; and if he will make a statement. [100094]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: We are keen for local authorities to pursue transfer where it is clearly part of their housing strategy and will improve the living conditions of tenants and the service they receive. However, authorities are under no compulsion to transfer their stock. My Department publishes guidance for local authorities which are considering transferring their stock.

  Out-of-town Shopping
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on Government policy on out-of-town shopping development. [99023]
  143W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government's policy on out-of-town shopping development was set out in our response to the House of Commons Environment Committee report on shopping centres in July 1997 [CMND 3729], in which we reaffirmed our commitment to planning policy guidance note 6 (PPG6) on town centres and retail developments, and was subsequently reiterated in the Opposition Day debate on 24 June 1999,Official Report, columns 1350–56, and in further evidence to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on 27 October this year.

  Carbon Dioxide
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has had from the IEA Greenhouse Gas Research and Development Programme on the technology of carbon dioxide capture and sequestration. [99442]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government help to fund the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme under contract with the DTI. DETR receives all reports produced under this contract.

  DETR also commissioned the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme to contribute to a report on carbon sequestration submitted to the Panel on Sustainable Development.

  British Railways Board
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the British Railways Board concerning the planned disposal of the board's land holdings. [100679]

  Mr. Hill
  In July last year the Government announced a suspension of sales of British Rail property pending a review of it by the BR Board. Following the review, the Government have agreed with the Chairman of the BR Board (now part of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority) the lifting of the sales suspension and the introduction of new marketing procedures for the disposal of its land holdings which will give priority to transport use. BR's "Marketing Process" document which gives further details is available in the House Library.

  Railtrack (Advertising Revenue)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the arrangements whereby Railtrack receives revenue from advertising hoardings which were previously in the ownership of British Rail. [100680]

  Mr. Hill
  This is a commercial matter for Railtrack.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the results of the current consultation upon the performance of the Environment Agency. [100142]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department is not currently consulting upon the performance of the Environment Agency.
  144W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals the Government have for the future of the Environment Agency. [100143]

  Mr. Mullin
  As part of the Government's programme of regular five-yearly financial management and policy reviews of non-departmental public bodies, my Department will be conducting a thorough review of the Environment Agency next year, in conjunction with MAFF and the National Assembly for Wales.

  Trains (Bicycle Facilities)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with the train operating companies about facilities for bicycles on trains. [100693]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State has not held discussions with the train operating companies about facilities for bicycles on trains. On 29 September he issued the Franchising Director with new Instructions and Guidance (copy in the House Library) which ask him to promote the use of bicycles by seeking the provision of reasonable facilities on board new rolling stock and at stations. The Franchising Director's staff hold discussions about bicycle provision with train operating companies whenever new rolling stock is ordered.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the(a) costs and (b) time scales of IT projects which are being undertaken by his Department; if he will list the (i) start date, (ii) planned completion date, (iii) expected completion date, (iv) planned cost and (v) current estimated cost of these projects; and if he will make a statement. [100795]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 22 November 1999,Official Report, column 21W. The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ferry Services (Passenger Registration)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what representations he has received in relation to the introduction of full passenger registration systems on small ferry services; [98659]

  (2) what assessment he has made of how small ferry services will meet full passenger registration regulations. [98660]

  Mr. Hill
  Following political agreement to the EC Directive 98/41, a working group was set up with representatives of all sectors of the passenger ship industry to discuss how the Directive could be implemented. The industry urged flexibility, and the UK regulations were accordingly drafted to allow operators the freedom to determine the particular arrangements to be used for counting and registration, provided that those arrangements comply with the terms of the Directive.
  145W
  My Department also formally consulted the industry on the draft regulations, which would transpose the Directive into UK law. Representations were received from the following in response to the consultation exercise, and were taken into account before the national regulations were made on 30 June 1999:

  British Ports Association

  Caledonian MacBrayne

  Central Scotland Passenger Vessel Association

  Chamber of Shipping

  Confederation of Passenger Transport

  NUMAST

  National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers

  Orkney Islands Council

  Passenger Shipping Association

  Road Haulage Association

  Seafrance

  Shetland Islands Council

  South Coast Passenger Vessel Operators Association

  The UK Major Ports Group Ltd.

  Waverley Excursions Ltd.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the financial implications of the full passenger registration system for small ferry companies. [98661]

  Mr. Hill
  Most small ferry companies are unaffected because they do not operate in waters to which the directive applies the registration system. A compliance cost assessment was prepared while directive 98/41 was being negotiated. The estimated total cost to those British shipping lines and ports affected was around £6 million for the initial capital cost of implementation, with annual revenue of around £2.5 million. These estimates were based on information provided by the shipping industry. Copies of the compliance cost assessment are in the House Library.

  Capper Pass and Son Ltd.
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Health and Safety Executive has taken to ensure that the medical records of former employees of Capper Pass and Son Ltd., working at the Capper Pass smelting plant, were retained by their parent company Rio Tinto. [100104]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has not been able to identify any specific communication in its files with Capper Pass concerning the retention of medical records around the time when the Capper Pass smelter closed in 1991. The HSE doctor who dealt with Capper Pass at that time no longer works for HSE.

  Duties are placed on employers in specific legislation controlling the use of lead and ionising radiation to retain certain records, and to retain certain health-related information under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1989. HSE inspectors do not routinely follow up the retention of records every time premises close.

  In recent months, due to problems concerning release of the records to representatives of former employees of Capper Pass, HSE staff have communicated with Rio
  146W
  Tinto plc about the retention and ownership of the records. I have corresponded with Rio Tinto senior staff and have been assured that Rio Tinto's senior occupational physician is arranging for relevant medical files to be released to those acting for former employees as soon as practicable.

  Motor Vehicles (Pollution)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures the Government are taking to limit pollution from motor vehicles. [99018]

  Mr. Hill
  The UK has played a central role in the development of tighter European vehicle emission and fuel quality standards. On a domestic level, we are encouraging the use of cleaner vehicles through fiscal incentives, the work of the cleaner vehicles task force and the Powershift programme. These measures are expected to reduce significantly the emissions from road vehicles over the next few years.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Representation of the People Bill
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment his Department has made of the effects on e-commerce and user verification of the proposals restricting access to the electoral register contained in the Representation of the People Bill. [100672]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  A regulatory impact statement relating to the Representation of the People Bill was placed in the Library on 18 November to coincide with the Bill's introduction.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many reports he has received in each of the last five years of accidents caused by unsafe fireworks; and if he will make a statement. [99296]

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people have sustained injuries as a result of accidents involving fireworks in 1999. [100604]

  Dr. Howells
  Figures on the numbers and types of injuries caused by fireworks and treated at hospital Accident and Emergency units in England, Scotland and Wales during the four week period covering the run-up to 5 November and a few days afterwards are as follows:

  Figures

  1998

  831

  1997

  908

  1996

  1,233

  1995

  1,530

  1994

  1,574

  The statistics do not indicate whether the injury was due to a firework malfunctioning or to misuse.
  147W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many accidents involving fireworks have been recorded in the last 12 months. [99288]

  Dr. Howells
  Because injuries from fireworks are concentrated in the period around 5 November, the statistics of the Home Accident Surveillance System do not provide a reliable picture of injury levels. Accordingly, my Department conducts a census of injuries requiring treatment at a hospital A & E department in England, Scotland or Wales during the four week period covering the run-up to 5 November and a few days afterwards. The results for the census for the 1999 season are not yet available but I shall publish them before spring 2000.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received in the last 12 months on the sale of fireworks. [99287]

  Dr. Howells
  I have received a total of 224 representations on fireworks safety matters, comprised of 104 letters from Parliamentary colleagues, 13 Parliamentary questions and 107 letters from the public.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to prevent the display of fireworks for sale until 27 December. [100608]

  Dr. Howells
  Following discussions with my Department, the British Pyrotechnists' Association has agreed that it will advise retailers that fireworks should be displayed for sale only from 27 December. I welcome and support the agreement because I want to avoid the possibility of people buying fireworks and storing them over the Christmas period.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the applications made for licences to export(a) military explosives or additives and (b) equipment for the production of military explosives to (i) India, (ii) the Republic of Korea, (iii) Pakistan or (iv) Singapore, indicating their outcome in each case. [99744]

  Dr. Howells
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible, and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licences for the sale of(a) BAe Hawks, (b) Alvis Scorpion vehicles and (c) Tactica water cannons have been issued in 1999. [99300]

  Dr. Howells
  The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating; the export of "aircraft", unmanned airborne vehicles, aero-engines and "aircraft" equipment, related "goods" and components, specially designed or modified for military use is controlled under ML10; the export of ground vehicles and components thereof specially designed or modified for military use is controlled under ML6, water cannon under PL5001 and other ground vehicles under PL5031. The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 1 January 1999 and 12 November 1999, 1,850 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and 84 Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were 148W
  issued covering the export of goods with the relevant ratings. Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings and where this is so the licence is included in the Table in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  Individual licences issued between 1 January 1999 and 12 November 1999 covering the export of goods with the relevant rating

  Rating

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Number of OIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  ML6

  270

  19

  ML10

  1,527

  62

  PL5001

  44

  0

  PL5031

  9

  3

  It would entail disproportionate cost to establish which, if any of these licences covered the export of the particular types of equipment concerned, and make any subsequent inquiries necessary under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Information on export licensing decisions in 1999, including details of the military equipment licensed, will be set out in the 1999 Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, which will be published in due course.

  This information should be considered in light of the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on 27 July 1999, Official Report, columns 307W–08W.

  Copies of all Open General Export Licences valid at any time during the period are in the Library of the House.

  Consumer Products (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) pursuant to the report by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs on Reducing the Environmental Impact of Consumer Products (HC 149), what further regulatory measures he intends to take in respect of on-pack claims about the environmental impact of products; [100040]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the conclusions of the report by the National Consumer Council entitled, The Green Claims Code: Is it Working? (reference PD53/B2/99). [100039]

  Dr. Howells
  In the White Paper "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers" (Cm4410) published in July we said that we would explore the extent to which the Director General of Fair Trading's powers under the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations could be used more effectively to combat misleading on-pack environmental claims. My Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are doing this with the trading standards service and the Office of Fair Trading (OFT). OFT is currently investigating a range of claims with a view to taking appropriate action and is using, among other sources of information, the results of the NCC shopping survey.

  I was encouraged to note that the NCC report recognises that there have already been improvements in a number of sectors in the short period between

  149W
  publication of the Green Claims Code and the NCC's research and I understand that the OFT's initial work has revealed that there has been some further improvement since.

  Renewable Energy
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that renewable energy will not be disadvantaged under the new electricity trading arrangements. [100456]

  Mrs. Liddell
  DTI and Ofgem published jointly in October a Conclusions document on the New Electricity Trading Arrangements following wide consultation with the renewables generators and others. Significant steps have been taken to improve the ability of renewables generators to operate effectively and these are described in the document. The objective of the new arrangements is to establish a level playing field for all types of generation, including that from renewable sources.

  The Government remain strongly committed to encouraging generation of electricity from renewable sources. I expect to announce shortly how support for renewable generation will be managed in future.

  Corporate Assets
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the current value of land and property (i) in Scotland, (ii) in the United Kingdom, (iii) overseas and (iv) in total within the responsibility of(a) the Design Council, (b) the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, (c) ACAS, (d) UKAEA, (e) the National Consumers Council, (f) the Gas Consumers Council and (g) other executive non-departmental public bodies. [99817]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The net book value of land and buildings held by the UKAEA as at 31 March 1999 was: (i) £2.6 million in Scotland, (ii) £83.5 million in the United Kingdom and (iii) nil overseas.

  The Design Council, the Competition Commission (previously the Monopolies and Mergers Commission), ACAS, the National Consumers Council, the Gas Consumers Council and other executive non-departmental public bodies (other than the Research Councils) do not own land or property but rent or lease accommodation to meet their requirements.

  Values for the land and property of the seven science Research councils are published in their Annual Accounts and the latest DTI Annual Expenditure Plans Report (Cm4211). As expenditure from the Science Budget is deemed to be for the benefit of the UK as a whole, data are not collected in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportion cost.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the estimated value of land and property (i) in Scotland, (ii) in the United Kingdom, (iii) overseas and (iv) in total within the responsibility of(a) the National Weights and Measures Laboratory, (b) the Insolvency Service, (c) the Radiocommunications Agency, (d) the Employment Tribunals Service, (e) Companies House
  150W
  and (f) the Patent Office; and if he will further estimate the value of (1) plant and machinery, (2) vehicles, (3) office equipment and machinery, (4) telecommunications equipment, (5) computer equipment and systems, (6) furniture and fittings and (7) other assets for each of these bodies. [99818]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: Values for the assets of my Department's Executive Agencies, including land and property, can be found in their Annual Reports and Accounts, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Assets are broken down into broad categories as appropriate for each Agency. The breakdown of this information into the categories requested could be done only at disproportionate cost. Land and property in the United Kingdom owned by these bodies as of 31 March 1999 had a net book value of £36,679,000, of which the value of land and property in Scotland was £824,000. No DTI Agency owns land or property overseas.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the value of land and property in (i) Scotland, (ii) the United Kingdom, (iii) overseas and (iv) total within the responsibility of(a) Magnox Electric plc, (b) British Nuclear Fuels plc, (c) the Post Office, (d) British Coal. [99814]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: Magnox Electric plc merged with BNFL plc in 1997–98. The net book value of land and buildings of the Group as at 31 March, as included in the 1998–99 Report and Accounts, was £2,072 million. The net book value of land and buildings held by the Post Office as at 28 March, as included in its 1998–99 Report and Accounts, was £1,579 million. The geographical analysis requested could be provided only for these bodies at disproportionate cost.

  British Coal has transferred its remaining land and property to the Coal authority, an executive non-departmental public body. The net book value of land and property owned by the Coal Authority as at 31 March 1999 was (i) £3.5 million in Scotland, (ii) £16.1 million in the United Kingdom and (iii) nil overseas.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate(a) the current value of land and buildings (including freehold, historic leasehold, and leasehold interests) in (i) Scotland, (ii) the UK, (iii) overseas and (iv) in total, and (b) the value of (1) office machinery and equipment, (2) telecommunications equipment, (3) computer equipment, (4) furniture and fittings, (5) scientific equipment, (6) heritage assets, (7) intangible assets, (8) long term debtors and (9) shareholdings held by his Department. [99659]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The estimate of the value of land and buildings held by this Department is:

  £

  (i) Scotland

  717,000

  (ii) UK

  25,657,000

  (iii) Overseas

  0

  (iv) Total

  25,657,000

  151W
  The value of the other categories of assets requested are:

  £

  (1) Office Machinery and Equipment

  236,000

  (2) Telecommunications Equipment

  89,000

  (3) Computer Equipment

  3,090,000

  (4) Furniture and Fittings

  3,127,000

  (5) Scientific Equipment

  14,767,000

  (6) Heritage Assets

  0

  (7) Intangible Assets

  0

  (8) Long-term debtors

  12,770,000

  (9) Shareholdings:

  Historic Cost

  32,668,000

  Market Value

  29,701,000

  The figures supplied for (i) to (iv), and (1) to (7) are based on current cost net book values as at 31 March 1999, after allowing for depreciation. The estimates for land and buildings include freehold and historic leasehold property but do not include buildings occupied under operating leases. Shareholdings for which no markets exists are shown at historic cost; other shareholdings are shown at market price as at 31 march 1999.

  Measurement Conversion
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the conversion of measurement from imperial to metric will be finally concluded; and if he will make a statement. [99853]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: Under legislation made in 1994, goods sold loose by weight—mainly fresh food—must be priced and weighed in grams and kilograms after 31 December 1999. This change will complete the metrication programme for units of measurement that are used for trade within the meaning of the Weights and Measures Act 1985.

  E-commerce
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he plans to accept the proposed Article 15 of the draft Brussels Regulation on e-commerce and Article 13 of the Regulation in their current form. [100303]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: The Commission's proposals seem to go further than member states envisaged when they reviewed the Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments. We are actively discussing the implications with the Commission and other member states and we are consulting business and consumer organisations. We aim to finalise our negotiating position shortly. It is vital to accelerate the contribution of e-commerce to economic growth in the EU by agreeing as soon as possible on a legislative framework which gives maximum confidence to everyone engaged in buying and selling on-line.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to change the home country principle contained in the draft e-commerce directive to amend private international law; and what plans he has to seek changes in the use of private international law to remove barriers to the completion of the EU internal market. [100304]
  152W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: We have no plans to seek to change the country of origin in the draft e-commerce directive. In a case where rules of private international law would adversely affect the freedom to provide information society services in the internal market, the country of origin principle would take precedence. We support this general approach and the proposed exceptions to it, such as for contractual obligations concerning certain consumer contracts. As regards rules of private international law, the Government are considering the Commission's proposals to convert the Brussels Convention, concerning choice of jurisdiction, into a Community Regulation. A revision of the Rome Convention, concerning applicable law, may begin next year.

  Private Recruitment Industry
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases have been reported to his Department of individuals who remain unemployed as a result of temp-to-perm arrangements operating within the private recruitment industry. [100302]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: There is no obligation to report such cases to my Department and we do not maintain a systematic record of those cases coming to our attention.

  National Health Service Patient Data
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on making National Health Service patient data available to industry for the purposes of research. [99757]

  Mr. Byers
  I have not had any discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on this matter.

  Maternity Leave
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many homes in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire will benefit from the increase in maternity leave under the Employment Relations Act 1999 and its associated regulations; and if he will make a statement. [100598]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  No information is available at this level of geographical detail. However, nationally 2.8 million female employees under 40 could benefit from the increase in statutory maternity leave should they become pregnant, and 1 million from the wider entitlement to additional maternity leave should they become pregnant. In the West Midlands there are 256,000 female employees under 40 who would benefit from the increase in statutory maternity leave should they become pregnant and 82,000 who would benefit from the wider entitlement to additional maternity leave should they become pregnant.

  Ice Cream Industry
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the Competition Commission's report into the ice cream industry; and if he will publish his Department's response. [100678]
  153W
  Mr. Byers
  The Competition Commission report on impulse ice cream was delivered on 21 September. The report, and any decisions made on it, will be published as soon as practicable.

  Carbon Emissions
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the potential of photovoltaics to reduce carbon emissions. [99029]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The technical potential for building integrated PV in the UK is currently estimated at 15 terrawatt hours (TWh), which represents less than 5 per cent. of current electricity consumption. The potential savings in CO2 emissions if all this resource could be utilised, which is unlikely for practical, economic and environmental reasons, would amount to some 7 million tonnes per year.

  The average cost of electricity from building integrated PV is currently around six times that of electricity generated from conventional fuels, and is unlikely to decrease sufficiently over the next ten years to make more than a small contribution to the carbon emission reductions necessary by 2012. The current annual generating capacity of installed PV in the UK is some 0.5 gigawatt hours (GWh).

  However, in the longer term, PV has the potential to make a significant contribution to carbon savings. The DTI has been supporting a programme of research, development and demonstration of the technology in the UK for several years and, together with support from the European Union, a number of major examples on building intergrated photovoltaics are now operating.

  Miners (Health Claims)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the claims received from ex-miners in Scotland for chronic bronchitis and emphysema have been fully processed; and how many claimants have died before their claims were fully processed. [100270]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As at 22 November, the Department had made 133 full and final payments to Scottish ex-miners, totalling some £218,000. Prior to the signing of the Handling Agreement for England and Wales on 24 September, we had commenced discussions with Scottish solicitors to adapt the Agreement to take into consideration the differences between English and Welsh, and Scottish law. The Department expects to sign an agreement with Scottish solicitors shortly and this will enable the number of offers to increase.

  As at 24 November IRISC, the Department's claims handler, had been informed of 217 claims where the date of death recorded occurred since their date of claim.

  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) miners and (b) retired miners have died before receiving full compensation payments from public funds for chronic respiratory diseases in the last 12 months. [99856]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As at 24 November IRISC, the Department's claims handler, had been informed of 1,896 claims where the date of death recorded occurred in the last 12 months. One of these claims was in 154W
  respect of a currently employed minor. It is not known how many of these claims would have qualified for full compensation under the Handling Agreement concluded on 24 September 1999.

  The contract to carry out the medical assessments of live and deceased claims which will form the basis for paying full compensation where appropriate was let on 5 October. Where claims are progressed by an estate or dependant they will be assessed under the Handling Agreement.

  WTO Seattle Round
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received on export subsidies to developing countries in relation to the forthcoming World Trade Organisation Round. [100422]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have received a large number of representations about this issue in the run up to the WTO Ministerial meeting in Seattle, particularly in relation to agricultural trade. I have made clear my support for a substantial reduction in these trade distorting subsidies as part of a new Trade Round.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to raise the issue of zero tariffs for developing countries at the World Trade Organisation Conference in Seattle. [100425]

  Mr. Caborn
  At Seattle, I shall be pressing for other industrialised countries to support the proposal agreed within the EU to provide duty-free access for essentially all products from the least developed countries no later than the end of the new Round of negotiations (2003). More generally, the Government will continue to call for zero tariffs to be applied to all goods from the least developed countries, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised in his speech at Mansion House on 22 November.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received relating to the position adopted by the European Union on the labelling of genetically modified foods in advance of the World Trade Organisation Conference in Seattle. [100424]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have received a number of representations on the subject of labelling of genetically modified food and on other aspects of labelling, both in writing and when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have met representatives of the civil society in person, in advance of the World Trade Organisation conference in Seattle on 29 November-3 December.

  The Government share the EU objective to seek clarification of the terms of the WTO Agreement as concerns labelling, so that it is clear that labelling requirements can be used as a means of responding to consumer demands for information, where appropriate and without placing excessive burdens on, and unfairly restricting, export opportunities for our trading partners. On the specific question of genetically modified food, the Government are committed to labelling where there are measurable differences between GM and non-GM products, to allow consumers to make informed choices.
  155W
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations the Government will make at the WTO Ministerial Meeting in Seattle to other industrialised countries concerning the implementation of agreements to reduce trade barriers to developing countries; and if he will make a statement. [100813]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will urge others to join the UK and EU in indicating strong support for the implementation of agreements to reduce trade barriers to developing countries, both in respect of those commitments entered into as part of the Uruguay Round, and in respect of new initiatives, such as the EU proposal that all industrialised countries should agree to provide duty-free access for essentially all goods from the Least Developed Countries no later than the end of the next round of negotiations (2003).

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will raise the matter of labour standards in developing countries at the Seattle Conference of the World Trade Organisation. [100426]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are firmly committed to securing the EU proposals on trade and labour, including the creation of a Joint ILO/WTO Standing Working Forum on trade, globalisation and labour issues.

  Intellectual Property Agreement
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the World Trade Organisation's Trade-Related Intellectual Property Agreement. [100427]

  Mr. Caborn
  Ministers and officials have received many representations about the WTO's TRIPS agreement. Many of these have been supportive of that Agreement and its implementation in view of its importance to encourage investment. Some have questioned whether parts of the Agreement might be detrimental to development interests. We have given assurances that there is much flexibility in the TRIPS agreement to allow for development interests to be taken into account.

  Cause-related Marketing
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received in relation to cause-related marketing techniques; and if he will introduce legislative provisions to prevent the abuse of such techniques. [99391]

  Dr. Howells
  I have not received any representations about cause-related marketing and I have no plans to introduce additional regulation in this area, which is already subject to general legal controls on, for example, misleading advertisements, and to the codes of practice overseen by the Advertising Standards Authority and the broadcast regulators.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list by country the value of the outstanding debts on(a) United Kingdom aid loans and (b) loans guaranteed by the British Government through the Export Credits Guarantee Department, showing separately
  156W
  the amount that is classified as (i) pre-cut-off date and (ii) post-cut-off date, for each of the countries defined by the World Bank as developing countries. [100020]

  Mr. Caborn
  From the information available, Annexe A shows the value of outstanding amounts in respect of United Kingdom aid loans and Annexe B the outstanding value of unrecovered claims under guarantees issued through the Export Credits Guarantee Department to Developing Markets. The ECGD data are divided into amounts paid as claims which remain outstanding but which have been officially rescheduled, and claims paid that are not yet subject to a rescheduling agreement. All the amounts that have been rescheduled are in respect of pre-cut-off business, but amounts outstanding which are not subject to rescheduling are likely to include both pre and post cut off amounts. ECGD is not readily able to split these data on a pre and post cut off basis.

  Annexe A:

  Balance outstanding under Direct Bilateral Capital Aid agreements

  £

  Country

  Balance at 31 March 1999

  Afghanistan

  66,670.00

  Antigua and Barbuda 1991

  2,044,168.17

  Bangladesh

  292,451.32

  Barbados

  136,070.30

  Belize

  12,270,757.44

  Botswana

  153,769.08

  Brazil

  1,692,335.68

  Cameroon

  —

  Cayman Islands 1975/1

  174,037.49

  Columbia

  169,867.19

  Costa Rica

  765,798.46

  Cyprus

  130,774.00

  Dominica

  5,788,731.80

  Ecuador

  7,539,648.69

  Egypt

  3,363,360.81

  Ethiopia

  —

  Gambia

  —

  Ghana

  10,172,487.21

  Grenada

  1,429,108.50

  Guyana

  30,155,434.73

  Honduras

  1,911,143.04

  India

  2,432,000.00

  Indonesia

  —

  Ivory Coast

  2,115,892.38

  Jamaica

  32,994,877.44

  Jordan

  20,019,655.10

  Laos

  1,275.00

  Malawi

  396,000.00

  Malaysia

  2,879,159.31

  Mauritius

  438,250.22

  Mozambique 1976

  3,408,903.92

  Nicaragua

  398,200.00

  Nigeria

  4,233,084.04

  Pakistan

  750,664.58

  Paraguay

  1,759,500.00

  Peru

  5,170,602.44

  Philippines

  2,397,068.00

  Senegal

  272,329.67

  Seychelles

  7,885,673.72

  Sierra Leone

  —

  Solomon Islands 1981

  1,844,700.15

  Sri Lanka

  76,200.17

  St. Kitts

  2,734,970.00

  St. Lucia

  2,499,500.00

  St. Vincent

  3,289,200.00

  Sudan

  —

  Swaziland

  1,537,779.89

  Tonga

  240,202.80

  157W

  Balance outstanding under Direct Bilateral Capital Aid agreements

  £

  Country

  Balance at 31 March 1999

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  22,726,151.73

  TCI

  1,421,260.87

  Zambia

  33,309,320.27

  W. Samoa

  —

  Zimbabwe

  10,917,268.70

  Total Bilateral

  246,406,304.31

  Balance outstanding under aid laons made via ECGD

  ECGD

  £

  Liberia

  77,749.58

  Nigeria

  672,000.00

  Total

  749,749.58

  Balance outstanding under aid loans made via multilateral institutions

  Multilateral

  £

  Turkey

  15,107,325.62

  EEC/IDA

  57,190,198.17

  EEC/EIB

  336,099,288.37

  CDB

  834,817.19

  Total

  409,231,629.35

  Annexe B

  ECGD unrecovered claim to developing markets as at 31 March 1999

  £

  Claims paid:

  which have been rescheduled

  which have been rescheduled

  Total

  Highly Indebted Poor countries

  Angola

  4.52

  52.23

  56.75

  Burkina Faso

  0.00

  0.57

  0.57

  Burundi

  0.00

  0.00

  Cameroon

  2.73

  33.83

  36.56

  Central African Republic

  0.00

  0.25

  0.25

  Congo

  0.14

  58.08

  58.22

  Congo (Dr)

  9.92

  41.47

  51.39

  Cote d'Ivoire

  16.22

  11.83

  28.05

  Ethiopia

  3.03

  11.61

  14.64

  Ghana

  0.07

  2.09

  2.16

  Guinea

  0.00

  1.44

  1.44

  Guinea Bissau

  0.00

  0.00

  Guyana

  0.04

  13.95

  13.99

  Haiti

  0.00

  0.00

  Honduras

  0.00

  0.00

  Liberia

  2.50

  6.52

  9.02

  Madagascar

  0.00

  14.80

  14.80

  Malawi

  4.01

  0.69

  4.70

  Mali

  0.00

  3.87

  3.87

  Mauritania

  0.00

  4.61

  4.61

  Mozambique

  0.00

  35.93

  35.93

  Myanmar

  23.07

  23.07

  Nicaragua

  0.00

  0.40

  0.40

  Niger

  0.00

  5.41

  5.41

  158W

  ECGD unrecovered claim to developing markets as at 31 March 1999

  £

  Claims paid:

  which have been rescheduled

  which have been rescheduled

  Total

  Nigeria

  22.42

  1,843.10

  1,865.52

  Rwanda

  0.10

  0.10

  Sao Tome

  0.00

  0.00

  Sierra Leone

  0.00

  1.04

  1.04

  Somalia

  0.14

  12.18

  12.32

  Sudan

  3.41

  126.07

  129.48

  Tanzania

  0.03

  32.40

  32.43

  Uganda

  0.00

  2.49

  2.49

  Vietnam

  0.00

  5.84

  5.84

  Yemen Republic

  0.17

  3.08

  3.25

  Zambia

  0.16

  101.31

  101.47

  Moderately Indebted Low Income countries

  Bangladesh

  0.00

  0.00

  Benin

  0.08

  2.53

  2.61

  Cambodia

  0.00

  0.00

  Chad

  0.00

  0.00

  Comoras

  0.00

  0.00

  Gambia

  0.06

  0.06

  India

  2.50

  2.50

  Kenya

  2.02

  32.90

  34.92

  Lao PDR

  0.00

  0.00

  Pakistan

  0.26

  0.26

  Senegal

  0.02

  0.80

  0.82

  Togo

  0.37

  9.11

  9.48

  Zimbabwe

  0.32

  0.32

  Severely Indebted Middle Income countries

  Argentina

  6.87

  50.99

  57.86

  Bolivia

  0.02

  8.99

  9.01

  Brazil

  1.95

  380.58

  382.53

  Bulgaria

  0.02

  11.39

  11.41

  Cuba

  24.55

  27.96

  52.51

  Ecuador

  0.18

  31.96

  32.14

  Gabon

  0.00

  83.10

  83.10

  Indonesia

  86.85

  86.85

  Iraq

  625.05

  625.05

  Jamaica

  0.67

  2.23

  2.90

  Jordan

  19.37

  311.19

  330.56

  Peru

  0.14

  87.13

  87.27

  Syrian Arab Republic

  0.05

  0.05

  Moderately Indebted Low Income countries

  Algeria

  4.37

  166.49

  170.86

  Chile

  0.11

  0.11

  Colombia

  0.08

  0.08

  Georgia

  0.00

  0.00

  Hungary

  0.02

  0.02

  Macedonia

  0.00

  3.51

  3.51

  Malaysia

  0.02

  0.02

  Mexico

  24.68

  65.79

  90.47

  Morocco

  0.09

  48.70

  48.79

  Panama

  -0.11

  -0.11

  Philippines

  9.31

  20.07

  29.38

  St. Vincent

  0.00

  0.00

  Thailand

  0.26

  0.26

  Tunisia

  0.00

  0.00

  Turkey

  0.00

  0.00

  Uruguay

  0.00

  0.00

  Venezuela

  0.31

  0.31

  Severely Indebted Middle Income countries

  Afghanistan

  0.00

  0.00

  Burundi

  0.00

  0.00

  Laos

  0.00

  0.00

  Liberia

  0.00

  0.00

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Falklands
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will request a contribution from Argentina towards the cost of clearing landmines in the Falkland Islands. [R] [100016]

  Mr. Battle
  In December 1993, the Argentine Government offered to meet the cost of clearing landmines in the Falkland Islands. We welcomed this offer and sought to explore it further.

  During President Menem's visit to the UK in October 1998, we agreed as a first step to work with Argentina to evaluate the feasibility and cost of clearing the landmines still present in the Falkland Islands. Work on a Memorandum of Understanding setting out how this feasibility study will be carried out is under way. Both Governments reaffirmed their commitment to co-operate on mine clearance in the Joint Statement of 14 July 1999.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the number of Argentine landmines remaining in the Falklands Islands. [R] [100015]

  Mr. Battle
  The Ministry of Defence estimate that around 16,600 mines remain in the Falkland Islands. The Argentine armed forces laid 127 minefields on the Falklands in 1982. MOD estimate that 18,000 mines of all types were laid, including 14,000 anti-personnel mines. British forces carried out some clearance immediately after the conflict, lifting about 1,400 mines, but stopped after several injuries to those involved. The remaining 101 minefields are marked and fenced, and therefore not an immediate hazard. The garrison conduct a public campaign to warn of the dangers. They make regular patrols and destroy mines which become exposed on the surface of the ground. The Argentines have given us their minefield records.

  The Argentine Government offered to assist with their clearance, and during President Menem's visit to the UK in October 1998 we agreed, as a first step, to work with Argentina to evaluate the feasibility and cost of clearing them. Work on a Memorandum of Understanding on how this study will be carried out is under way. Both Governments restated their commitment to co-operate on mine clearance in the Joint Statement of 14 July 1999.

  We are fully committed to the Ottawa Convention, which requires us to clear all anti-personnel mines from the Falkland Islands within 10 years of entry, unless we can show good reasons why an extension should be granted. Such reasons may include humanitarian, environmental and technical considerations. Mine clearance in the Falkland Islands is both difficult and dangerous and we shall be keeping these points in mind.

  Corporate Assets
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current estimated 160W
  value of assets relating to (a) Wilton Park Executive Agency and (b) the British Council (i) in Scotland, (ii) in the United Kingdom, (iii) overseas and (iv) in total. [99784]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The value of assets relating to the Wilton Park Executive Agency is £1,270,000. The current estimated values of the British Council's assets are £652,000 in Scotland, £8,170,000 in the rest of the United Kingdom (not including the figure for Scotland) and £83,633,000 overseas. The total value of the British Council's assets is £92,455,000.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the value of(a) vehicles, (b) equipment, (c) IT, (d) corporate systems, (e) departmental systems, (f) overseas systems, (g) communications, (h) technical security equipment and (i) heritable assets in (i) Scotland, (ii1) the United Kingdom, (iii) overseas and (iv) in total. [99786]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The FCO has no fixed assets in Scotland. Value information for the FCO's fixed assets is being developed as part of the implementation of resource accounting. This information is currently being audited. The first set of resource accounts will be published in respect of 1999–2000.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the planned date of publication of the proposed White Paper on the forthcoming intergovernmental conference; which departments are involved in drafting it; if it will identify the issues which the Government(a) does and (b) does not want included in the agenda for the IGC; and if it will guarantee that extensions of qualified majority voting in specified areas will not be approved by the Government. [100279]

  Mr. Vaz
  We intend to publish the White Paper early next year, before formal IGC negotiations begin. The paper will be drafted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in consultation with other Departments. It will set out our position on all major issues expected to be discussed at the intergovernmental conference, including the possible extension of qualified majority voting.

  Your Britain Your Europe
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out(a) the itinerary for his proposed five-day Your Britain Your Europe tour, (b) the aims of the tour, (c) the cost to the public of the tour and (d) what funds have been made available from the European Commission for the tour. [100280]

  Mr. Vaz
  The aim of the Your Britain Your Europe roadshow is to promote the benefits of the UK's membership of the EU to the people of Britain.

  The costs of the roadshow are estimated at £60,000, plus accommodation and travel. No funds have been made available from the European Commission for the roadshow.
  161W
  The itinerary is as follows:
  Your Britain Your Europe: Mr. Vaz's Regional Roadshow (Monday 29 November to Friday 3 December 1999)

  Monday 29 November—North East/Humberside

  St. Joseph's School, Hebburn, South Tyneside

  Tyneside Foyer—City Centre Youth, Newcastle upon Tyne

  Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK Limited), Sunderland

  University of Hull, Hull

  Tuesday 30 November—Yorkshire/North West/Paris

  CORUS Engineering Steels, Rotherham

  "Your Britain Your Europe" Seminar at Carlton Park Hotel, Rotherham

  Granada Studios Tour, Manchester

  Olympic House, Manchester Airport

  Wednesday 1 December—Paris/London

  British Embassy—Briefing with French/British Media

  Eurostar

  Waterloo Station

  House of Commons

  To Bristol

  Thursday 2 December—South West/West Midlands

  Kwik strip Eco Solutions, Bristol

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Bristol

  Bath Environment Centre, Bath

  Bath Hilton Hotel—South West Regional Euro forum Meeting

  Bath Spa Culture, Bath

  University of Bath

  Friday 3 December—Nuneaton/Leicester/Birmingham

  King Edward VI College, Nuneaton

  St. John's Primary School, Ladywood, Birmingham

  BBC Pebble Mill (Ed Doolan Show live)

  Richard Lawnhouse Retirement Home, Ladywood, Birmingham Birmingham

  Chamber of Commerce Event

  Leicester Mercury Building, Leicester

  De Montfort University, Leicester.

  Departmental Estate
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the current value of land and property(a) in Scotland, (b) in the United Kingdom and (c) overseas allocated to his core Department, including Chevening. [99836]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The FCO has no land or property in Scotland. Value information for the KO's estate in the UK and overseas is being developed as part of the implementation of resource accounting. This information is currently being audited. The first set of resource accounts will be published in respect of 1999–2000. Chevening is owned and administered by the Chevening Estate Trust. It does not form part of the FCO's estate.

  International Criminal Court
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what timetable he proposes for the publication of the draft legislation on the International Criminal Court. [100180]
  162W
  Mr. Hain
  Draft legislation to enable ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court will be published as soon as practicable in the course of this Parliamentary session.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which interested parties will be consulted about the draft legislation on the International Criminal Court; and if he will make a statement. [100181]

  Mr. Hain
  After publication of the draft legislation to ratify the International Criminal Court Statute, all Parliamentarians, organisations and individuals interested in the International Criminal Court will be given an opportunity to comment.

  Export Licence (ACORD)
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the approval of an export licence for the supply of one Bedford truck to ACORD. [100909]

  Mr. Hain
  Following consultations with this Department and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently issued a licence for the export of one military rated, ex-MOD Bedford truck to ACORD, a relief organisation in the Sudan. The truck will be used to distribute seed and other humanitarian aid to help alleviate the suffering in Sudan. This decision does not affect the Government's continued support for the EU Common Position on the export of arms, munitions and military equipment to Sudan.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the decision was taken to withdraw the OSCE verifiers from Kosovo in March. [98558]

  Mr. Vaz
  The decision to withdraw the OSCE verifiers from Kosovo was made by the OSCE Chairman-in-Office, Norwegian Foreign Minister Knut Vollebaek, on 19 March.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when, and in what form, he received the application that the OSCE verifiers were unable to do their job owing to the escalating violence in Kosovo before 19 March. [98559]

  Mr. Vaz
  The decision to withdraw the OSCE verifiers was made in Vienna on 19 March by the OSCE Chairman-in-Office following a full meeting of the Contact Group plus the then OSCE Troika (Austria, Poland) under the chairmanship of Norway, as Chairman-in-Office.

  The decision to withdraw the OSCE verifiers was made in the light of the failed negotiations in Paris and, in particular, the deteriorating situation on the ground in Kosovo caused by the Serbian military offensive.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the number of Kosovo Serbs killed in Kosovo(a) since 11 June and (b) between 23 March and 10 June. [98567]
  163W
  Mr. Vaz
  There have been 124 reported murders of Kosovo Serbs between KFOR's deployment on 12 June and mid-October.

  There are no figures available for the number of Kosovo Serbs killed in Kosovo between 23 March 1999 and 11 June 1999, ie in the period prior to KFOR's deployment.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the number of Kosovo Albanians killed in Kosovo between(a) 23 March and 10 June, (b) 1 January and 22 March and (c) since 11 June. [98568]

  Mr. Vaz
  We estimate that at least 10,000 Kosovo Albanian civilians were killed between June 1998 and 12 June 1999. Of these, we estimate that around 500 were killed before 20 March 1999.

  There have been 135 reported murders of Kosovo Albanians between KFOR's deployment on 12 June and mid-October.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on improving access to Kosovo through the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. [100326]

  Mr. Vaz
  Significant delays continue to be encountered by traffic, including humanitarian aid convoys, at the major crossing point on the Kosovo/Macedonian border at Blace. The United Nations interim administration in Kosovo has set up a task force to take matters forward and negotiations continue with the Macedonian Government to relieve the bottleneck at the border.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what forum, and in what form, the Greek Government agreed there was a legal base for military action against Yugoslavia between March and June 1999. [98560]

  Mr. Vaz
  The then Secretary-General of NATO announced on 23 March that he had directed the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe to initiate air operations in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. The Secretary-General noted that his decision had been taken after extensive consultations with all the Allies, including Greece.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the legal basis for NATO's military action in Yugoslavia between March and June 1999. [98561]

  £ million

  Start date

  Planned completion date

  Current expected completion date

  Planned cost

  Current estimated cost

  FIRECREST

  July 1997

  December 2001

  December 2001

  66.2

  85

  GTP

  March 1997

  August 1998

  January 2000

  1.9

  1.9

  FORTRESS

  January 1998

  March 1999

  December 1999

  3.8

  3.8

  VIP

  December 1998

  December 2000

  December 2000

  3.7

  3.7

  164W
  Mr. Vaz
  The Government have set out the position on a number of occasions. This is that cases have arisen (as in Northern Iraq in 1991) when, in the light of all the circumstances, a limited use of force was justifiable in support of purposes laid down by the Security Council, but without the Council's express authorisation, when that was the only means to avert an immediate and overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. Such cases would in the nature of things be exceptional and would depend on an objective assessment of the factual circumstances at the time, and on the terms of the relevant decisions of the Security Council bearing on the situation in question.

  In the case of Kosovo, NATO took the view in March of this year, given the circumstances at the time, that the use of force was the only route left to avert a humanitarian catastrophe.

  Policy Document No. 148 (1986)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the status of Foreign Office Policy Document No. 148 (1986). [98562]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) on 22 November 1999,Official Report, column 18W.

  IT Projects
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the information technology projects currently being undertaken by his Department and by agencies responsible to his Department, including(a) the start date, (b) the planned completion date, (c) the current expected completion date, (d) the planned costs and (e) the current estimated cost; and if he will make a statement. [99672]

  Mr. Battle
  The FCO has under way the following IT projects:FIRECREST—an infrastructure project to provide modern, easy to use office automation systems throughout the FCO, at home and overseas.
  GTP—an integrated and managed Global Telecommunications service, being procured under PFI principles. The costs shown cover procurement only. The projected costs of FCO communications over 10 years are estimated to be £238 million.
  FORTRESS—to provide desk officers with electronic delivery and access to intelligence material.
  VIP—to provide an integrated visa entry clearance for Posts. POAC—to provide a replacement accounting system for Posts.
  PASSPORTS—to provide modern machine readable passport systems at major consular Posts.
  PAY—to contract a replacement payroll bureau service.
  INTRANET—to provide Posts and FCO UK with an Intranet.
  CDB—to provide a database for Commercial Officers at Posts.
  DSP—to provide Diplomatic Service Procedures in electronic form to Posts and Home Departments.
  165W

  £ million

  Start date

  Planned completion date

  Current expected completion date

  Planned cost

  Current estimated cost

  POAC

  July 1997

  September 1999

  March 2000

  3.5

  4.5

  PASSPORTS

  January 1999

  December 2001

  December 2001

  1.2

  2.4

  PAY

  February 1997

  July 1998

  December 1999

  0.5

  0.6

  INTRANET

  March 1999

  March 2000

  March 2000

  0.7

  0.6

  CDB

  May 1998

  January 2000

  March 2000

  1.0

  1.0

  DSP

  January 1998

  August 1998

  December 1999

  0.1

  0.1

  Research Studies
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the title of research studies, audits and surveys(a) being undertaken and (b) commissioned by his Department for completion within (i) 1999 and (ii) 2000, stating in each case whether and when the results are due to be published. [99674]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is not centrally recorded and covers such a wide range of activity that a comprehensive list could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. Research studies commissioned and published in 1999 or intended for publication in 2000 include:

  1999

  History Notes

  The Zinoviev Letter

  Women in Diplomacy

  Focus International Papers

  Piracy and Armed Robbery at Sea

  Bosnia and Herzegovina: Progress Towards Democracy

  Progress Towards Gender Equality

  Iraq: Sanctions and the "Oil for Food" Agreement

  Enlargement of the European Union

  Burma: 10 Years of Repression

  The International Criminal Court, Questions and Answers

  Population and Development

  NATO's Fiftieth Anniversary Summit

  Gibraltar: Partnership for Prosperity

  Kosovo: Chronology, March 1998-March 1999

  The Cologne Debt Initiative

  Britain and China: A Growing Partnership

  The Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

  Money Laundering

  East Timor: A Historical Background

  Britain's Parliamentary Co-operation with Russia

  1998

  Wilton Park Papers

  The United Nations in The Twenty-First Century

  Building Political Stability in Sub-Saharan Africa

  Diplomacy for the Twenty-First Century: 'Re-Crafting The Old Guild'

  Building Bridges Between Islam and the West

  Nordic and Baltic Security and Prosperity

  Challenges to East Asian Security

  The Search for Peace in the Middle East

  166W

  Europe after Economic and Monetary Union

  The Continuing threat of Nuclear Proliferation

  Protecting the Environment and Sustaining Development towards a Green Millennium

  Current issues in International Diplomacy and Foreign Policy—Volume I: 1999

  Volume II: 2000

  2000

  Documents on British Policy Overseas

  Series III, Volume III.

  In addition, unclassified versions of some of the papers prepared by the FCO's Research Analysts in recent years will be placed on the FCO's website next year.

  Audits and surveys in 1999 include the regular series of internal audits conducted by the FCO's Internal Audit department in accordance with Treasury requirements. Reports of internal audits are sent to the National Audit Office, but the details are not routinely published because to do so could harm the effective management and operations of the public service.

  Departmental Reports
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the titles of departmental reports being prepared with a view to publication in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000, stating in each case the planned date of publication. [99673]

  Mr. Hain
  Consistent with current Whitehall-wide practice, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's annual Department reports are published 21 days after the spring Budget:(a) On 30 March 1999, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office published "Foreign and Commonwealth Office—The Government's Expenditure Plans 1999–2000 to 2001–02" (CM 4209)
  (b) In Spring 2000, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will publish "Foreign and Commonwealth Office—The Government's Expenditure Plans 2000–01 to 2001–02". It is not possible to specify the exact publication date until the date of the spring Budget has been decided.

  Strategic Export Control
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide quantification of exports in the next issue of the Strategic Export Control Annual Report. [100506]

  Mr. Hain
  We will consider the format and content of future reports in light of responses to the first two Annual Reports, taking into account in particular the eventual
  167W
  report of the Joint Inquiry being carried out by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs, Defence, Trade and Industry and International Development Committees.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications he has received from citizens of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for visas to visit the United Kingdom in each of the past three years. [100323]

  Mr. Vaz
  The information requested is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the development of the United Kingdom's relations with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia since the conclusion of the war in Kosovo. [100325]

  Mr. Vaz
  We warmly welcomed the support given by the Macedonian Government and people during the Kosovo crisis, and we continue to work to strengthen our bilateral relations. We also welcome the opportunities provided for closer co-operation through the Stability Pact and look forward to an early start on negotiations for a Stabilisation and Association Agreement between Macedonia and the European Union. We have encouraged the Macedonian Government in their preparation of a NATO Membership Action Plan.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to allow the British Embassy in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to issue visitors visas for the United Kingdom. [100324]

  Mr. Vaz
  The British Embassy in Skopje will begin accepting applications for visitor visas as soon as new purpose-built premises are ready. On present plans this is likely to be around the middle of 2000.

  Diplomatic Missions (Visas)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which British diplomatic missions in Europe are not allowed to issue visas to visit the United Kingdom. [100321]

  Country

  Post

  Service available

  Armenia

  Yerevan

  Only accepts applications from Armenian nationals, diplomats representatives of major international organisations in Armenia

  Azerbaijan

  Baku

  Accepts applications from Azeri nationals, diplomats, officials and resident third country nationals

  Estonia

  Tallinn

  Only accepts applications from residents of Estonia

  Georgia

  Tbilisi

  Accepts applications from Georgian nationals; diplomats; officials of international organisations; third country nationals resident in Georgia for longer than six months

  Latvia

  Riga

  Only accepts applications from residents of Latvia

  Lithuania

  Vilnius

  Only accepts applications from residents of Lithuania

  Macedonia

  Skopje

  Only accepts applications from diplomats; urgent medical applications; refugee cases accepted by either UNHCR or the Home Office

  168W
  Mr. Vaz
  The following British diplomatic posts in Europe do not offer an entry clearance service:

  Country

  Post

  France

  Bordeaux

  Lille

  Lyon

  Marseille

  Strasbourg

  Germany

  Frankfurt

  Hamburg

  Munich

  Stuttgart

  Greece

  Corfu

  Heraklion

  Italy

  Florence

  Milan

  Naples

  Portugal

  Oporto

  Slovenia

  Ljubljana

  Spain

  Alicante

  Barcelona

  Bilbao

  Ibiza

  Las Palmas

  Malaga

  Palma

  Santa Cruz de Tenerife

  Seville

  The following posts offer a limited service to resident members of the Diplomatic and Consular Corps (including International Organisations) and officials of the host country. Other applicants for visit visas may apply at any post offering a full entry clearance service.

  Country

  Post

  Germany

  Berlin

  Morocco

  Rabat

  Netherlands

  The Hague

  Switzerland

  Berne

  Turkey

  Ankara

  The following posts offer a limited entry clearance service as indicated:
  169W
  No entry clearance service is -available in the following countries to which non-resident British diplomatic missions are accredited:

  Andorra

  Moldova

  Monaco

  San Marino.

  Angola
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent progress has been made in inhibiting the use of diamond sales for funding the war in Angola. [100671]

  Mr. Hain
  UN Security Council resolution 1173 of 12 June 1998 imposed a ban on the direct or indirect import from Angola of all diamonds not controlled through the Certificate of Origin regime of the Government of Unity and National Reconciliation of Angola (GURN). The aim was to cut off diamond revenues to UNITA, and so reduce their ability to fund continued fighting. Following the adoption of the resolution, the Government amended the Open General Import Licence to prohibit the import into the UK of diamonds exported from Angola not accompanied by a GURN Certificate or Origin. The ban is implemented in the Overseas Territories through the Angola (United Nations Sanctions) (Dependent Territories) Order 1998.

  This corrects information in a previous written answer to my hon. Friend on how the UK implements its obligations under resolution 1173 with regard to the import of diamonds—3 November 1999, Official Report, column 189W. I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to my hon. Friend for that error.

  UN Security Council resolution 1237 of 7 May 1999 established a panel of experts to investigate alleged violations of the sanctions against UNITA, in support of the work on the UN Angola Sanctions Committee. Panel members are paying a series of visits to the region, and will report on how sanctions in relation to UNITA diamonds can be implemented and enforced more effectively.

  We welcomed the announcement by De Beers on 5 October that they will no longer purchase any Angolan diamonds, and will urge their clients to adopt a similar policy. In this task I want to see full co-operation from trading centres such as New York, Antwerp and Tel Aviv and also from other diamond companies to follow De Beers' lead. This is vital to disabling UNITA's murderous war effort.

TREASURY

  Annual Migration (South-East)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual net migration into the south-east region from each of the other regions of England. [99036]

  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.
  170W
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Crispin Blunt, dated 30 November 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about the estimated net annual migration into the South East Region from each of the other regions of England.
  The latest figures available relate to 1998. The attached table shows the inflow, outflow and balance for migration into and out of the South East with respect to each of the other regions of England.
  The estimates of internal population movements are based on the movement of NHS doctors' patients between the former Family Health Services Authority Areas. They should not be regarded as a perfect measure of migration as there is variation in the delay between a person moving and registering with a new doctor. Additionally, some moves may not result in a re-registration: for example, individuals may migrate again before registering with a doctor. Conversely, there may be others who move and re-register several times a year.

  Movements into and out of the South East Government Office Region for the Year ending December 1998 Crown copyright

  Thousand

  Region

  Inflow

  Outflow

  Balance

  England

  217.9

  198.7

  19.2

  North East

  5.2

  4.6

  0.6

  North West (including Merseyside)

  14.6

  12.9

  1.8

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  11.7

  11.3

  0.3

  East Midlands

  15.3

  18.6

  -3.3

  West Midlands

  15.1

  15.1

  —

  East

  30.6

  29.4

  1.2

  London

  89.5

  59.8

  29.7

  South West

  36.0

  47.1

  -11.1

  Winter Deaths
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths of(a) people aged 60 to 74 years, (b) people aged 75 to 84 years, (c) people aged over 85 years and (d) in total, in England and Wales, were attributed wholly or partly to hypothermia in 1998. [100478]

  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 Tim Holt to Mr. Eddie O'Hara, dated 30 November 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many deaths were attributed wholly or partly to hypothermia in 1998.
  The information requested is given in the table below.

  Deaths attributed to Hypothermia, England and Wales, 1998

  60–74

  75–84

  85+

  All ages

  Hypothermia

  72

  115

  111

  352

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people died in England and Wales in winter 1998–99(a) aged 60 to 74 years, (b) aged 75 to 84 years, (c) aged over 85 years and (d) in total; and what was the average number of deaths in winter in each category over the last 10-year period. [100479]

  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.
  171W
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Eddie O'Hara, dated 30 November 1995:

  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many people died in England and Wales in winter 1998–99.

  The information requested is given in the table below, using the standard ONS definition of winter being December to March.

  Winter deaths, England and Wales

  Age

  Winter 1998–99

  Average 1993–94 to 1997–98

  60–74

  51,750

  55,759

  75–84

  72,557

  70,261

  85+

  69,888

  60,423

  All ages

  216,653

  209,171

  Figures for monthly deaths are only readily available from 1993 onwards. Deaths are only averaged therefore for the five winters from 1993–94 to 1997–98.

  Cigarette Consumption
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what proportion of family expenditure in each income decile of households is represented by cigarette consumption; [99908]

  (2) what proportion of expenditure of different types of households in the lowest income decile goes on cigarette consumption. [99910]

  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 Tim Holt to Mr. David Willetts, dated 30 November 1999:

  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary questions on cigarette consumption.

  The Family Expenditure Survey shows the proportion of family expenditure in each income decile in 1998–99 as follows:

  Gross income decile group

  Percentage of total expenditure on cigarettes

  Lowest ten per cent.

  3

  Second decile group

  3

  Third decile group

  3

  Fourth decile group

  2

  Fifth decile group

  2

  Sixth decile group

  2

  Seventh decile group

  2

  Eighth decile group

  1

  Ninth decile group

  1

  Highest ten per cent.

  1

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey 1998–99

  The Family Expenditure Survey shows the proportion of expenditure of different types of households in the lowest income decile that goes on cigarette consumption in 1998–99 as follows:

  Household composition

  Percentage of total expenditure on cigarettes

  One or two persons retired

  2

  One person not retired

  3

  One adult with one or more children

  4

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey 1998–99
  172W
  There are few non-retired households with two or more adults in the lowest income decile, so sample numbers are too small to provide the percentage for such households.

  Like all estimates from sample surveys, these figures are subject to sampling variability.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effect on the post-tax distribution of income, by decile, of the increases in tobacco duty in the budgets of 1997, 1998 and 1999 combined. [99909]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information on tobacco expenditure by income decile is available in table 1.3 of the Office for National Statistics annual publication "Family Spending".

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) capital spending under the PFI in each year since 1997 and (b) planned spending for the next three years, for each Department; and if he will estimate the impact on revenue to the Government of these PFI projects for each of the next three years for each Government Department. [100848]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury is currently updating the information sought as part of its normal bi-yearly reporting of information on PFI contracts. I expect this information to be published in the first half of December.

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to publish the new framework document for the Office for National Statistics. [100731]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As stated in the recent White Paper, "Building Trust in Statistics" (Cm 4412), the Government intend to publish a Framework for National Statistics as soon as possible.

  House Prices
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what policy options are available to him to dampen house price increases. [100575]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The abolition of MIRAS from next April, higher rates of stamp duty for properties over £250,000, and the Government's new macro-economic framework will contribute to stability in the housing market.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) inquiries have been received by the Working Families Tax Credit Inquiry Line and (b) successful claims for working families tax credit have been made by residents of Pendle. [100626]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The response line for the Working Families Tax Credit and the Disabled Persons Tax Credit had handled 762,000 inquiries up to the 24 November. Reliable estimates for the numbers in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit in Pendle are not yet available.
  173W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of recipients of the working families tax credit who are benefiting from the child care tax credit. [100670]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that 224,000 claims for Working Families Tax Credit were granted during October. Of these, it is provisionally estimated that about 26,000 are in receipt of the child care tax credit.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire will benefit from the working families tax credit; by how much; and if he will make a statement. [100590]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Reliable estimates for the numbers in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit in Shrewsbury and Atcham and in Shropshire county are not yet available. It is estimated that in 2000–01 for the UK as a whole, the first full year of the Working Families Tax Credit, about 1.4 million families will enjoy the more generous help provided by the new scheme. Families in receipt of the credit will receive on average £24 a week more than they would on Family Credit.

  Bio-diesel
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to give tax incentives to those producing bio-diesel from(a) rape seed oil and (b) recycled waste edible oils; and if he will make a statement. [100243]

  Mr. Timms
  There are no such plans. At this time, particularly with the success of the introduction of ultra low sulphur diesel to the UK market, the case for a tax incentive for bio-diesel remains uncertain.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce duty on bio-diesel produced through the recycling of waste edible oils to the same level as on other environmentally-friendly fuels; and if he will make a statement. [100242]

  Mr. Timms
  There are no such plans. There is little information available to support the case for a duty reduction to the same level as road fuel gas, the only other fuel that has a duty rate less than that on ultra low sulphur diesel.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to encourage production of bio-diesel; and if he will make a statement; [100244]

  (2) if he will maintain duty on bio-diesel at the same level as that on mineral diesel; and if he will make a statement. [100222]

  Mr. Timms
  There are no plans to change the current duty arrangements for bio-diesel. The environmental benefits of cleaner diesel fuel are well understood and the UK has taken a lead internationally by encouraging the production of ultra low sulphur diesel. It is not clear that encouraging the production of bio-diesel would add measurably to the benefits already enjoyed.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to forgive the export credit guarantee debt of the world's poorest countries. [100053]
  174W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The terms of the deal agreed at the G7 Summit in Cologne and subsequently ratified by the IMF/World Bank Annual Meetings provides for the forgiveness of 90 per cent. or more of the commercial debts of 41 of the world's poorest countries. Since the Annual Meetings, the Government have said that they are prepared, on a case-by-case basis, where necessary, to go beyond 90 per cent., possibly up to 100 per cent. debt forgiveness where debt relief will finance poverty reduction.

  IR35
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the responses to the Inland Revenue's consultation upon IR35, listing those(a) for and (b) against the proposals. [100141]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Many of those who have commented on our proposals have acknowledged that there is a real problem with avoidance of tax and National Insurance Contributions using personal service companies, and that the Government is right to tackle it.

  We did not issue a formal consultation document, and those who sent in responses would not have expected their views to be published, so we do not intend to do so. However, some of the representative bodies who did take part in consultation have published their own responses, for example, on the internet.

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the Government's strategy in respect of tax avoidance. [100140]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's strategy for tackling tax avoidance is to target legislation at a range of avoidance schemes whose exploitation is reducing tax revenues. Each of the last three Finance Acts has contained important measures to close loopholes and reduce the opportunity for tax avoidance. Further legislation will be introduced in next year's Finance Bill to counter avoidance based on capital gains tax gifts relief. The Government are committed to creating a fairer tax system. Artificial and contrived tax avoidance schemes undermine fairness, at the expense of those who do not indulge in them.

CABINET OFFICE

  Equality
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the Government's approach to equality issues. [100810]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government are working to transform Britain into a society which is inclusive and prosperous. Eliminating unjustified discrimination wherever it exists and making equality of opportunity a reality for all is at the heart of the Government's agenda. Equality of opportunity is not only inherently right, it is also essential for Britain's future economic and social success. Much has been achieved in the last two years. But we are not complacent. A lot remains to be done. We will continue to act to stamp out discrimination, remove
  175W
  barriers and improve the position of groups facing disadvantage and discrimination in employment, public life and public service delivery. We will ensure that the right legislative framework and institutional arrangements are in place and that information, guidance and other support is available to challenge discrimination and deliver fair treatment to allow everyone to develop and contribute to their full potential. That is to the benefit of all—individuals, communities, business—in a healthy, modern, diverse society.

  We will avoid unnecessary and burdensome regulation and will promote, encourage and support progress through non-legislative means. However, we will legislate where necessary or desirable when legislative time permits. In doing so, we will be governed by the principles of improving consistency between the protection afforded to different groups by different legislation, modernising enforcement powers, and by the need for the public sector to lead by example.

  As explained in our response to the Better Regulation Task Force Review of Anti-discrimination Legislation, we will where practicable harmonise the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and align the equality commissions' powers. This will significantly extend discrimination law coverage and strengthen the powers of the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) and the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) to match those of the Disability Rights Commission (DRC). We will legislate to remove barriers to the equality commissions working together on common issues and to enable them to produce joint guidance.

  We are modernising Government. Not only will we continue to tackle discrimination in all institutions, we will champion equality in every sense and at every level. Public bodies must take the lead in promoting equal opportunities and the Government will put this obligation in legislation as soon as Parliamentary time permits. Together with our commitment to implement the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry action plan, this will help ensure public institutions and services are free from discriminatory procedures and practices and should improve the position of disadvantaged groups, both as employees and users of public services. This will not in any way replace or supersede the existing statutory arrangements in Northern Ireland where there is already a duty on the public sector to promote equality of opportunity. We will be looking at, and learning from, the operation of the law in Northern Ireland. We will also build on existing mainstreaming and appraisal guidance to ensure that policies are inclusive, and take full account of the needs and experience of all those likely to be affected by them, and of the impact on particular groups in society.

  We will continue to take action to meet our commitment to remove the under-representation of women, members of minority ethnic groups and disabled people on public bodies; and to meet the challenging targets set for representation of these groups in the Civil Service.

  The Race Relations (Amendment) Bill announced in the Queen's speech, will extend the Race Relations Act to public functions not previously covered, such as law enforcement and immigration. It will implement, and go beyond, one of the Lawrence Inquiry Report
  176W
  recommendations by making it unlawful for public authorities generally to discriminate in the exercise of their functions. This is an important step in the Government's efforts to ensure that the public sector sets the pace in the drive towards equality; and we will extend it to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 when legislative time permits.

  The gender pay gap is indefensible. We will support further action to address this and to achieve greater choice of career, of working patterns and a better balance between work and home responsibilities that will benefit both businesses and individuals.

  We intend to launch a campaign to promote employment policies which help people balance work and life delivered through partnership with employers. Fairness at Work measures are improving parental and maternity leave, and allowing time off for emergencies. The National Childcare Strategy, Working Families Tax Credit, Childcare Tax Credit and the National Minimum Wage are all bringing benefits and removing barriers for women and men. We will consult on changes to Tribunal procedures to speed up and simplify equal pay claims.

  The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 lags behind sex and race legislation in the protection it provides for disabled people. The establishment of a Disability Rights Commission, in April 2000, will address one of the Act's major weaknesses but there are other gaps in coverage. The Disability Rights Task Force, which has been looking at securing comprehensive rights for disabled people, will report shortly. The Government will carefully consider its recommendations. But we are committed to improving the rights of disabled people. Where appropriate legislative opportunities arise, we shall use them to pursue this commitment.

  Further legislation is not enough in itself. Changing negative attitudes towards disability, and indeed all forms of discrimination, is crucially important. We shall continue with our campaign to address the lack of knowledge of disability issues and raise awareness among service providers' of their duties to improve access for disabled people.

  We are certain that a great deal of progress can be made through the provision of information and guidance to ensure awareness of rights and responsibilities. The Government have already produced a Code of Practice on discrimination in employment based on age and proposes, in conjunction with the EOC, preparing a Code of Practice on discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Evaluation of the effectiveness of this Code and consideration of developments in other areas will inform any future decision on the need for legislation.

  The Government are alive to the concerns that have been expressed about the issue of religious discrimination, and to the case for it to be made subject to the law. However, this issue raises many difficult, sensitive and complex questions. We have commissioned research to try to assess the current scale and nature of religious discrimination, and the extent to which it overlaps with racial discrimination, in mainland Britain. The results, due in autumn 2000, will help to inform our thinking about the appropriate response.
  177W
  Clarification of the law and advice will be provided in a number of areas to encourage the adoption of good practice. There will be a code of practice on discrimination against volunteers, guidance on positive action to tackle under-representation of women and ethnic minorities, and guidance on sexual harassment at work. In particular, we are looking at ways of giving small businesses better access to coherent information and advice about equality issues. We are planning to pilot a new joined-up service next year.

  Overall, therefore, we intend to combat discrimination across a broad front, using both legislative and non-legislative means as appropriate, and with the public sector taking the lead. To this end, the Government will introduce legislation as soon as Parliamentary time allows, following a targeted consultation exercise in the first half of 2000; and will press ahead with the non-legislative measures outlined above. Our efforts to combat discrimination are already making an impact and will, in conjunction with new actions, continue to yield results making Britain a better place to live and work for all.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions have taken place between the Government and SEAC in relation to the use of pigmeat and bonemeal in the feed of other farm animals. [99260]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 25 November 1999]: At its meeting on 3 June 1999, SEAC considered a paper prepared by the Meat and Livestock Commission on this subject but concluded that this would not be the right time to relax the ban on feeding pig MBM to other farm animals. My right hon. Friend the Minister asked SEAC to look again at this matter at its meeting on 29 November.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the result of the Veterinary Products Committee's meeting of 18 November in respect of recommended policy towards the suspension of the authorisation of Zinc Bacitracin for use in animal feed. [98550]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 November 1999]: Alpharma SA submitted papers which included new evidence and an assessment of the public health implications of the EU suspension of the authorisation of zinc bacitracin as an antimicrobial growth promoter. The Veterinary Products Committee agreed to consider these papers at its December meeting and, if appropriate, to offer advice to Ministers which would assist in future discussions on whether or not the EU suspension should be withdrawn or made permanent.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of the suspension of the use of zinc bacitracin in animal feed, including its effect on the use of therapeutic antibiotics used in human medicine in animals; and if he will make a statement. [98444]
  178W
  Ms Quin
  Council Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 prohibited the use of bacitracin zinc and three other antibiotic growth promoters. The reasons underlying the Regulation were set out in full in the recitals and included an explanation that bacitracin zinc is used in human medicine and that it could be used for the treatment of vancomycin resistant enterococci in humans. The prohibition has been introduced as a protective measure taken as a precaution.

  The Government's support of the ban was guided by advice from the independent Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) and the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF). Reports from both Committees have been published. The advantage of the ban on bacitracin zinc is that it helps to minimise the risk of the development of resistant strains of bacteria, with the disadvantage that it may add to the costs of poultry production. Three other antibiotic growth promoters are authorised for use in poultry in the EU. Other antibiotics may be used therapeutically under veterinary supervision and their use will depend on the disease condition of a particular flock. There are no figures available on the quantities of therapeutic antibiotics used in farming since the introduction of the ban.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his assessment of the suspension of the use of zinc bacitracin in animal feed on the use of therapeutic antibiotics of importance in human medicine in animals. [98447]

  Ms Quin
  The suspension of the use of bacitracin as a growth promoter is unlikely to have had a significant effect on the use of antimicrobials of importance in human medicine as other antimicrobial growth promoters are available for use in poultry production.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice the Government have received from the British Veterinary Poultry Association on consequences for public health of the suspension of the use of zinc bacitracin in animal feed. [98446]

  Ms Quin
  The Veterinary Medicines Directorate has received a number of letters from the Chairman of the Medicines Working Group of the British Veterinary Poultry Association (BVPA) about the ban on four antibiotic growth promoters. The BVPA's Working Group supported moves to reduce reliance on these products, but sought time before the ban took effect to allow access to appropriate, properly evaluated alternative products. The Government successfully argued for a six-month delay in the imposition of a ban. Three substances—flavophospholipol, avilomycin, and salinomycin—are now authorised in the EU for use as growth promoters in poultry.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect of the suspension of the use of zinc bacitracin on the use of amoxycillin and penicillin in poultry. [98443]

  Ms Quin
  Bacitracin zinc was permitted for use throughout the European Union as a growth promoter in poultry. Its use, and that of three other antibiotic growth promoters, was prohibited from 1 July this year by Council Regulation (EC) No. 2821/98. The Government supported the ban on the basis of advice from their independent scientific advisory committees. Producers
  179W
  were allowed six months between the Council Regulation and the implementation of the ban to adapt their production systems. Four other antimicrobial growth promoters are still authorised for use in the EU.

  Amoxycillin and penicillin are not permitted for use as growth promoters but may be used, under veterinary supervision, for the treatment of poultry disease. There are no figures available to quantify whether there has been a change in the use of these therapeutic antimicrobials since the ban.

  Departmental Estate
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the current value of (i) plant and equipment, (ii) IT equipment, (iii) IT systems, (iv) office equipment, (v) scientific and laboratory equipment, (vi) furniture and fittings, (vii) vehicles, (viii) vessels and (ix) investments and the total for his Department. [99648]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The value of assets of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as at 31 March 1999 were:

  Assets

  £000

  Plant and Equipment

  0

  IT Equipment and Systems

  46,445

  Office Equipment

  3,336

  Scientific and Lab Equipment

  13,808

  Furniture and Fittings

  5,694

  Vehicles

  4,356

  Vessels

  4,907

  Investments

  1,080

  Total

  79,626

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the current estimated value of land and property in(a) Scotland, (b) the UK, (c) overseas and (d) in total held by his Department in the form of (i) headquarters and regional offices, (ii) laboratories, (iii) farms, (iv) buffer depots and (v) other offices, including breakdowns for historic leasehold properties and long leasehold properties. [99663]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The Ministry owns no land outside the United Kingdom. Capital valuations as at 31 March 1999 for Ministry land and property in Scotland and the United Kingdom are shown in the table. However, valuations for the separate categories of accommodation in Scotland are not given. The Ministry owns only three properties in Scotland, all of which are surplus to requirements and awaiting disposal. The individual valuations are, therefore, commercially sensitive.

  £ million

  Scotland

  United Kingdom

  Freehold

  Historic/long leasehold

  Freehold

  Historic/long leasehold

  HQ/Regional Offices

  0

  0

  34.6

  11.4

  Laboratories

  n/a

  0

  228.6

  4.6

  Farms

  0

  0

  26.4

  0

  Buffer Depots

  n/a

  0

  3.8

  0

  Other Properties

  0

  0

  8.9

  0.1

  Total

  1.9

  0

  302.3

  16.1

  Corporate Assets
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the current value of land and property(a) in Scotland, (b) in the United Kingdom, (c) overseas and (d) in total within the responsibility of (i) Covent Garden Market Authority, (ii) Food from Britain, (iii) Horticultural Research International, (iv) the Meat and Livestock Commission, (v) Sea Fish Industry Authority, (vi) Royal Botanic Gardens (Kew) and (vii) the Intervention Board; and what is the value of (1) plant and equipment, (2) IT equipment and systems, (3) office equipment, (4) scientific and laboratory equipment, (5) fittings and furniture and (6) vehicles for each of these bodies and for any other non-departmental public bodies within his responsibility. [99783]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The information requested is not held centrally in the form required and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  New Variant CJD
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the published references to the scientific, medical and agricultural research which indicate that new variant CJD in humans is caused by eating meat derived from BSE-infected cows. [99925]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The association between BSE and variant CJD (vCJD) has been discussed in a number of published articles. Details of those of particular significance are as follows:

  1. Will R. G., Ironside-Zeidler M., Cousens S. N., Estibeiro K., Alperovitch A., Poser S., Pocchiari M., Hofman A., Smith P. G. "A new variant of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease in the UK". Lancet 1996, 347/9006, P921–925.

  2. Bruce M. E., Will R. G., Ironside J. W., McConnell I. D., Suttie A., McCardle L., Chree A., Hope J., Birkett C., Cousens S., Fraser H., Bostock C. J. "Transmissions to mice indicate that 'new variant' CJD is caused by the BSE agent". Nature 1997, 389 (6650), P498–501.

  3. Collinge J., Sidle K. C. L., Meads J., Ironside J., Hill A. F. "Molecular analysis of prion strain variation and the etiology of new variant CJD". Nature, 1996, 383, P685–690.

  4. Lasmezas C. I., Deslys J. P., Demaimay R., Adjou K., Lamoury F., Robain 0., Ironside J., Hauw J. J., Court L., Dormont D. "Experimental transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to macaques". Travaux Scientifiques Des Chercheurs Du Service De Sante Des Armees 0 (18), 1997, P123–124.

  5. Will R. "New variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease". Biomedicine-Pharmacotherapy, 1999, 53, NI, Feb, P9–13.

  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC), the independent expert group that advises the Government on all aspects of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, regularly reviews relevant published articles. The committee has concluded that the results of experiments reported in these articles provide convincing evidence that the agent which causes vCJD is the same as that which causes BSE.

  Industrial Fishing
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for the reduction of industrial fishing in the North Sea. [99746]
  181W
  Mr. Morley
  I expect to see shortly Commission proposals reflecting the advice given in June by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas on the need for a closure of the sandeel fishery in the Firth of Forth.

  TACs
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what total allowable catches are recommended by ICES for(a) pout and (b) sand eels; and what were the catches of these fish in each of the last two years. [99755]

  Mr. Morley
  ICES has not made specific recommendations on the size of the total allowable catch for pout and sandeels in 2000, but has advised that the level of stocks can sustain the continuation of current fishing mortality. ICES estimates North Sea landings in the last two years as follows.

  Thousand tones

  Norway pout

  Sandeels

  1997

  201

  1,140

  1998

  75

  993

  Sea Defences (East Sussex)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to change the level of spending on sea defences in East Sussex. [99717]

  Mr. Morley
  I have no plans to change the level of spending on sea defences in East Sussex. This Government announced an increase of £23 million in Ministry funding for flood and coastal defence over this and the next two years as part of its Comprehensive Spending Review. Applications from operating authorities for Ministry funding will continue to be considered against established technical, economic and environmental criteria, and within a national priority scoring system.

  French Meat
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that the sale of meat produced by illegal means, with particular reference to the use of human sewage or animal sludge, is declared illegal and that such meat is unavailable for circulation throughout the European Union. [99506]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 24 November 1999]: We are advised that, on the basis of available information, there are no public health grounds for banning French or other meat with regard to human or animal sludge in animal feed. The UK fully supports the Commission actions to see that rules are commonly interpreted and properly enforced.

  Meat Labelling
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance his Department has issued to meat producers on the labelling of meat products for sale(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) overseas. [99721]
  182W
  Ms Quin
  We are currently consulting interested parties on guidance aimed at ensuring that country of origin markings on all food labels, including meat products, do not mislead consumers about the true origin of the ingredients that have been used. The guidance relates to UK food labelling requirements, which themselves derive from European rules. We would therefore expect a similar approach to that set out in the guidance to be adopted for the sale of meat products overseas.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will request that the European Commission allows the country of origin labelling required for British beef sold in Europe to contain a promotional message. [99747]

  Ms Quin
  Under Council Regulation 820/97, it is permissible but not obligatory for British beef sold in Europe to be labelled by country or region of origin. Operators are free to label beef with a promotional message (e.g. other indications as regards quality) if they so wish, subject to the provisions of that Regulation.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase consumer confidence over food safety. [99631]

  Ms Quin
  The Government has already taken a number of measures to improve consumer confidence in food safety though greater openness and transparency, putting consumers first and giving them the information to make informed judgments. Following the passage of the Food Standards Act 1999, this work will be carried forward by the Food Standards Agency, when it begins work next Spring.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many pesticides have been banned from use in the United Kingdom by his Department since May 1997. [99524]

  Ms Quin
  Pesticide products may have their approvals revoked for a number of reasons. Since May 1997,929 pesticide products involving 229 active substances have had their approvals completely revoked. The reason for the vast majority of these revocations was as a result of a commercial decision by the approval holder not to continue marketing the products in question.

  Business Advice Service
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department' s Business Advice Service. [99212]

  Mr. Morley
  My Department currently operates a Business Advice Service for exporters in our sectors, in close liaison with British Trade International. This service is run directly by my Department through its International Relations and Export Promotion Division for agriculture and fisheries goods and services, while for processed food and drink it is entrusted to a non-Departmental Public Body, Food From Britain.
  183W
  Both operations were recently subjected to separate external reviews of their efficiency and effectiveness. I am happy to say that in both cases over three-quarters of the business users surveyed expressed complete satisfaction with the service, and well over half the users surveyed confirmed that their export performance has already improved as a result.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many statutory notices have been issued under Article 18 of the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997. [99290]

  Mr. Morley
  1,168 Notices were recorded between 1 October 1997 and 19 November 1999. These notices were served for infringements of the Order and to facilitate the legal transport of unfit animals for treatment or slaughter. It is not possible to split the figure between these two purposes.

  Covent Garden Market
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the disposal of Covent Garden market; and what plans he has to bring forward legislation to permit this disposal. [99462]

  Ms Quin
  We shall bring forward legislation concerning the disposal of New Covent Garden Market when Parliamentary time permits.

  Pig Farming
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what forecasts he has made for the economic prospects of the pig farming sector over the coming year. [98579]

  Ms Quin
  Despite being some 15 per cent. higher than at this time last year, UK market prices for pigs remain below break-even levels. Expected reductions in production in other Member States should help stabilise the market, although prices do not seem likely to improve significantly in the near future.

  Beef Bans
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what negotiations he has had with(a) Bulgaria, (b) Latvia, (c) Lithuania, (d) Malta, (e) Romania and (f) Slovakia over lifting their bans on British beef; and if he will make a statement. [98738]

  Ms Quin
  The UK has approached the authorities in the six listed countries as part of a concerted campaign to lobby non-EU countries to lift their import bans, where they exist, or to agree the necessary export certification. This follows up, and builds upon, earlier approaches to key potential markets, which included Malta and Slovakia. Malta has said that they are currently maintaining their ban on the import of British beef. The other five countries listed have not so far formally responded to our approaches.
  184W
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what negotiations he has had with(a) Poland, (b) Hungary, (c) the Czech Republic, (d) Estonia, (e) Slovenia and (f) Cyprus over lifting their bans on British beef; and if he will make a statement. [98737]

  Ms Quin
  The UK has approached the authorities in the six listed countries as part of a concerted campaign to lobby non-EU countries to lift their import bans, where they exist, or to agree the necessary export certification. This follows up, and builds upon, earlier approaches to key potential markets, which included Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Cyprus. Cyprus has said that it will permit the import of British beef. Estonia has said they are currently maintaining their ban on the import of British beef. The other four countries listed have not so far formally responded to our approaches.

  Turkey Imports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the numbers of overseas produced turkeys that will be imported into the UK during the Christmas period. [98451]

  Ms Quin
  Forecasts of turkey imports for the Christmas period are not produced. However, imports of fresh and frozen whole turkeys into the United Kingdom totalled between 8,000 and 10,000 tonnes in the fourth quarters of the last three years. In addition, imports of turkey cuts, which are not subject to the same level of seasonality, totalled between 5,000 and 6,000 tonnes in the same quarters.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in obtaining approval from(a) the European Union and (b) the Treasury for financial assistance to the pig industry with regard to the extra costs of offal disposal resulting from the BSE problem in cattle. [99047]

  Ms Quin
  In discussions with the European Commission, it was clear that there would be considerable difficulties in devising a scheme to meet the cost of pig offal disposal which complied with state aid rules. Until there is a proposal which could prove acceptable to the European Commission, there is no basis for seeking additional funding.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what recent representations he has made to(a) the European Commission and (b) the Council of Ministers on the subject of the British pig industry; [100689]

  (2) what recent discussions he has held with (a) the European Commission and (b) the Council of Ministers on support for the British pig industry in respect of costs of BSE. [100691]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Minister wrote to Commissioner Fischler on 20 October urging him to reopen the Aids to Private Storage scheme and reinstate the special refund on exports of fresh and frozen carcase meat and cuts to Russia. Officials in the Department have
  185W
  also discussed with the European Commission the costs faced by British pig producers because of BSE and the possibility of introducing a pig offal disposal scheme. In addition, officials attend the monthly Pigmeat Management Committee meeting, chaired by the Commission, which looks at all aspects of the situation in the EU pigmeat market. The Council of Agriculture Ministers discussed the crisis in the pig sector at its meeting on 15 November.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the National Pig Association; and if he will publish the outcomes of those discussions. [100688]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Minister met representatives of the National Pig Association on 5 October and a joint communiqué was issued following the meeting. I will be meeting the National Pig Association on 6 December, when I hope to discuss issues surrounding the current state of the UK pig industry.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings his Department has held with representatives of the European Parliament concerning the pig industry. [100692]

  Ms Quin
  Although no such meetings have been held we have kept interested MEPs informed of the situation in the pig sector by correspondence and telephone briefings.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has held with the Council of Ministers concerning pigmeat food aid exports to Russia. [100690]

  Ms Quin
  The subject of exports to Russia under the food aid programme was raised in the Pigmeat Management Committee meeting on 10 November. The European Commission made clear its aim of opening tendering procedures shortly for the 42,000 tonnes of pigmeat left outstanding from the earlier exercise. Discussions in the Agriculture Council have been on the Russian food aid programme as a whole rather than on specific commodities.
  186W

  Badger Culling
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress in the Randomised Badger Culling trial. [98736]

  Ms Quin
  Five of the ten triplets proposed for the trial have been announced so far. Culling operations have taken place in two triplets. Survey work has been completed in one further triplet and has been started in the others. We expect to announce one more triplet before the end of 1999, and the remainder next year.

  Farm Woodland
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons there have been delays in payments under the farm woodland premium scheme; when he expects payments to resume; and if he will make a statement. [100695]

  Mr. Morley
  Claims for payments this year under the farm woodland premium scheme have been, and continue to be, processed. Up to Friday 26 November, in England, 4,038 payments have been made out of 5,061 claims received (nearly 80 per cent.). All outstanding claims are being processed as quickly as possible with the aim of clearing all acceptable claims before the end of the year.

  Farm-based Tourism
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies he has(a) initiated and (b) received concerning the obstacles to developing farm-based tourism; what action he is taking as a result of these studies; and what funds are available to him to support such action. [100271]

  Mr. Morley
  No such studies have been initiated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Government's Tourism Strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism", launched earlier this year, recognises tourism's role in maintaining the viability of farm businesses. The European Council Rural Development Regulation (1257/1999), which applies from 2000, enables member states to support projects to encourage tourist and craft activities, among other things. A decision on the implementation of the Regulation will be made shortly.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
Kenneth William, Lord Bishop of Portsmouth—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Birmingham and the Lord Bishop of Guildford.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
Jonathan Sansbury, Lord Bishop of Derby—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Lichfield and the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Elections: Turn-out
2.43 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton Lord Smith of Clifton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether low voter turn-outs at all levels of election are a cause of concern and, if so, what steps they are taking to improve them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, of course we are concerned, about low turn-outs. The Queen's Speech contains three Bills concerned with electoral matters. The first, which will modernise our electoral procedures, is having its Second Reading in another place this afternoon. Bills to create an electoral commission and to allow for directly elected mayors will follow shortly.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, it does not convey the degree of urgency demanded by the political situation. We have had turn-outs of under 10 per cent in local government by-elections; our score has been the lowest in the European elections, with only a 24 per cent turn-out; and in October, a MORI poll indicated that over 50 per cent of those under 35 do not intend to vote. The situation requires greater remedy than this. Should not a task force be set up, as many have been in regard to other matters, to examine this urgent question and report back with speed?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we share the noble Lord's concern about low turn-outs. It is a problem that currently afflicts many democracies across the world, but it cannot be cured overnight. Responsibility rests with political parties and candidates to ensure that people feel engaged and want
714
to participate in elections. We in government believe that we are playing our part. For that reason we are introducing three Bills which will have considerable bearing on the electoral process. The Representation of the People Bill will modernise procedures and lead to a rolling electoral register, giving homeless people, remand prisoners and mental health patients the opportunity to vote more easily. It will be made easier for people to cast postal votes and local authorities will be entitled to run pilot schemes to encourage innovative electoral procedures.
The Government take the issue seriously. We want the maximum co-operation and participation from parties in Parliament to put our legislation on to the statute book. I believe that, as a result, we shall see turn-out and interest in elections increased. All those in politics would be much impressed by that, and would benefit from it.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the number of times that the electorate is being asked to vote may have some bearing on the matter? Are not people fed up with being asked to vote so often, whether it be in European parliamentary, local or regional elections, as well as general elections? Perhaps rarity might lead to an increased turn-out rather than enforcing elections so often.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought that the purpose of a mature democracy such as ours was to enable people to express their opinion on matters of the day and to take part in elections. I do not think that electoral fatigue is the only explanation. This is a complex issue. We can all play our part in politics to encourage people to join in the political process. That is one of the reasons why we want to see, for example, citizenship courses encouraged in schools to encourage and engage young people in particular as they appear to be less engaged in electoral politics than are older generations.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, surely the noble Lord will agree that there is something very obvious and direct that can be done; namely, the European Parliamentary Elections Act could be amended to get rid of the fundamentally repugnant and anti-democratic closed list/regional list system which all sides of this House had the good sense to send back to the Commons five times, and on which the nation has delivered its judgment by turning out in the smallest number ever in a national election, when only 23 per cent voted. Does the Minister agree that that requires immediate action and that the Government should take the lead?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I realise that I am in danger of arguing a difficult case. The wisest course of action is to let the electoral system that was

715
used in the European elections bed in. It is in use in 70 per cent of European democracies. It must be given time to work through.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree—
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords—
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Does the Minister recall that his right honourable friend the Home Secretary told another place during the passage of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill that after the election there would be a review of how the procedures had worked? Is it not time, in the light of the other legislation that is to be laid before the House, for the Government to reconsider their decision to impose the closed party list system on this country? For the first time in our history, the electorate has been denied the right to vote for individual candidates and has been forced to vote for political parties. As the noble Lord, Lord Shore, said, does not that help to explain the dismal turn-out in this year's European elections?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am confident that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said that the electoral process used would be subject to review. However, I remind your Lordships that the system used in the elections for the Welsh Assembly and for the Scottish Parliament was a PR system on a closed list. Participation in those elections was far higher.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if any of the three Bills to which he referred actually does anything to cure the problem, that will set a precedent? It is most unlikely that the load of legislation which we now face will do anything but add to the deep dullness which affects the electorate. Perhaps he could also reflect on the fact that not everything that happens in politics is intrinsically entertaining. In a world that craves entertainment, we must resign ourselves to some dullness and particularly to the fact that the presentation of politics by some of the candidates is abysmal.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps I may be forgiven for saying that I find the world of politics endlessly interesting and entertaining. So long as noble Lords like the noble Lord opposite are involved, politics will continue to be endlessly entertaining to me.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the difficulty of engaging young people in politics. Is he aware that from the nature of my job I spend a great deal of time listening to them? What I hear from them shows as much concern about political problems as
716
there has ever been, but a deep lack of faith in the possibility of political solutions. Does that indicate a problem which is wider than the answers so far given by the Minister, welcome though many of those answers have been?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am well aware that the noble Earl is in regular contact with young people, as are many Members of your Lordships' House. As to speculating on whether younger people are disengaging from the political process, all I can honestly say is that my 10 year-old son takes a great interest in politics. I hope that many more of his generation continue to do so. We in this House have a part to play in ensuring stimulating debate among younger generations.

Belarus: Political Repression
2.52 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the subject of political repression in Belarus was discussed at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe's Istanbul summit meeting.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Belarusian political situation was discussed at the Istanbul Summit. The summit declaration emphasised the need for real political dialogue in Belarus to pave the way for free and democratic elections and real democracy. Senior Finnish officials, representing the presidency of the European Union, met Belarusian Foreign Minister Latypov in the margins of the summit and underlined the European Union's continuing concerns about political repression in Belarus.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her helpful reply. Can she confirm that since last April no fewer than three prominent men and one prominent woman have disappeared in that country without trace? The former prime minister and two parliamentarians are currently in prison, while other opposition members face prosecution. Is that not an unacceptable situation in a country that has been a member of the OSCE since 1993?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is, and Her Majesty's Government are aware of the situation detailed by the noble Lord. The European Union issued a declaration on 23rd September calling on the Belarusian authorities to investigate the disappearance of Mr Gonchar, the deputy chairman of the 13th Supreme Soviet, and all other cases in which politically active figures have disappeared. Unfortunately, Her Majesty' Government have no information about the whereabouts of these people, but we are pursuing the

717
matter with vigour. We hope that we may have some good news about Mr Chigir later today, but I am unable to say what it may be.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the noble Baroness received any reports from the OSCE delegation which saw leaders of the trade union movement in Belarus recently? I think it was on 24th November. The leaders asked the OSCE to convey to the rest of Europe and to the world outside their dismay at the repression of trade union rights in that country and their hope that the OSCE would do something about it. Was anything said on that in Istanbul? Are there any concrete measures to restore trade union rights in Belarus?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Belarus was discussed at the margins at Istanbul and was included in the communiqué made in relation to that matter. I cannot directly advise your Lordships about whether the trade union movement featured in particular. However, human rights and political repression in Belarus are serious problems. As your Lordships know, the EU has effectively frozen the relationship. We are pursuing surrounding issues as vigorously as we can to ensure that there is a clear understanding of the EU's abhorrence of the general approach being taken by the Belarusian Administration.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government accept that the referendum of 1996, from which President Lukashenko is currently claiming his mandate, was subject to irregularities? As such, it demonstrates some of the dangers of relying on referendums as a mechanism for testing the will of an electorate. Will Her Majesty's Government make representations to authorities in Belarus about the situation?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have been, and are, concerned about that referendum. Noble Lords know that it took place in 1996 and sought to change the basis on which the presidency could continue. That matter was raised on behalf of the EU and formed the basis of the GAC conclusions in February 1997. So the efficacy of the movement was underlined clearly as being unacceptable in terms of structure. The issue was raised and continues to be raised.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government discussing the issue actively with Poland and the Baltic states, given that if those countries join the EU within the next five years, Belarus will have a direct border with the European Union?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the matter has been discussed generally, particularly within the EU. As noble Lords may recall, the EU framed a démarche to the Belarusian authorities on 14th October 1996 concerning the referendum and other matters. It is obviously of great concern, and the discussions continue.

South East England: Development
2.58 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they reconcile their intention to build many more residential homes in south east England with the relative absence of brownfield sites and the creation of new national parks in the area.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government will consider carefully the recommendations of the independent panel into the draft regional planning guidance for the south east, particularly the recommendations on the numbers of additional dwellings needed between 1996 and 2016 and the proportion which should be built on previously developed land. We will consider the recommendations and all the representations made on the draft RPG before consulting widely in the new year. The Government are introducing new planning policies and will shortly publish revised planning guidance on planning for housing. The proposed designation of the new national parks will have little effect on the total capacity of the region to accommodate new residential development.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my interest as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. I thank the noble Lord for that reply. But is it not a fact that the Government seek to reconcile the irreconcilable? When will they decide that perhaps they should stop encouraging business and people to migrate to south east England? Has the Minister read the recent report of the South-East England Economic Development Agency that wishes to see the south east develop as one of the economic hot spots of the world? That is all very well. However, is not the end result likely to be too many houses, too many cars, even too many jobs, in the south east at the expense and impoverishment of other regions of Britain?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we believe that the total position of the south east needs to be assessed in terms of economic development, housing and transport. That is why this is a very difficult problem. We have to consider different estimates of housing need in the region. Various projections, some of which end up with different numbers, all indicate an increase in both population and inward migration to the south east. Most of the inward migration is not from the north of England, as alleged, but from London itself. The rest of the increased demand for dwellings in the south east arises from internal issues such as population growth and changes in household formation.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in the light of the acute water shortages suffered in the south east during the long hot summers of the past few years, can the

719
Minister say how the Government intend to supply water to an extra 1 million homes, especially as the aquifers are so low?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand that the appropriate water companies are taking measures to address that question. Clearly, natural resources as well as housing and road-building are very much part of a holistic approach to the future of the south east region, its position in relation to the rest of the country and the question of where development is most appropriate.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in view of the fact that the issue is the proportion of brownfield sites to greenfield sites, can the Minister inform the House what success he and his officials have had in persuading councils and planning authorities to be more positive, even militant, in ensuring that a greater proportion of development in their areas takes place on brownfield rather than greenfield sites?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend will be familiar with the fact that the Government have a national target of 60 per cent of all new developments taking place on brownfield sites. We believe that within the south east, as in other regions, there is scope for a more substantial concentration of these developments on brownfield sites. It is the case that the south east has the lowest density of housing provision. There are also issues about density of provision, particularly the new provisions required within the urban areas of the south east.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of the large number of houses in serious disrepair, as revealed by the latest house condition survey, does the Minister agree that high priority should be given to the repair of houses to meet future housing need and to make housing conditions better for people who presently inhabit those dwellings? Will the Minister try to persuade his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to alter the VAT rules which at the moment encourage new house building and deter people from improving existing houses?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's latter point, and no doubt I can relay it to the Chancellor. As to the state of repair of the housing stock within the south east, the noble Lord is right. We have provided substantial additional resources to local authorities and others in both the public and private social housing sectors to improve the state of household repair where there are existing inhabitants. The number of vacancies within the south east is very limited and will make only a small contribution to meet the total of new housing demand.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, when the Minister looks at the new policy will he also consider a point that I have raised with him in earlier debate; namely, that in the 40 per cent of greenfield sites to be
720
used it is perhaps wise to use up small in-fill sites where the services and infrastructure already exist rather than take virgin fields?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in general the noble Baroness is correct. Guidance on development that takes place on greenfield sites needs to be geared to services and transport and water infrastructure, as the noble Countess just reminded us. Therefore, in general terms, although not in every case, the noble Baroness is right.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, do the Government acknowledge that this is not just a matter of numbers but whether the housing is affordable?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes. One of the problems of housing in the south east is that as a result of pressures prices are now beyond the reach of many people on average and below average incomes. That has a further distorting effect, and it is one of the aspects we must address. It is related to my earlier point about density of housing.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that this residential development will be in areas where there is work? If not, the amount of traffic engendered will considerably increase congestion on the roads in the south east.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is important that all these matters are taken together. Industrial and commercial development needs to be considered together with transport and housing development, thereby minimising the degree of pressure on transport infrastructure as well as housing.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in many areas of the south east, particularly the Thames Valley, there is so much demand for every service at the present time that life is becoming a positive hell and traffic management utterly impossible? Do the Government not understand that to imply and give planning permission for even more housing will only encourage development in the south east, which will cause further problems? That development should be located in other regions of the country where jobs and housing are badly needed. Will the Government do something centrally to enable this decantation of population and jobs to take place?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that lying behind my noble friend's question is the importance of recognising the pressure on resources in the south east. Development of regional policy in other parts of the country should be seen to complement whatever we do to relieve pressure in the south east. It is, however, possible to envisage a benign scenario for the south east where prosperity is still engendered, as the regional development agency wants, without adding to pressures in an unsustainable way. A more positive

721
and rational approach to planning in the south-east region can be achieved through consensus among local authorities and businesses without the rather dire predictions suggested by my noble friend.

Benefit Entitlement
3.8 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that disentitlement to means-tested benefits is a form of social exclusion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I am not sure that I entirely understand the Question. If I do, I am afraid that I do not agree with it. Anyone who has an underlying entitlement to a means-tested benefit may draw that benefit if he or she complies with its conditions, such as seeking work. Therefore, the issue of social exclusion does not arise.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the definition of "social exclusion" from which this process is itself excluded?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, social exclusion is a multi-layered problem. To quote the words of the Prirne Minister, it is,
"A short-hand label for what can happen when individuals or areas suffer from a contribution of linked problems—such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown";
in other words, social exclusion is "joined-up problems".
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I appreciate the substance of her response to the noble Earl? However, we should be very careful indeed about disentitling anyone. If that person has no money whatever, it means that the safety net has been snatched away arid he or she can no longer participate in society. That creates both a sad and an explosive situation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Government do not wish to disentitle anyone from benefit to which he or she is entitled. The Government seek compliance. For example, we want young people to work with personal advisers to obtain and hold down a reasonable job. We want lone parents to co-operate with us in naming the father of the child so that the child gains in maintenance. We want offenders to observe their community sentences. But clearly, if they fail to comply with the conditions and therefore compliance fails, ultimately enforcement and sanctions kick in. However, we seek to change the culture.
Any such sanctions are on the individual. There is a complete network of hardship payments so that those who are vulnerable—they may have poor mental or
722
physical health, suffer from disability, be pregnant or have dependent children—have entitlement. So I am confident that the situation my noble friend describes will not arise.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is the Minister saying that, if those people do not have any of these mitigating circumstances, they will be starved into submission?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may give an example. Jobseeker's allowance is a benefit for those who are unemployed. The entitlement to that benefit is matched by a concomitant responsibility to seek and hold down a job. If someone can sign on for benefit, he or she can come in simultaneously for an interview. That is what we seek to do. It is no kindness never to allow young people of 18 or 19 to come into the labour market. If they d o not do so, they will remain forever socially excluded because they are poor.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the Minister's answer mean that those disabled people who have been excluded from incapacity benefits under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act, although they have contributed to them, will not as a category be regarded as socially included? Does the noble Baroness agree that many of them should be regarded as socially excluded and referred to the Social Exclusion Unit?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, hardly. For example, those who will not be eligible for incapacity benefit will be disqualified only because they already enjoy a healthy occupational pension of 12,000, £14,000 or more. As a result, I hardly think that they would fit the definition of the noble Lord, or anyone else, of socially excluded.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's remarks. Does the noble Baroness accept that many of those who serve our community by working with some of the most vulnerable people in our society are nevertheless anxious that a fundamental principle is at stake in public policy; namely, our common duty to defend and provide for those who do not have the means to participate in the system? Those people are anxious about the drift in public policy lest it leaves people inadvertently excluded.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is the Government's policy that no one should be inadvertently excluded. I share the position of the right reverend Prelate on that. Having said that., the entitlement to a benefit is matched by a responsibility for observing the conditions that go with it—for example, the willingness to seek work.
The right reverend Prelate is right. I am sure that for too long too many people—they may include lone parents, some ethnic minority communities, or young lads with little formal education and a history of

723
truancy—have been consigned to the margins and the twilight of our society. They have received an inadequate Giro cheque; and they can expect the next 40 years in poverty. They were born in poverty; they live in poverty; they will die in poverty. It seems to me that society imposes social exclusion on them because we are not willing to stand shoulder to shoulder and tackle their problems alongside them. It is government policy to tackle problems so that we bring such groups from the twilight into mainstream society where they can enjoy the richness of life. That is what we are determined to achieve.

Benefit Entitlement

  Business
  3.14 p.m.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, after the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Appointed Day) Order 1999, my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the beef-on-the-bone ban.

  Statutory Nuisances (Hedgerows in Residential Areas) Bill [H.L.]
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for hedgerows in residential areas to be a statutory nuisance. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
  On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Appointed Day) Order 1999
3.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th November be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Appointed Day) Order 1999, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.
I believe that this debate is a great occasion for Northern Ireland, in a week which will see enormous change for the better in that Province. For the past 30 years, Northern Ireland has been known throughout the world as a place of conflict, of deep-rooted division, prejudice and sectarian violence. That is changing, and today we take another step along the road to peace and a new partnership.
The Good Friday agreement reached on 10th April last year in Belfast is the solid foundation for that partnership, and the appointment of new Assembly Ministers last night is a further expression of the desire
724
of the Northern Ireland political parties to build upon it. The people of Northern Ireland can look forward to the new century with fresh hope and confidence, and to the opportunity to build a stable and prosperous future.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has now determined, as he is required to do by Section 3 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, that sufficient progress has been made to set the date for the devolution of power to the new Northern Ireland Assembly.
It is therefore my very great privilege to present to the House an order which will bring into effect devolution for Northern Ireland, based on the Good Friday agreement. This order specifies 2nd December as the day on which devolution will take place in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will also bring into effect, by a separate order, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Commencement NI) Order, the remaining provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. From midnight tomorrow night power over a wide range of matters will be transferred to new Northern Ireland Ministers, accountable to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The Secretary of State today signed two orders which established the ten new departments of the Assembly and transferred functions to them. The orders will come into force tomorrow. The departments will deal with matters such as health, education and training, agriculture, social and regional development, environment, trade, culture, arts and leisure. They will be led by the ten new Northern Ireland Assembly Ministers elected at Stormont yesterday. From Thursday the Assembly will be able to legislate freely on these areas of responsibility enabling people to make decisions, in partnership, about the administration of public services in Northern Ireland. Consequently, I will no longer have the responsibility of bringing legislation in these areas before this House.
Some areas of responsibility, for example policing, parades, prisons and criminal justice will, for the time being, remain reserved matters and the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
A new British-Irish Treaty will come into force on the same day, which will bring into being significant new North-South institutions, in place and functioning from 2nd December. And, most fundamentally of all, we shall have a settlement of the constitutional argument that has been at the root of the conflict in Northern Ireland: a settlement which provides for the question to be decided according to the principle of consent.
This principle does not require anyone to give up their legitimate political aspirations about the constitutional future of Northern Ireland, but places the decision on Northern Ireland's future firmly in the hands of the people who live there.
Devolution on 2nd December will allow Northern Ireland to follow Scotland and Wales along the path to accountable regional government. It has taken longer than we hoped, but devolution is now finally in sight. Yesterday the Northern Ireland Assembly took

725
another step on that path. Those Ministers appointed yesterday represent both main traditions in Northern Ireland; five are Unionist and five are Nationalist. I am sure the House will join me in wishing them all well in their task of managing the new Northern Ireland departments.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Dubs: My Lords, also on 2nd December, the new British-Irish agreement will also come into effect, following an exchange of notifications between the Governments. There will be a new North-South Ministerial Council and six new implementation bodies to handle specified North-South matters accountable to the Dail and the new Northern Ireland Assembly.
The Irish Government will immediately make a declaration that will bring into effect the amendments to Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution and our own amendments to the law on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland will also come into force. The principle of consent will therefore be enshrined in the constitutional law of both countries.
Working together has been the key to securing the Good Friday agreement and to resolving the difficulties in its implementation. The fact that I am able to bring this order before the House today represents a real political achievement by the political leaders and parties in Northern Ireland. A year ago, some of those leaders would not meet, let alone co-operate in finding a way forward for Northern Ireland; yet in the recent review of the implementation of the Good Friday agreement, they met face to face, debated and negotiated intensively for 11 weeks.
The debates were friendly, and issues were often argued with conviction, but they were also, at the end of the day, real political negotiations between responsible politicians whose first concern was to find the best way forward for Northern Ireland. The new and better relationships between those political leaders show how much has changed for the better in Northern Ireland, and demonstrates that politics works; violence does not.
I know that there are those in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, including possibly some in this House, who remain sceptical. There is particular scepticism about decommissioning and concern about what the Government will do if it does not happen. I believe that it will happen. We have said throughout that we want devolution and decommissioning and we hold to that view. That is why the Secretary of State has said, publicly and in another place, that if there is default either in operating the devolved institutions or in decommissioning, the new institutions will be suspended. We shall ensure that no one profits by default.
If the institutions are suspended, our objective would be to restore the situation as quickly as possible, guided by the Good Friday agreement. During a period of suspension, direct rule would have to resume, but we would operate it sensibly, taking into
726
account the views of the parties. But I believe that this will not be necessary. I believe that we have the support and good will of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland to make devolution work. Let us give it a chance. I hope that, whatever their misgivings, people, whether members of the public or political representatives, will now join in operating the new institutions for the common benefit.
Many people deserve gratitude for their part in creating this new opportunity for Northern Ireland. We must, first and foremost, acknowledge the vision and courage of the political leaders in Northern Ireland who have taken great risks to come this far. I believe that history will vindicate their judgment and their commitment. David Trimble has achieved for Unionism the approval of the Irish territorial claim, being sought by Unionists. As First Minister in the Assembly, he will continue to lead Unionism in the new devolved administration. Seamus Mallon rightly deserves the office of Deputy First Minister and will bring to that job the same qualities of vision and practical wisdom he demonstrated as leader of the SDLP negotiating team. John Hume has worked tirelessly to remove violence from Northern Ireland politics, and has seen that achieved in the Good Friday agreement. Gerry Adams, with political courage, has brought republicanism into inclusive power-sharing government and deserves credit for his effective leadership in achieving this.
The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have both invested enormous time and effort in resolving the political problems of Northern Ireland, and their close working relationship has been an important factor in our success. President Clinton, too, has provided unfailing support and assistance throughout the process. His involvement has been invaluable.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the contributions made by the previous Prime Minister and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew.
Most of all, we owe an enormous debt to Senator Mitchell, who agreed to take on the role of independent facilitator for the review of the implementation of the agreement. Senator Mitchell brought infinite patience, wisdom, determination and political skill, and it is due largely to his energy and commitment that I am able today to tell the House that devolution for Northern Ireland will at last become a reality and that the other aspects of the agreement will proceed. I am sure that the House will join me in expressing our gratitude for his dedicated effort on our behalf. With the permission of the House, I should like to extend the gratitude to his wife Heather and young son Andrew, who have had to endure his absence in our service, often at short notice and great inconvenience, over a very long period.
Finally, perhaps I may make special mention of the Secretary of State and his predecessor, Mo Mowlam. Both have worked tirelessly to achieve peace in Northern Ireland and have endured much frustration and political criticism. This Thursday, 2nd December, will see their efforts crowned with success.

727
I can tell the House that if the order is approved tonight in this House and in another place, Her Majesty has agreed to hold a special Privy Council tomorrow when the order may be made.
Northern Ireland's history, although a short span of years, is not short of political events. Many of them will be familiar to this House. This order, although one of the shorter pieces of legislation I have brought to the House, marks one of the most significant of all these. It represents the triumph of normal democratic politics over violence as a means of accommodating different traditions and viewpoints in Northern Ireland; a new commitment, entrenched in the pledge of office taken by the new Northern Ireland Ministers, to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods.
There will of course be difficulties ahead. However, I am confident that the political representatives in the new Northern Ireland Assembly, working together, will overcome them and deliver peace and prosperity to the people of Northern Ireland. I am sure that this House will join me in wishing the new administration in Northern Ireland every success as it takes on its new responsibilities. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th November be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I sincerely thank the Minister for moving this historic order. Today, we are taking another momentous step forward down the road to the culmination of the peace process in Northern Ireland, which was started by my right honourable friend John Major many years ago. Thanks to the patience and dexterity of Senator Mitchell, the support of President Clinton, various Prime Ministers and the determined courage and leadership of David Trimble and other party leaders, a political balance has been reached which allows the setting up of the Northern Ireland Executive and the devolution of power to the Province.
However, this is not the end of the process but, I suggest, the end only of phase one; and I am not convinced that the most difficult phase has yet been completed. David Trimble and the Unionists have jumped, but will Sinn Fein and Gerry Adams decommission? I suggest that the world is watching and waiting—hopefully. It is now for the British and Irish Governments to ensure that the decommissioning of all paramilitaries takes place as soon as possible.
The Conservative Party strongly supports the Belfast agreement, which we see as offering the best chance for lasting peace and stability in Northern Ireland. We have always made it clear that we want to see the agreement, which builds on a process we started in government, implemented in full. As a result, we warmly welcome the order. It finally brings to an end the system of direct rule from Westminster and once again enables Northern Ireland's priorities to be determined by locally elected representatives. In short, it returns the democratic principle to the people of Northern Ireland.
728
We now look forward to the full implementation of the Belfast agreement, including the establishment of an inclusive, devolved government and the decommissioning of all illegally-held arms and explosives by May 2000.
The Conservative Party continues to believe that it is fundamentally wrong for democrats to be expected to sit in government with representatives of fully-armed terrorist groups. However, as my right honourable friend William Hague made clear in the debate on the Queen's Speech, we have always said that we could accept,
"the formation of an inclusive Executive alongside the beginning of a credible and verifiable process of decommissioning, leading to complete decommissioning by May 2000 in accordance with the Belfast Agreement".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/99; col. 17.]
We believe that the statements made by the Northern Ireland parties and the Provisional IRA now offer the prospect of achieving the twin goals of decommissioning and devolution. In our view the formation of the Executive and the beginning of the process of decommissioning should begin virtually simultaneously.
However, there is a note of caution. The terrorist threat has not yet gone away and organised crime flourishes under cover of the various paramilitaries. A high level of security, policing and vigilance must remain in the Province, and, I suggest, on the mainland, despite the political problems that that may create. We must hope that Sinn Fein will encourage its constituents to support the forces of law and order in the Province for which it now shares responsibility in government.
I do not wish today to anticipate the debate on the Patten report, except to say that while many of the recommendations are not in dispute, there are some which are—such as the cap badge insignia and the name, to which we would not have recommended changes. However, there is a third category which, in our opinion, it would be dangerous folly to consider before there is a lasting peace. Those familiar with the report will know what those are and will be glad to hear that I do not intend to enunciate them today. We sincerely hope, however, that the Minister will reassure the House that the Patten report will be treated with the utmost sensitivity and caution. I suggest that the two fundamentals to be addressed are the need to maintain control of law and order and the need to win the support of the republican community to support the forces of law and order of the Province.
We passionately want the process to succeed and agree with the Secretary of State that we should be preparing for success not failure. However, in the event of any terrorist not delivering, we believe that the Secretary of State should give his full backing to the First Minister, David Trimble. Mr Mandelson told the House of Commons on 22nd November that,
"if there is default, either in implementing decommissioning, or indeed for that matter devolution, it is understood that the two Governments, British and Irish, will take the steps necessary to cease immediately the operation of the institutions—the Executive, the Assembly, the North-South Ministerial Council,

729
the British-Irish Council, the Civic Forum and the north-south implementation bodies".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/99; col. 346.]
We believe that in that situation the democratic process should not he allowed to cease and that the democrats should not be made to suffer. Will the Minister assure the House that that is the Government's intention?
In summary, we support the bipartisan approach to Northern Ireland; we support the Good Friday agreement; we support the Government's decision to devolve power to the Northern Ireland Assembly; and, while we support the Secretary of State's approach to the default mechanism, we ask him to ensure that in the event of a default—from wherever it may come—it will not be the democrats who suffer.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise on behalf of the Liberal Democrats to express our full support for the order and for the process which it implements. I should like greatly to join the tributes given already to Senator Mitchell and to the political leaders in Belfast, at Westminster, in Dublin and in the USA. I add one name to those already mentioned; that is, my noble friend Lord Alderdice, who is now the presiding officer of the Assembly. His Alliance Party is unfortunately not represented in the Executive, but it has for many years been a quiet and effective voice for peace, justice and sanity amid the fury and the shouting.
This is not an occasion for celebration. The time for celebration will come if and when we are ever able to get rid of the Byzantine complexities of Part III of the Northern Ireland Act and allow an executive to be formed on a more usual basis such as we know in this country. However, if this is not an occasion for celebration, it is certainly one for relief: relief that the peace process has got as far as it has in its voyage and has escaped the rocks which could so easily have smashed it. It is an occasion also for hope; hope that the process will continue and that the Act will provide and prove to provide a workable solution which will lead ultimately to the end not only of the violence which has scarred both Northern Ireland and Great Britain for the past 30 years but an end also to the hatreds which have divided Northern Ireland for four centuries.
Some concern has been felt about the holding of important offices by Martin McGuinness, in the case of the education department, and Peter Robinson in the case of the Department for Regional Development. I hope that the Minister will be able to say which checks and balances are in position to allay people's fears about actions by Ministers representing parties whose views are highly controversial. For example, is it correct that a cross-community committee will work with each Minister and that such a committee will have to approve secondary legislation? That is one matter on which I hope that we shall be able to obtain clarification. Broadly, we believe that these provisions are to be greatly
730
welcomed as a step, and perhaps a crucial step, although clearly not the final step, towards a final settlement of the problems of that unhappy Province.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I, too, welcome this order and the constitutional changes that it brings to our Province. We are where we are today as a result of the courage and the amazing efforts of successive governments. I, too, wish to pay tribute to past governments, the present Government, Secretaries of State and the people of Northern Ireland. I pay tribute not least to Mr Mandelson, David Trimble and those who supported him last Saturday, which was all important. It is now up to Sinn Fein/IRA to come up with the goods—namely, decommissioning. It is wrong to dwell on that matter at this moment. Suffice to say that it is as easy for them to give up weapons as it is for them to refuse, and they should get on with it.
It is not only the Unionist politicians who have had to swallow the unpalatable and concede principle time and time again while Sinn Fein/IRA concede nothing. No one should underestimate what the ordinary people of the Province have had to put up with for so long. In addition, we now have Martin McGuinness as Minister of Education. It is often said, and it is right and true to say, that our future lies in the hands of the younger generation. Imagine the effect in Great Britain if such a post in Westminster were to be held by a terrorist godfather who has yet to prove that he has turned away from his past.
That is only one example among many of the extraordinary courage and trust being shown by the citizens of the Province in their fervent hope of a peaceful future. Remember that the loyalist and republican terrorists are only on ceasefire; they are not yet at peace for ever.
The future will be a difficult and hard road. I should like to mention one of the key issues which will affect how the future develops. In order to move forward we need to maintain a peaceful environment, although we must remember one essential fact: the terrorists still exist. Some observe the ceasefire and some do not; some are mainstream and some are dissidents.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Viscount. Does he agree that in recent times more Catholics have been killed by Protestants than Protestants have been killed by Catholics?
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl knows better than I. I do not have the facts at my fingertips.
We know the potential of the mainstream terrorists, but we must realise the potential of the dissidents. They are more sophisticated than they have ever been and in my view they are as strong in numbers as they were in 1972, the early days of the campaign. Your Lordships can see the potential problem, even if the mainstream on both sides decommission. What stands between us and catastrophe is the RUC, backed up by other security forces in the North and South of Ireland.

731
I congratulate the RUC on the award of the George Cross. That is a tremendous tribute to the outstanding service of members both past and present. I declare an interest in that my mother and elder sister were among the first to join the Women's Police Reserves.
Everyone knows something about the Patten report on policing in Northern Ireland. I do not want to go into it in great depth, but perhaps I can put a few things into perspective. First, Sinn Fein/IRA have demanded the dismantling of the RUC. Is that a surprise? If one asked the criminal underworld in any part of Great Britain for an opinion on their local police force, it would not be difficult to guess what their answer would be.
Secondly, there is the possibility of the change of name, badge and the times when the flag may be flown. Taken as a whole, changes of the kind suggested will simply lower the morale and operational efficiency to combat the known terrorist threat, let alone the everyday crime and law and order issues that continue at present and will continue even if there is peace.
Will such matters help recruitment? I think not. Even without those changes, recruitment from the Nationalist community is already rising at a remarkable speed. The percentage of Roman Catholics applying to join the RUC in the last competition—apparently it is called a competition—was 22.3 per cent. The competition is not yet complete so we do not know how many will get through, but in my opinion the Roman Catholic police officers in Northern Ireland are among the very best. I have no doubt that many of them will get through.
What is wrong with the word "Royal"? The Royal Victoria Hospital is in Nationalist West Belfast and is known, affectionately, by the Nationalists as "the Royal". There are many other examples. In Dublin the Royal Dublin Society is the largest and most respected cultural society in the republic. The RNLI operates in waters both North and South. The badge already contains the Irish harp and the shamrock. Nationalists, other than the extreme, are relatively happy with the Union flag. For your interest, the genuine calls to the RUC for help from Nationalist areas have increased dramatically: Newry, up 24 per cent; Waterside, up 22.7 per cent; and Woodburn, up 12.6 per cent. Those are examples of what the peace process is beginning to yield without the dismantling of the RUC. On those issues I ask the Government to halt the pandering to the violent, terrorist and criminal underworld.
There are those who say that we cannot cherry-pick at the report. However, the parts of the report that are not so good must be dropped or amended. I have three important general points to make on the recommendations in the body of the Patten report. First, in 1995 the Chief Constable of the RUC instigated a review and I believe that over 100 of the recommendations from that review are his or emanate from the police themselves.
732
Secondly, some recommendations have been shown not to work elsewhere in the United Kingdom. An example is the limit of tenure in certain posts such as Special Branch. On 21st October this year the last Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police said, in a speech to the Police Federation, that the tenure policy had not worked. I quote from the Mail on Sunday of 21st November:
"Scotland Yard's new Commissioner John Stevens is to scrap the controversial policy blamed for plunging standards among detectives.
"The 'tenure' scheme, which forces specialist police officers to change jobs every few years, was introduced by Sir Paul Condon but it will be seen as the biggest mistake in his seven years as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police".
I do not damn him for that. Sir Paul Condon admitted that to the Police Federation, so the view is not just that of the new Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
Thirdly, every change costs money. Among such costs would be new uniforms at £3 million and replacing armoured vehicles with new civilian standard vehicles at £13 million. From where will that money come? Is the Treasury ready to put it forward? Now is not the time to discuss the detail. No doubt we shall have a debate later. I ask the Government not to be too hasty in their implementation of all the Patten reforms.
In conclusion, I support the order and wish our Assembly and new Executive well in the future.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I share to the full the evident feeling with which the Minister introduced this order. He introduced it in words that were characteristically generous towards his predecessors.
From the beginning of direct rule in Northern Ireland it has been the hope and the ambition of succeeding administrations that democratic, devolved government would be restored, but restored only on terms that were fair and just to everybody living in the Province.
For long periods of time that elusive objective seemed remote indeed. Now we have an agreement which represents not so much a step as an enormous leap towards that objective. I want to express my gratitude for and admiration of the way in which it has been prepared and for the courage with which it has been executed.
It is a leap which has saved the people of Northern Ireland, for a short time at least, from a poisonous political stalemate. It offers them an enormous opportunity. Of course, it is not without risk. I believe that the risks are manageable and justified. The potential gains are enormous, not least in the development of cross-border organisations.
I have felt that surely it must make sense to make common cause in areas where there is an undoubted common interest. I believe that, as that process develops—it has already been established in some instances—it will have an important effect on the development of confidence.

733
In my humble opinion Mr David Trimble has shown himself equal to the most testing demands of leadership. The Secretary of State, building upon and fortified no doubt by the Good Friday agreement that was achieved in his predecessor's time, has firmly, perceptively and constructively rekindled confidence and the willingness and readiness in others to take risks. I gladly pay tribute to him for that.
I cannot know, but perhaps the greatest part in this momentous development has been played by that extraordinary man, Senator Mitchell. I warmly endorse what has already been said about him. He thought he had taken on a three-month task, but he stayed with it for five years. I hope that in future, when people are tempted into a generic denunciation of the motives of all politicians, they will remember George Mitchell and desist.
If this leap of faith had to be taken, and if devolved government had to be shared with Sinn Fein in today's dangerously unsatisfactory circumstances, I can see that it was necessary that a final decision by the Ulster Unionist Party should be postponed. But I have no doubt that the spirit and the intent of the Good Friday agreement require at the very least an immediate start to the decommissioning of arms to the independent commission headed by General de Chastelain. If that unprecedented act of faith were to be spurned, then the whole world would know where the responsibility for the result lay and would recognise the true character of those carrying that responsibility.
I wish God speed to the arrangements which this order will set in place. But as I do so I cannot avoid reflecting on how much they will owe to the RUC's heroically staunch resistance to violence and terror over all these years. As the Minister said, it has been shown that politics work and violence does not. It was the RUC in the main, though not exclusively, which created the circumstances in which politics have been able to show that they work. The RUC was always in the front line, upholding the law to which it too was always subject; and it acted for all the people in Northern Ireland. It is important that its sacrifice and achievement shall never be seen to be devalued in the days which lie ahead.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, this is a great day in the history of both Northern Ireland and southern Ireland. I speak as someone whose home is in County Westmeath, southern Ireland, but I wear an Irish Rugby Union tie given to me by an Ulster Protestant. When I was Leader of this House I went to Lansdowne Road and saw a United Ireland team play England. I cheered for Ireland. It was said, "You cannot do that. You are paid by the Brits." I said, "No, I am afraid I am Irish." So I speak as an Irishman.
It is a great day. There are a number of heroes, not least the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, who did wonderful work for peace in Northern Ireland. But the highest praise goes to the Prime Minister. I am not always uncritical of this Government, although I am a loyal and obsequious supporter. This is his finest achievement. No one but Tony Blair could have brought it off, though Mo Mowlam, Peter Mandelson
734
and others have done much of the work. Above all, when I pray about all this—and I pray about it constantly—I pray for Mr Trimble. I do not know him, but his task has been the hardest of all. I therefore salute him and the many others concerned.
When all that is said and done, this is a great opportunity. People say how marvellous it is for Mr Trimble to be sitting down with a representative of terror. I read a book on the Irish treaty of 1921. It said that when Michael Collins, who became what they liked to call a great "terrorist" leader, came to Downing Street with a delegation, it was doubtful whether the British delegation would shake hands with him. Lloyd George solved the problem by shaking hands himself with the Irish delegation and introducing its members to the others.
Those were the tensions at that time. Southern Ireland has been a colossal success by any possible standard. When I was a boy the children attending the school in front of our house were in rags; now their standard of life has risen to that of the British. It has been a wonderful achievement and I look forward to similar success for Northern Ireland.
We hear a great deal about decommissioning. There was reference by the speaker for the Opposition to decommissioning all round. There is to be pressure on the IRA to give up some of its arms; I hope that it succeeds. But is any pressure being placed on the Protestants to give up their arms? They have just as many. I leave that question with the Minister.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, showed characteristic courage in mentioning the place of prayer in his own participation and concern in this process. I want to add that many people on both sides have prayed for peace. The Church and many outside the Church will be committed to continuing to pray for the new arrangements as they have prayed for peace up to this point.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, this is either a great day for the future of the Province of Northern Ireland, for the island of Ireland and for the United Kingdom, or it is a tragedy. If it turns out to be a great day, we can look forward at long last, as many speakers have said, to a period of peace and prosperity after 800 years of agony, of which the past 30 have been a leitmotiv behind the political lives of every Member of your Lordships' House.
As we all recognise, this agreement is an enormous prize and one emphatically worth taking risks for. It has been made clear during the course of today's contributions that risks have been taken everywhere; no more perhaps than by the Ulster Unionist Party. Like other noble Lords, I pay tribute to Mr David Trimble for his outstanding courage and leadership.
The biggest risk that all of us are taking in supporting the order today—it is certainly one that I support—is that terrorists on both sides, in spite of all that has happened over the past few years, are still prepared to hold the Armalite and Semtex in reserve in

735
case they cannot achieve their objectives through the ballot box alone. It is "belt and braces" of a particularly horrific kind which all those who take part in the political day-to-day lives of this country do not even begin to think is an option open to the rest of us. The least we can ask is that those taking part in parliamentary government in the Province for the first time should abjure that option if we are to look them in the face and deal with them on equal terms in our political day-to-day transactions.
If decommissioning does not take place; if a timetable is not established and adhered to; and if the process is not certified as being complete by General de Chastelain by the May deadline, today will turn out not to have been a great day in the history of our country and of Ireland, but to have been a tragedy, not least because we will once again have raised expectations in the hearts of the people of the Province only for them to be dashed. I am therefore wholly in agreement with those noble Lords who have made it plain that the matter now rests firmly in the hands of terrorist organisations on both sides of the sectarian divide, and in particular with IRA/Sinn Fein. If they do indeed show that they have given up the Armalite in favour of the ballot box, we will welcome them unreservedly into the councils of the devolved Assembly; if they do not, then those who have said that the risk was not worth taking will have been tragically vindicated.
I hope that the Minister, who has always been extremely patient in his dealings with the House on Northern Ireland matters, can give us an undertaking in his reply that, if the paramilitaries do not begin to decommission according to a timetable established by General de Chastelain, the Government will not yield to what I am sure would be an overwhelming temptation to try to appease a little more and to stretch the elastic of tolerance a little further. They have asked an enormous amount of those of us who have always doubted whether in fact the paramilitaries on both sides really intended to give up their weapons and abide by the same political rules as the best of us. If they fail to do so this time, unless the Government support those who have taken the risks that all of us have recognised this afternoon, surely they will letting us and the system down—a system by which we hope that everyone will abide. If they do that, I hope that they will also recognise that there is a possibility that the risks we are all taking this afternoon will not be seen in the event to be justified.
If that tragically turns out to be so, I trust that the Minister will also be able to give us an assurance that, until decommissioning has taken place and the paramilitary organisations on both sides are seen to have given up the option of the Armalite in favour of the ballot box, the security services both here and in the Province will be kept in a finely-honed state of repair so that they are able to counter what will, unfortunately, certainly turn out to be a resurgence of the terror that we all fear.
736
In that respect, I also hope that the Minister will be able to give an assurance that the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which was awarded the George Cross—so richly earned, we all agree—will continue to be recognised as the first line of defence against terrorists on both sides of the sectarian divide, not only for those in the Province but also for those of us on this side of the water. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to repeat the undertakings given by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State in that respect, which were quoted by my noble friend Lord Glentoran.
This could be a great day. With the benefit of hindsight in six months' time, I hope that it will indeed have turned out to be so. If so, no one will be more delighted than I finally to pay tribute to all those who played such a part in taking the risks which brought about that success.
4 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I add my voice to the words of welcome and support that have been expressed for this order, so excellently introduced by my noble friend the Minister. A new page in the troubled history of Northern Ireland was vividly presented yesterday and has been suitably processed in this House today. In searching for, strengthening and establishing a democratic political framework suitable for the situation in Northern Ireland, this order now seeks to provide the elements that will regularise the situation. In that framework, elected representatives of the Assembly may promote, uphold and effectively pursue policies and programmes for social justice and equitable human relationships.
There are now some 21 Peers in this House who have, over the past 30 years, held and experienced ministerial office in Northern Ireland. We heard earlier from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, about his experience. I wholeheartedly support and welcome the words with which he presented the framework for this piece of legislation. At this time, it is invaluable for us to understand that we in party politics—that is, assuming that we are all involved in the political arena—are not suitable for presenting the forms of reconciliation that are necessary in an ecclesiastical framework. I hope that we are engaged in the role of providing accommodation for the building of co-operation between political organisations; in other words, building on the establishment of a framework of co-operation, which can progressively bring about new understandings in political life.
The framework in this particular order is restricted to the situation in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Assembly will not be dealing with many of the matters that have been mentioned here today. During the initial proceedings of the Assembly yesterday, I feel sure that noble Lords will have noted that the Presiding Officer, Lord Alderdice, conducted the business with studied expertise, understanding and much sensitivity. His name has already been mentioned, but I believe that he undertook an outstanding piece of work yesterday in

737
reconciling—if that is the proper word to use in such a situation—the various interests involved in those discussions.
We should also note that there are many effective, trained and knowledgeable civil servants and other personnel who are available to undertake the duties of the devolved Assembly. The matters devolved to the Assembly and the procedures for implementation have been set out in strict terms. Issues arising from the Patten report and various other matters will be debated at Westminster in due course. They will not be allowed to present themselves, in the first instance, during the Assembly's discussions. Finally, I join other noble Lords in giving this order suit able support.
Lord Renton: My Lords, should we not gratefully acknowledge the encouragement and support given by the Government of the Republic of Ireland in this matter? Indeed, does the Minister agree that, without their help, this agreement would not have been achieved and that decommissioning can succeed only with their co-operation?
Lord Laird: M y Lords, I am delighted to be able to support this order today. I am from Belfast and I have been a member of the Ulster Unionist Party for 35 years. I have spent all my life living in the Province and have many relations there. I should like to underline the remarks that have been made in the House this afternoon about the turmoil inside the Unionist community that has been caused in the past few months, especially in the past few days, by the very difficult and courageous decision that Mr Trimble and his official Unionist Party have taken.
As I said, I have been a member of the UUP for 35 years. I cannot emphasise strongly enough the turmoil and the difficulty that has been caused. I have lived through arid witnessed sights that I would not wish to describe to anyone in this House. I have lost work colleagues, relations, friends and next-door neighbours in tragic circumstances. Yet it is to the great credit of the party to which I belong, and to the inspirational leadership of David Trimble, that we have reached the position in which we find ourselves today.
I should like to think that Her Majesty's Government will recognise fully the courageous stand taken by Mr Trimble. I hope that they will also recognise that as regards anything that is likely to happen in the future if Mr Trimble's courageous stand is not matched by terrorists of all hues over the next few months, those of us who believe in the democratic process and have striven hard to return Northern Ireland to the democratic rails and to get that society back on the rails should not be penalised in some way. I support and identify with those noble Lords who have said that it is important that those democrats do not pay the penalty for the failure of terrorists to decommission.
I also identify with the tributes that have been paid to those noble Lords who have played a role in the affairs of Northern Ireland over the past 25 years. In
738
that regard I do not wish to leave out the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, whom I am glad to see present today. The noble Lord played a significant role in the affairs of Northern Ireland at a difficult time. He performed his task tremendously well in difficult circumstances.
I also wish to pay tribute to the Minister, who is, and will be for the next few hours, an extremely good Minister who has been well received in Northern Ireland. Yesterday I heard an agriculture correspondent on a local radio station describe the Minister as a very popular Minister. I wonder how many agriculture Ministers can be described as popular in the current climate! That is a tribute to the noble Lord. I ask the House to recognise the role that he has played and his popularity. We are excited at the prospect of having affairs in Northern Ireland back in our own hands but there is a sadness at losing old friends such as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
I wish to underline the remarks that have been made about the Patten report and the difficulties that may lie ahead if the totality of that report is implemented with regard to the police force. This could constitute a major problem which could stand in the way of the future development of Northern Ireland. Again refer to the turmoil in which the Loyalist and Unionist community has found itself over the past few months. We do not wish to push those good people, to whom I belong, any further through unnecessary, ill calculated and ill judged reforms on important aspects of policing in Northern Ireland.
We all appreciate that the days ahead will be difficult. We are only at the start of a long and turbulent voyage. However, there is much goodwill. I appreciate the remarks that noble Lords have made about the future. I wish the process well and I shall certainly support the order.
4.15 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I believe that the whole House will be extremely grateful for the words of the noble Lord who has just spoken on behalf of the Ulster Unionists. They are typical of the constructive part the Ulster Unionists have played at this crucial time.
We have heard mentioned the prayers of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and of the right reverend Prelate. One should always be grateful for prayers and I hope that they will include me in them. However, I hope that I may suggest a subject for more general prayer; namely, one of the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity. I refer to hope. There has been so much gloom and caution expressed in this debate. However, this is a great day for Northern Ireland and for the United Kingdom. It is a great day for the Republic.
Of course it is not the end of the novel, but it is the end of a splendid and hopeful chapter. Without this chapter the story could not possibly have gone on. The event which has taken place yesterday and today

739
represents not merely the best chance of having peace and justice in Ireland for 30 years but the best chance since the settlement of 1922. There has never been a moment like this. Although there has been a Stormont in the past, it has been a Stormont composed of a majority imposing their will on the minority. This is a very different kind of Stormont. It is an amazing achievement and one which we should welcome.
I speak as an old-fashioned Tory, Catholic, Unionist. I can make that plain without fear because as a breed we are practically extinct. I have taken the keenest interest in the Irish question. I was sent by Mr Heath to Long Kesh in 1973 to see the conditions there and to report back to him. The lesson I learnt from that visit was that this was not primarily a religious struggle. The religious labels were there but this was a racial struggle between two different sets of people struggling for a piece of territory and with one set not willing to allow for the difficulties which existed and with the other set not willing to afford justice to the minority. As a result of the breakdown between Mr Heath and Mr Faulkner, Stormont was abolished. I thought that was an error then and it is not with hindsight that I say that I think it is an error now.
But now we have a new start. Of course there will be difficulties. There will be difficulties all the time. There is a great cultural difficulty which we should not forget; namely—if I may put it in this way—the English can remember nothing and the Irish can forget nothing. How does one get out of that impasse? The only way to get out of it and to move forward is to have hope in the future. That is why I reiterate the need for hope at this junction in our affairs.
Many have contributed to this process and many have sacrificed their lives. The noble Lord who represents the Ulster Unionists referred to that in his moving speech. People from every side have made the supreme sacrifice. They should never be forgotten, but we do them no service unless we are prepared to use their memory to advance, not to bear resentment and grudges. Forgiveness is a difficult thing. It is difficult, above all, for those who have suffered wrong.
Different Prime Ministers have played different parts in this process. Let us not forget the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who sent the British troops into Northern Ireland. What was the purpose of that? It was to protect the Northern Ireland Catholics from intolerable threats and dangers. That was his contribution and it was a real contribution, although it brought other problems in its wake.
My right honourable friends Mr Heath and Mr Major have both given of their best in this effort. They have been able to carry the torch—as in a relay race—that bit further forward. The present Prime Minister, Mr Blair, has made his contribution to this process. I shall not mince my words. I shall say what I believe; namely, that no other Prime Minister has shown such dedication, spent so much time and tried so hard over a long period to bring the parties together.
740
He has given the matter a priority that we have not seen a Prime Minister give it since the times of Mr Gladstone. That is the historical truth of the matter.
A noble Lord: That is a bit over the top.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, it may be a bit over the top—but it is better to be over the top than under the bottom.
I want also to pay tribute to Mr Trimble and Mr Adams. They have done something extremely difficult; they have transcended the sectarianism of their own followers. One can transcend other people's sectarianism easily enough. But when they are the people on whose support one relies, that is a true test of statesmanship.
I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Glentoran reiterate the bipartisan nature of support in the House for the policy on Northern Ireland. The Conservative Party is under a moral and political obligation to maintain that bipartisan support. He did so nobly, as did my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, who knows more from experience about this subject than most Members of the House, including myself.
Bipartisanship does not rule out the possibility of criticism; it does not rule out the right to advise, the right to warn and the right to delay, if necessary. But it does rule out irresponsibility, carping, mean-mindedness and any desire to exploit the situation for partisan purposes. To play an effective part in this process requires from the Opposition a certain generosity of spirit. The debate has shown that that generosity of spirit is there. It will be fully needed if we are to resolve the challenges and gain the great prizes now within our grasp.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned bipartisanship. Full praise should be given to the late Lord Whitelaw who started the process from 1972 onwards. We all learned from him and the process has gone on ever since. He should not be forgotten.
The noble Lord also referred to the question of whether it was a religious battle in Northern Ireland. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland I gave a dinner party for Conor Cruise O'Brien and invited a number of people. A lady at the table asked him, "Is it a religious question, Mr O'Brien?". I think he taught in Belfast before the war. He replied "When I taught, there was a blues team and a greens team. One of the greens players, the Catholic players, fell in the penalty area and writhed like Lawrence Olivier. The crowd shouted from the stand 'Send him to Lourdes. Send him to Lourdes-. He then said, "No, it is not a religious problem."
Congratulations have been widely and freely given—as they should be—to all those who have been involved in the Northern Ireland question over the years. I place particular emphasis on the part played by Northern Ireland politicians. At times they were infuriating. Sometimes we asked ourselves, "What do

741
they want?" But they lived in an area where they needed a police guard, where their homes needed a police guard, where they were met off an aeroplane by armed policemen. It should not be forgotten that they live a different political life from most of us on this side of the water.
We have been in this position once before—at Sunningdale in December 1973—when a devolved administration came into effect. My noble friend was a deputy leader at that time. However, it failed. It failed because the party of Mr Brian Faulkner—who also showed great courage—deserted it. Mr Trimble last week very much reversed that development against Brian Faulkner. When I first got to Northern Ireland there was a violence campaign in Belfast. The place was aflame every night. There was also the Ulster workers' strike, which showed what a divided part of the United Kingdom Northern Ireland was. Anyway, the Sunningdale Executive collapsed.
I have often thought about what we should learn from that time of devolved administration. Perhaps two points should be taken into account. I am not denying the greatness of today, but there is the question of money. As my noble friend will remember, it is easy enough for people to sit around—not a coalition, but a Cabinet table—and talk about money they do not have to provide and to devise schemes without thinking of the wherewithal to provide for them. Money does not grow on trees—and money was beginning to be a problem. It needs wise politicians and skilled civil servants to get over that hurdle. This is not a coalition. We are not forming a coalition government in Northern Ireland—I will come to that in a moment—and government will not be easy. It easy to stand in front of a television camera and be feted, but the actual day-to-day administration is a difficult task.
After the Ulster workers' strike in 1974, it required only an Order in Council by the Westminster Parliament to end the power-sharing executive. I believe it requires more than that now. If the arrangements in Northern Ireland are to be ended, it will require primary legislation on the Floors of both Houses. Perhaps my noble friend will confirm whether I am right in that belief. One never knows what will happen in the months ahead.
As to the question of a Secretary of State, we need a Secretary of State to deal with the responsibilities of Northern Ireland. One of the failures in the past has been that for 50 years Northern Ireland worked to a small general department in the Home Office. It will require a Secretary of State to deal with reserved matters, not a Secretary of State shared with Scotland and with Wales.
There are problems are ahead. Today and the rest of the week will be great for Northern Ireland. We must all do our best to help in every possible way. I congratulate the present Government and Mr Major and his Secretary of State. It is all of a one. There are times in the political scene when we are gloomy and think of all the things that can go wrong. Let us not
742
think of the things that may go wrong. Let us think of what might happen and let us congratulate ourselves on a good day.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in a notable speech—which was not too far over the top—my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley rightly said that the confrontation is not a religious one. It is a racial, tribal confrontation. However, there are areas where the religious and tribal boundaries coincide quite importantly. One of those areas is in education. It is now 20 years and six months since I found myself sitting at one end of a table with Humphrey Atkins, as he then was, at the other end dishing out ministerial jobs in Northern Ireland. The very last one to be called was education. I was a teacher and it was given to me.
Yesterday, in the Assembly, I understand that the various ministerial responsibilities were dished out, and very nearly the last one was education. There was a qualified teacher there but the post was given to Mr Martin McGuinness. Whatever the reason for that choice, it will be thought to have been intended to be a signal.
Further on in his speech, my noble friend said that while bipartisanship restricted one in various ways, it did allow one to warn and to advise. With great humility, I should like to do that in this context. If this frail craft is to succeed, we have to wish all the crew the best that they can possibly have, and we have to support them. If the crew want it to succeed, they should listen to what help we can give.
My perception of an incoming Minister for Education in Northern Ireland is that he or she is regarded with the deepest suspicion by all people who do not share precisely his or her background. I believe that it took me between 18 months and two years to convince the Roman Catholic hierarchy that I was not secretly in the business of seeking to dismantle their control of their section of education. At the time that was furthest from my thoughts.
If my, I hope, fairly gentle exterior and modest past were sufficient to alarm that experienced and elderly community, think what the effect of the appointment of Mr Martin McGuinness must do to the confidence of the parents of Protestant children in Protestant schools, whether secular or otherwise. With great diffidence, I offer to Mr McGuinness the advice that if he wants to play a constructive role in the building of a self-confident and democratically governed Northern Ireland, it will take a great effort of persuasion and some kind of significant gesture on his part to show that his heart really is on the side of the children of all backgrounds. They are the future, and I believe their parents think that they are at risk. After all, the parents are the electorate and it is they who, in the end, will have the say on what happens. Therefore, it is down to Mr McGuinness, as it is down to other members of the Executive, to convince those of other persuasions that they are unquestionably intent on the benefit of all members of the society which they govern and of children of all persuasions.

743
I am sorry to have broken nearly 20 years' silence on this subject but it seemed to me too important to let the opportunity pass.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, no one who has not suffered 30 years of murder, mutilation, bombing, arson and intimidation has any right to criticise those who have so suffered and who now opt for peace at almost any price. No doubt those of us on this side of the water would act in much the same way if we had the misfortune to find ourselves in a similar position. That was indeed the case in 1938 when the people of Britain as a whole had the horrors of the Great War still etched deeply into their minds. Let us hope that the euphoria of 1999 is not dashed as was that of 1938.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, last week in this House the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in his capacity as Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, invited me to go there yesterday because of the connotations between the setting up of the executive yesterday and the setting up of the executive on 1st January 1974. I did so, and I am glad that I did. For me, yesterday was a day laden with emotion from the time that I entered the Assembly until I left yesterday evening.
I recall vividly that on 1st January 1974 when I became a member of the Sunningdale Executive I believed that I had reached the apex of my political career. I had striven over many years to bring together the warring factions in Northern Ireland—the unionists and nationalists. On that day, I believed that I had achieved that ambition. For the next five months, every day was a horror to me. It was not only the Ulster workers' strikes which brought the Sunningdale Executive to an end; they were ably aided and abetted by the IRA, some of whose members spoke in Stormont yesterday afternoon.
I remember in February 1974 coming along Donegall Place and Royal Avenue. During the lifetime of the executive, a bomb went off in a taxi and killed people at the bottom of Divis Street. A crowd immediately gathered. When they saw me, they said, "You said that this would all stop if the executive came into being—if we agreed with what you did." I could give them no answer. From then on, we had the Ulster workers' strike led by some very distinguished people.
Yesterday, I congratulated David Trimble on the courage he showed last Saturday. Had David Trimble not been successful in bringing his party with him last Saturday morning, the whole experience of the past two or three years of negotiations would have toppled in on him. His party and the people of Northern Ireland would have been subjected to a criticism untold and unheard of before. Very courageously, he brought his party with him, enabling the debate to take place here today on the devolution of power. However, in 1974 David Trimble was opposed to the Sunningdale executive; Bill Craig was opposed to the Sunningdale executive; and Ian Paisley was opposed to the Sunningdale executive, as he is opposed to this Executive.
744
However, this time there is a difference. In 1974, for the first time, there existed in these islands the concept of power-sharing, which no one before had ever thought possible, between the main parties, Conservative and Labour, with the adversarial system of "You win one time, you lose the next." Sunningdale was a very noble experiment under the tutelage of the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath, and the Secretary of State, Willy Whitelaw.
I now want to express some optimism. At that time, the concept of trying to bring together different factions was a new one. We tried, despite the terrible, turbulent history of religious and warring divisions. And we were very nearly successful. During the five months we sat in the executive—the Unionists from Northern Ireland, the Alliance Party and the SDLP—I discovered that every day we found something on which we could agree. Every day we sat there as Northern Ireland people—as Ulster men—and we tried our damnedest to find agreement, while outside the bombs were going off on the Upper Newtownards Road and all over Northern Ireland. It was an impossible task. The then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, and I sensed it on the Labour Benches. My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees was the Secretary of State. It was the first time they had been faced with such opposition. And it was called the Ulster workers' strike. It was not the Ulster workers' strike; it was a fascist strike, led by fascists and supported by fascists and by loyalist and IRA murder gangs. It was not carried out by workers. Yet my colleagues in the other part of this building, as Members of Parliament, were taken in. Even trade unionists in Britain said to me, "But they are Ulster workers. We cannot be seen to be opposing the Ulster workers." I remember very well when the then leader of the trade union movement was brought over to Northern Ireland to tell them it was not a workers' strike. He received a very hostile reception at the Queen's Bridge in Northern Ireland.
This time is different. There are four parties. Four parties will make it more difficult to find agreement. However, yesterday I went into the Members' bar, the Members' tea rooms and the committee rooms where I saw Sinn Fein people talking with official Unionists; I saw Alliance people supporting the re-election of Seamus Mallon as deputy chief. I questioned many of them and came away with the distinct impression that they would fight tenaciously to keep the Executive in existence. The difference is that when Brian Faulkner met with violent opposition, he did not have anyone to support him. This time the Executive has the support of the British Government, the Irish Government, Irish America and the President of the United States. All those people have contributed over many years to bring this Executive into existence.
I said yesterday in a TV broadcast—and I hope that I did not offend too many people—that I have found it very difficult over the past two or three years to agree with legislation in this House which actually made my stomach churn: the release of murderers, the release of prisoners, and concession after concession made to paramilitary organisations.

745
I well remember the debate on the crisis that has arisen in relation to the return of the bodies of the disappeared, when I supported the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. We very nearly carried a vote in the House. No one talks any more about the disappeared, but it is still a burning issue to those who have lost their loved ones. I said yesterday on two or three occasions, and I say it again in this House, that a book entitled Lost Lives has been written by four distinguished journalists in Northern Ireland. It illustrates in great detail every murder that has taken place in Northern Ireland since the onset of the present troubles. It sets out who the people were, their religion, their marital status and the effect of the murders on the wider community from which they came.
I particularly interested myself in the murders that took place after the breakdown of the Sunningdale executive in May 1974. I was able to say yesterday—and many people supported me—that all those deaths were totally unnecessary. People were going into the Executive yesterday and they could have had exactly the same thing 25 years ago. Instead we have had the terrible tragedy of all those deaths. I do not think that those in the Executive will allow that to happen again. I have the distinct impression—and there are some in the Executive with whom I have never had any political relationship—that they will go in there and do everything they can to make it work.
I left Northern Ireland this morning. I know that great fear and suspicion exists there about some of the appointments made yesterday. It seems out of this world that Martin McGuinness is Minister of Education in Northern Ireland. I know that there is now great fear within the Protestant community. But let me say this—and I do not speak lightly in support of terrorists. I do not believe that Martin McGuinness would discriminate in any way in favour of any religious sect in Northern Ireland. I believe that he will accept his responsibility. I cannot see him discriminating against Protestants. The whole Northern Ireland community, Catholic and Protestant, would rise up in anger if he attempted to do so. But I do not believe that he will do so.
Therefore, I say that we could have had this 25 years ago. We have it now. It has the support of major political parties and four different governments. I believe that it will work. At the time of the 1974 executive no one ever mentioned the word "millennium". We certainly did not hear about websites and e-mail. The world has advanced tremendously since then. I regarded 1st January 1974 as the most important political day in the millennium of Northern Ireland. That has been superseded by yesterday. All I can do is to call in as much support as I can from everyone of good will to wish Northern Ireland into the new millennium when we will all try our damnedest to forget what has happened to us through so many years.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I shall be very brief, but I was forestalled by the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches in saying how much we owe to the
746
noble Lord the Minister for his integrity, decency, care, patience and good humour. I do not think that he has had nearly enough credit.
That said, I am afraid that I am going to be a little Cassandra-like, although I passionately want to believe that the Executive will work. I think that it has a much better chance than before. But we have to remember that for the IRA decommissioning means the weakening and destruction of the Armed Forces and the police. It does not put the same meaning on the word as we do. The Belfast agreement expressly refers to the decommissioning of illegally held arms in the possession of paramilitary groups. The previous Secretary of State refused to negotiate the release of prisoners against the beginning of decommissioning, and so I feel sure that the present Secretary of State will be equally clear that the IRA must not be allowed to try to trade giving up some arms for troop withdrawals and for the weakening of the security apparatus before Northern Ireland enjoys the hoped for normal, peaceful society which was also foreseen in the Belfast agreement. Under the terms of the agreement decommissioning by the paramilitaries—I mean all paramilitaries—must be non-negotiable. We are perhaps deceiving ourselves in thinking that because it is going to be handled, as far as concerns the procedures, by General de Chastelain, that will be the end of the story. There is bound to be pressure for negotiation and horse trading behind the scenes.
I have a second point. Although the end of the review and consultation period for the Patten report is due only at the end of November, and as we may not discuss it for some time, we must make sure that we hold our horses on any decisions, particularly on any proposal either to weaken the capacity of the RUC to protect the security of the realm or to devolve responsibility for policing and justice issues. I should be interested to know the status of the Irish Government on that. To whom are they intending to devolve control of the Gardi? It would he a fatal mistake to take or promise any action which could at this delicate moment encourage the IRA, like Oliver, to ask for more.
I remember the disgraceful Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill and I think about the three bodies—there were only three—that were yielded up. I know, too, many victims on both sides of the political spectrum. They all long for the end of paramilitary violence in their communities—right down in the street and in their homes. That has mysteriously ceased lately. The tap was turned off at the time of the election. The tap seems to have been turned off by both sets of paramilitaries recently. So it proves that it can be done. I hope therefore that at this crucial political moment we shall see that tap turned off finally. There is no excuse for it. It seems to me that we are in honour bound to consider the interests of the people right down at the bottom of the heap. Having said that, I passionately hope that we shall be having good news this year and next.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, virtually everything that I wanted to say has been said by one or other

747
speaker on all sides of the House. Therefore, I shall not detain the House for more than a very few minutes except to say that it is my belief that Mr Trimble's actions on Saturday constituted a very brave act indeed. He and his party have delivered their side of the deal secured by Senator Mitchell. But as I understand the matter, the Sinn Fein/IRA part of the bargain is to deliver a member of the IRA to liaise with General de Chastelain's decommissioning commission—no more, no less. I believe that that will happen and in the next few weeks. Up to now the Government's target has been to get Stormont up and running. They will achieve that this week—and all credit to them and all the parties in Northern Ireland.
It has been a long and hard road with, as we have seen, many tortuous twists and turns. But that is as nothing compared with the future. Of course I wish everyone involved the best, but I have to agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew that the assembly, which starts business on Thursday, is on approval from the Ulster Unionist Council. I am very much afraid that we have not seen the last of these orders under the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise to give the order full support and to join other noble Lords in paying tribute to all those who have participated in this process, going back many, many years. I pay tribute to the noble Lord the Minister for the hours of time that he has given in his job as Minister in Northern Ireland and for the way in which he has dealt with all of us who have had our anxieties on the way. I pay tribute to him also for the way in which he has come to the Dispatch Box on so many occasions and informed the House of the present situation.
I was returning from a conference in Birmingham on Saturday when the news came through that the Ulster Unionists had taken their decision to trigger the process today. The order is before us in the House today because of a great leap of faith that had already been taken by Mr Trimble. That was followed by him persuading his colleagues at that meeting on Saturday that this was a leap of faith worth taking and that the risks involved were worth facing.
We should not underestimate what happened that day. Those of us who are seasoned observers of the Irish scene know full well that predominantly two reasons made possible that vote on Saturday. The first reason was the promise that was given by Mr Trimble himself that unless there is measurable progress towards decommissioning, which is the key to success in what is happening today, his letter of resignation—already written and sealed—will be activated. He gave his colleagues that promise that that is what he would do.
The second reason that persuaded his colleagues to support him so wholeheartedly on that day was the promise given by the Secretary of State, Mr Mandelson, who in fact said that he would stand and support Mr Trimble if he should have to activate his resignation letter. Similar promises were given following the Good Friday agreement by the Prime
748
Minister personally. That was what secured the vote in the referendum of the people of Northern Ireland. I do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland will forgive lightly if they are let down following not only the promise by the Unionists to support the setting up of the institutions, the Assembly and the Executive, but if they are let down also by the one factor which will make sense of what is happening today; that is, progress towards decommissioning.
I want to ask a straightforward question of the Minister, and I know that he will answer it unequivocally. The question is: will the Secretary of State stand shoulder to shoulder with Mr Trimble, who has acted with great courage, if by February there is no measurable progress towards decommissioning?
The only other point I want to make concerns default. I understand now, because of the way in which this whole legislation is working—both the Act of Parliament and the order that is before the House today—that should one or more paramilitary organisations default on decommissioning, all the institutions have to be stood down. The noble Lord the Minister will know that I have some reservations about that, but I accept it because that is where we are. However, I also want to say to the Minister that I do not believe that the innocent should suffer. It is absolutely right to say that no one should profit from defaulting on progress towards decommissioning, but neither should innocent people suffer. I should like to have some assurance from the Minister that should there be defaulting by one or more of the paramilitaries, causing almost simultaneously the standing down of the institutions—which has to happen because of the way in which the legislation will work—those who are innocent will find themselves being invited to re-establish an assembly and an executive that will continue to rule, parochially and locally, in Northern Ireland.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I welcome the order and join others in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Dubs. I want to say just one thing, which is that although we all wish that decommissioning will proceed as promised, we also know from the history of Northern Ireland that the IRA, as a concept, is a slippery and dynamic thing. There will be other IRAs, even if this one decommissions. The most difficult thing for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the other politicians to ascertain will be whether the IRA is decommissioning and the Real IRA is not decommissioning. I believe that the major danger is not going to be IRA/Sinn Fein but a new dissident faction that could arise whose members will continue to be terrorists. I think it will take great courage on behalf of everyone to be able to say that the more the small element can be isolated and the Assembly can be kept, the better will be the chance of finally seeking an end to the entire culture of violence in Northern Ireland.
Lord Annan: My Lords, perhaps I may re-emphasise what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has just said.

749
Decommissioning is a very, very tricky business indeed. Let us not forget that in 19.21 when the Irish Free State was set up there was no question of decommissioning. This was accepted by Mr Lloyd George and his government. Of course, it was absurd to think that Michael Collins could form a government without arms, because immediately he did, he was, as we all know, opposed by Mr de Valera. The civil war in Ireland which then began did not end until Mr de Valera's followers were driven into the hills and, in the end, submitted. Even then, they never signed anything about decommissioning.
All I am saying is this: decommissioning is something which I very much hope will not prove to be the sticking point. It must be something which is faced with a flexible understanding of history and of possibilities.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am most grateful for what I believe is the unanimous support of all those who have spoken for what the Government have put before the House today. Admittedly, that support was sometimes couched in terms indicating some qualifications; nevertheless, I am grateful for the welcome that the Government have received for their proposal from all sides of the House.
Perhaps I may first deal with the question of the Patten report, not because it was the only issue, but because it has been mentioned so frequently. I should like to deal with that first and then deal with the other points that have been made in the debate. Concerns about the Patten report were mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Laird, the noble and learned Lord, Lo rd Mayhew, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, together with many other speakers. Of course the Government fully appreciate the sensitivities surrounding the report and we shall handle all such views and concerns very sensitively.
The maintenance of law and order must remain a priority. We shall take account of the prevailing security situation when considering the implementation of some of the recommendations in the report which deal with the level of policing and so on. The Secretary of State will be guided, as always, as was the previous Secretary of State, by the advice given by the Chief Constable, among others. We shall consider the comments made about the Patten Report. We have been listening to views right up to today, and the Secretary of State has said that he will, following the end of this month, let his views be known as soon as possible. Of course, he will take into account the comments made by many people, including those made by Members of your Lordships' House. I can give your Lordships that assurance.
We are delighted that Her Majesty has thought fit to give her recent award to the RUC: a very well-deserved award. I should like to endorse once more the many comments made over many years about the bravery of the RUC during the past 30 years; the number of lives of R UC officers that have been lost and the number of its officers who have been injured, some of whom are living to this day with very serious injuries indeed. That is right, and it is right that this should go on the
750
record at a time when the RUC is obviously sensitive and concerned about what may happen in terms of the Patten proposals.
Let me now deal with some of the more specific points that have been made during the debate. A number of noble Lords asked about the possibility of default, whether in the implementation of decommissioning or on devolution. I can give my assurance to the House that those who default will not profit from that default. The Secretary of State has set out what we will do by way of suspending the institutions in the event of any default. He went on to say that the Government will take the legislative action necessary to do so as soon as it becomes apparent that this is required. I am happy to repeat that assurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked about possible checks and balances. I believe that he referred in particular to checks and balances as regards action by either DUP or Sinn Fein Ministers. Of course DUP and Sinn Fein Ministers are members of the Executive and yesterday all of them took a pledge of office. That pledge included a number of requirements. I shall mention three of them: first, to participate with colleagues in the preparation of a programme for government; secondly, to operate within the framework of that programme when agreed within the Executive Committee and endorsed by the Assembly; and, thirdly, to support, and to act in accordance with all decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly. I hope that that will give some assurance to the noble Lord and to other Members of the House who queried whether the Executive would have powers over decisions by individual Ministers. Clearly, the Executive has not yet begun to operate so we shall have to wait and see how it works, but I hope that those assurances will satisfy the concerns expressed by the noble Lord.
The noble Lord also asked about the committee structure. There is to be a committee structure in the Assembly with one committee corresponding to each of the 10 government departments. The chair of each committee will be a member of a different political party from that of the Minister. That will provide an element of checks and balances in the way those procedures will operate.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, asked a number of questions about the Patten Report and the RUC. I believe that I have dealt with most of the points that he raised. I thank once again the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for the tribute he paid to the Government and others for the work that we have done, and I shall reciprocate by paying tribute to him for the work he carried out when he was Secretary of State and on which we have built. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord on the need for a quick start to decommissioning. Senator Mitchell has said that the process should begin with the appointment of authorised representatives on 2nd December. I look forward to that taking place and to rapid progress thereafter. I have full confidence in General de Chastelain and the decommissioning commission which has the responsibility of overseeing this process, including arrangements for the timing of actual

751
decommissioning with the authorised representatives. Furthermore, the independent commission will also report at intervals on the progress being made in the process.
My noble friend Lord Longford asked about decommissioning by loyalist paramilitary organisations. I can confirm to my noble friend that, in the report of the international body on decommissioning, Senator Mitchell spoke of mutual decommissioning. That is what we want to see. An obligation to decommission has been placed on all paramilitary organisations, be they republican or loyalist.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, sought an undertaking that the Government will not appease terrorists if they do not give up their arms. I believe that I made it clear in my speech, and the Secretary of State has done so in another place, that no one who defaults on decommissioning will profit from it. I am happy to repeat that undertaking. I will also repeat the undertaking I gave a few moments ago on the state of readiness of the security forces; namely, that the security of Northern Ireland and of its people remains our primary concern and responsibility. Any changes in security arrangements will reflect improvements when they occur in the security situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to the contribution of the Irish Government. I am happy to join the noble Lord in commending the role of the Irish Government in securing the agreement and the positive outcome of the review. For many years we have worked very closely indeed with the Irish Government and I do not think that the Good Friday agreement or what has happened more recently would have been achieved without such very close co-operation between the two governments. It is widely recognised that the Irish Government have helped to underpin the way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, made several important comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree, that the crucial element in the settlement is the way that it provides for the expression of cross-community consent to ensure consensus and to guarantee that the minority has a say in the way in which Northern Ireland is governed. In effect, we shall see power sharing and a new partnership. That underpins both the Good Friday agreement and the way forward.
My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees asked what would be needed to collapse the institutions of the agreement if that should prove necessary. Such a move would require primary legislation. On 22nd November the Secretary of State said in another place that both the British and Irish Governments would take the necessary steps to ensure that the operation of these institutions ceases should that be necessary. It would require legislation and action by treaty on the part of both governments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, referred to the IRA interpretation of decommissioning. That may be what
752
that organisation says on occasion, but that is not what is set down in the Good Friday agreement, which confines itself to the decommissioning of illegally held arms by paramilitary organisations. Decommissioning is not negotiable. It is an essential part of the agreement and we are not prepared to compromise on it. Decommissioning must happen. At the end of the review recently carried out by Senator George Mitchell, Sinn Fein declared that decommissioning was essential and the IRA stated that it would appoint a representative to discuss with the decommissioning commission how this should be brought about. All parties are clear that the discussions will concern paramilitary arms. I see that that is well understood by General de Chastelain and his commission. Indeed, General de Chastelain's remit is to deal only with illegally held weapons. I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness.
I believe that I have dealt with the specific points raised in our debate and I should now like to make a few general concluding remarks. I agree that David Trimble has shown enormous courage. He has had to deal with very difficult situations and he has brought forward the entire process. I should like to endorse the many tributes that have been paid to him today for the courage he has shown. I also thank noble Lords who have said kind things about me. We do our best and I am grateful for the comments that have been made. I must say that I feel that this might be almost an epitaph. I missed the comment about agriculture that was made on the radio, and I am amazed that anyone could make such a comment. Farmers in Northern Ireland have faced great difficulties.
I should like to respond to a comment made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield on the part played by the Churches. I agree that all the Churches have played an important part in the peace process and it is right that we should express our gratitude to them for their efforts.
Finally, I should like to pay tribute not just to the big names but also to the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. Over the past 30 years they have borne an enormously difficult and heavy burden. Despite that, they have shown a resilience and a positive approach and a welcome for the peace process. That, in turn, has stimulated the politicians to move forward, as they did the other day. I should like to end by paying tribute to the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. The Government will not let those people down.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bach: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on the beef on the bone ban, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Beef on the Bone Ban
5.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. The Statement is as follows:
"I am pleased to be able to announce the Government's intention to lift the retail ban on beef on the bone. This follows further advice from the Chief Medical Officers, who now collectively agree that it is possible to lift the ban on retail sales. I and the Secretary of State for Health have accepted this advice. I am placing a copy of the advice in the House Library today. Officials of my department will later today be consulting on draft proposals to lift in England the ban on retailing of beef on the bone. This includes lifting the ban on food prepared for direct sale to consumers in restaurants and other catering establishments. Similar consultations will be taking place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to lift the ban there also.
"As recommended by the Chief Medical Officers, the ban on the use of bones for manufacturing food products (including infant foods), which lies at the extreme end of BSE protection measures, will remain in place. This also has the effect of preserving explicit consumer choice.
"This lifting of the ban has been long awaited and I am delighted that it can now go ahead. The announcement will bring a welcome boost to the beef industry in what continue to be difficult times. I believe that we need to move forward as quickly as possible with the consultation on lifting the ban. Therefore, subject to the consent of the House, I propose to use the accelerated procedure for making the regulations to allow retail sales to take place before Christmas.
"Consultation will start today, with the aim that the amending regulations will take effect on Friday 17th December. These proposals will take effect in England only, but it is intended that similar legislation will be implemented in the other parts of the UK to lie same timetable. I know that enforcement authorities will wish to take note of my Statement today and of the Government's clear intention to implement lifting of the ban by 17th December".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.12 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We warmly welcome the intention to lift the ban. My only sorrow is that my noble friend Lord Stanley is no longer a Member of this House. He would have been very pleased to hear this news. His persistence and his hard fight on this issue were well known.
754
This ban has damaged our beef industry worldwide. Without it, beef farmers would have been spared two years of unnecessary suffering, at a cost, I believe, of some £170 million. Good butchers would not have been harassed and threatened with prosecution. Ministers would have been spared the humiliation of arguing that our beef was safe abroad while declaring it deadly at home.
I have a few questions for the Minister. First, will she confirm that when the ban was imposed two years ago it was only one of three options that were put forward by the scientific advisers? There were perfectly sensible alternatives which the Government chose not to pursue. The first option was the publication of research findings and risk assessments on beef on the bone so that consumers could decide for themselves.
Secondly, my concern is now with the ramifications of the decision. Will the Government compensate, even over a short period, those involved during the past two years, for example, with the disposal of beef bones? Will the Government pledge not to prosecute those who bought or sold beef on the bone as recently as last weekend in Cornwall?
Will the Minister confirm that, from the date of the lifting of the ban, UK producers of gelatine, soups, stock cubes and so on will be able to use British bones? The Statement referred to reservations, particularly regarding infant food, but did not make the position clear in regard to the items I have mentioned.
Will the Minister also confirm that private killings of beef will be free of the restrictions? Will she also confirm that, even if the consultations that are to take place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not confirm the Government's suggestion of the lifting of the ban, England will still go ahead with lifting it?
Will the Minister accept that the retention of the ban on beef on the bone has added to the difficulty of farmers in their negotiations to gain an overall lifting of the beef ban, particularly in France and Germany? Finally—and this point is not directed at the Minister personally—do Ministers regret not listening rather more to some of the views expressed by noble Lords in this House in January 1998?
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches warmly welcome the lifting of the beef ban. We have certainly pressed hard, both here and in another place, for this outcome in order that negotiations on the consumption of British beef abroad will have more coherence and we can speak from a position of greater strength.
I hope that now the Government's commitment will be to rebuild the export market as rapidly as they can. I gather that tomorrow the Prime Minister will hold what has been billed as a "beef summit". I hope that there will be more behind the summit than merely fine words. I hope that the Government will put in resources, in terms of both people and money, to promote British beef and help Britain regain its export markets.

755
I find the statement from the Conservative Benches slightly surprising, given that had it not been for so long a delay on the part of the Conservative government when they were in power, we should not have been in this position in the first place. The problem of BSE would never have taken off in the way that it did.
Finally, I should like to point out on behalf of the farming community that this is not only "a welcome boost in difficult times"; it is an absolute essential in impossible times. I note from an article in The Times that farmers' income, particularly that of hill farmers, has been reduced by 35 per cent. Two years ago, hill farmers received on average £7,500. Today, their income is about £2,000. It has more than halved. This decision is far more than a welcome boost. It is an essential lifeline.
I am sure that Members of this House and members of the British public will support our home farmers. I hope that the Prime Minister will take the opportunity tomorrow to push the point with British shops, particularly supermarkets, to make sure that they stock British beef, that their customers know very well which beef is British and that they look forward to eating British beef for Christmas.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses who have spoken. Our pleasure at lifting the ban should be underpinned by the fact that the advice of the Chief Medical Officers is that it can now be lifted. That reflects the reduction and decline in the epidemic of BSE. It is the reduction in the prevalence of BSE among the beef herd that we should be most grateful for.
The advice is there, both the scientific advice which has come from the figures which have been published from the Oxford Unit and the medical advice which is now uniformly shared by all four CMOs. We have always said that when the advice was there we would proceed to lift the ban. That is why I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that there has been no humiliation of Ministers in saying that they have accepted the medical advice. The advice is in terms of the perceived risk of a disease that, as we all know, has been highly erratic and invariably fatal.
We should all be particularly pleased today because the reduction in the epidemic is such that there is unanimity among the CMOs. The risk has declined to such a small figure that it is appropriate for consumers now to have choice.
On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, throughout the process all the advice received and options put to the Government have been clearly put forward. The SEAC advice on the level of risk was published, as was the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, who was then Sir Kenneth Calman. Equally, when the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, Liam Donaldson, came through it was published and made explicit. As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, we have had some debate and Members of the House have taken a great interest in it. I hope noble
756
Lords will agree that throughout the debate the attitude of the Government has been that it was prudent to ascertain whether we could wait for the figures from the Oxford Unit and allow the other CMOs the opportunity to examine them so that we could take the matter forward on a UK basis. That attitude was soundly based and it allows us to avoid any confusion for the industry and the consumer. That was an important area of policy.
The noble Baroness asked me about manufactured and processed products. As I said earlier when we discussed the issue, the advice from the CMO, which has been endorsed by his fellow CMOs, is that the retention of the ban on the use of bones for manufactured and processed products would be prudent. In that area, as in others, we intend to continue to take the CMO's advice. Therefore, the lifting of the ban will concern the retail sale direct to the consumer in butchers' shops, restaurants and other catering outlets.
As for prosecutions, it is not a matter for Ministers but for the enforcement authorities. As I said in the Statement, in future enforcement authorities who decide on the action they take will wish to take note of the Statement today. But all along the policy has been based on medical advice. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to suggest to enforcement authorities that they take retrospective advice when we were acting in different circumstances when the analysis of the risk was different.
I agree that the issues of the export of beef under the date-based export scheme and beef on the bone are separate because the date-based export scheme only applies to de-boned beef in particular animals under 30 months, born after 1996. However, it can do nothing but good for the export industry that the decline in the epidemic in this country is reflected in the ability to lift the restrictions. I know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, like my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, is anxious to do everything he can to help build up the markets overseas for the export of British beef. They have been desperately damaged and we know the effect it has had on the industry.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, the noble Baroness will recall that the Government reacted to the previous advice in a more prudent way than your Lordships' House would have wished. Now, on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, the Government have removed the ban. We welcome that. Can we infer from that that it is now the Government's view that in the period ahead of us the incidence of CJD is unlikely to increase significantly from its current relatively modest levels?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not believe that the advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee as to predictions of the scale of the epidemic of CJD has changed in this period because of the uncertainty about incubation times.
What has changed in terms of the Anderson data is the predictions of the possibility of pre-clinically diagnosed beef going into the food chain. So there are

757
two separate issues. The decision that has been taken today, based on the CMO's advice, as was the original decision to impose the ban, reflects on the issue of whether the risk of allowing the sale of beef on the hone has diminished to such a point that it can be left to individual consumer choice. I do not believe one can infer from that any change in the view of the epidemiology of variant CJD in the human population. That still has all the uncertainties that we have known in the past.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, first, like all Members of the House, I welcome I he announcement of the lifting of the ban on beef on the bone. However, it seems to me that we have heard for far too long the consequences of mad cow disease. We have perhaps been critical in apportioning blame too often. That is not to say that difficulties do not exist; they do. We are not out of the wood, but the announcement shows that there is light at the end of the tunnel.
The Government have tried, in spite of criticism, not to make an extremely difficult situation even worse. I believe that they will now be proved right in waiting for unity to exist among the Chief Medical Officers before taking the final decision.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He was something of a lone voice in the past on Questions in this House in supporting the Government's view that it was sensible to take the few extra weeks to ascertain whether we could achieve unanimity on the basis of the data to be published. I believe it is in the interests of both consumers and the beef industry to have achieved that unanimity. I am grateful for my noble friend's comments.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I wish to say how grateful I am for this better-late-than-never move. In future when I have English guests I shall be able to carve the sirloin off the bone, which is so much better.
However, it has taken a little time. The nanny option was the one taken. At the time, as the noble Baroness on the Conservative Front Bench said, there was the option to inform the public. We should trust the public more. When the odds against the disease are in the millions, the public are capable of deciding. After this decision, perhaps the Minister agrees with me that we should tell the public what the risk is and leave it to them.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. I have been in this job for only a few months, but it has not taken me long to find that you cannot do right by doing wrong with food safety. You are liable to criticism equally for being cavalier with dangers, however remote and, on other occasions, for over-implementing. It is sensible to rely on the professional advice. That is what we have done over the advice of the Chief Medical Officer. We must of course have proportionality—that is correct—but even when risks are remote we must take into account that the risk, however remote, is of a disease that can be fatal. It has invariably been fatal and we were dealing with it with variant CJD.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I am sure that when the Minister of Agriculture originally made his decision, which he said was marginal based on the three options mentioned earlier, he acted far more prudently than was necessary in view of the infinitesimal risk. This ban has been in place far longer than it should have been. From what the Minister said, am I correct in understanding that the ban will be lifted throughout the United Kingdom on 17th December, or will Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland still have the opportunity to opt out?
Bearing in mind the figures published today showing the catastrophic drop in farm income, what step will the Government take to help? I do not believe that the complacent attitude taken by the Government during the debate on that part of the gracious Speech concerned with agriculture gave any encouragement that something would happen in the near future not only in relation to beef but to pigs, sheep and milk. Today every agricultural product is in crisis and yet the Government appear to be saying that no further help will be offered.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, probably as early as tomorrow we shall have an opportunity to debate at further length some of the broader issues of support for the agricultural industry, which is experiencing grave difficulties, as the noble Lord points out, and for which a number of initiatives involving substantial sums of aid have been taken by the Government, while looking in the longer term particularly to the restructuring of Community support for agriculture.
As to the ban itself, the timetable that I have outlined relates to the English legislation for which MAFF Ministers will be responsible. But my understanding is that the same timetable is achievable and will be aimed for by each of the other authorities. It is hoped that we shall all be consulting as from this evening and coming to the successful end point of that consultation at the same time. As has been made clear in the past, legislative competence in these areas lies with the devolved authorities and each in turn must take through its own legislation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as one of those who was vehemently and volubly opposed to the original imposition of the ban, I welcome the fact that it has now been lifted, and I hope that it will remain so. My recollection—perhaps my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—is that the scientific advice was never that a ban on beef on the hone should be imposed. Is it not a fact that the real reason for the ban was to persuade the European Union to lift its ban on British beef? Even that now seems to have backfired since the French have used it in order to continue their illegal ban on British beef. I hope that in future my noble friends will be very careful about the imposition of restrictions to suit our European Union partners.
Perhaps I may put a question that has already been asked. Why have the English had to wait for Scotland and Wales to come into line? The English always seem to get the neck of the chicken or beef. Surely, this is a

759
case of the tail wagging the dog and it is about time we had less of it. The only people in Britain today who appear to be discriminated against are the English. I hope that in future the Government will be hesitant about the imposition of bans when the risk is minuscule. It simply makes the Government look foolish, not in the eyes of Members of this House or another place but the country generally.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend who I know has taken a good deal of interest in the subject over the years. I do not believe that the English have been discriminated against and suffered during this period. Certainly, English beef producers will benefit from the fact that we have taken time to ensure that we achieve a UK approach to the problem. Frankly, I do not believe that it is sensible policy-making to show, for the sake of gesture, that it is possible to go it alone, with the uncertainties, difficulties and anomalies faced by consumers as a result of different regimes in different parts of the United Kingdom. I know that like others in this House my noble friend believes that the policy adopted on public health grounds was over-cautious. He is quite right that the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee made an assessment of risk rather than a policy proposal. The policy decision was that of Ministers, but it was taken on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer. That advice was maintained by his successor when he first considered this matter.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that her announcement will be welcomed throughout Wales and that Welsh farmers regard this as a British issue to be dealt with as quickly as possible in all four parts of the United Kingdom? Does she also recognise that there is now available the very elusive jewel of the united support of the whole industry? This would be a very fine moment for the Government to take the initiative to ensure that the export marketing of British beef is addressed as a high priority.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I believe that to go forward with the whole of the British beef industry gives us an advantage. I am grateful for the noble Lord's question. He is absolutely right. To have the platform of strong public health controls, and the confidence of our public health advisers that the safety of beef across the United Kingdom is now such that even this precautionary measure on one particular element can be lifted, gives us an important base on which to try to rebuild the export markets that have been so devastatingly damaged. I point out again that this market has been devastatingly damaged not by the policy decisions of the Government but by the reality of the BSE epidemic.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House welcomes the Statement repeated by the noble Baroness. Does she agree that as a nation we have determined the safety of British beef and beef on the bone and expended an enormous
760
amount of effort, funds and cattle to contain BSE in the hope of controlling and eventually eradicating it, although the noble Baroness will be aware that we have not yet reached that stage? Does the Minister agree it is appropriate, now that we have convinced ourselves, laboriously, that beef on the bone is no longer a risk, to mount a determined scientific and commercial programme to promote our beef to those countries which still refuse to accept it? There are many such countries, many of which are members of the Commonwealth, and it is necessary to put the scientific evidence before them in a determined way.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. It was that gruelling and well-founded scientific advice that led to the European Union lifting its controls on the export of British beef. Sadly, we have had to go through the whole process again with the French, but we have done so on the basis of the evidence that is available. We have nothing to hide in terms of the safety of British beef. We have nothing to hide in terms of labelling or people knowing what is being bought because we believe that our beef is among the safest in the world. We have been exercising that operation so far as concerns Europe. I agree with the noble Lord that we need also to look wider than Europe, to the other traditional export markets. I think in particular of South Africa. There are other parts of the Commonwealth and other countries.
The decline in the epidemic—as the noble Lord says it is not completely finished—allows us now to take forward that exercise on the basis of clear scientific advice and progress.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, this is the end of a long, sad story for the industry. I join with those who hope that the Government, and that department upon which I do not always look with favour, will think hard about what they can do.
I wish to ask the Minister one question. Is the noble Baroness satisfied that beef coming from European sources is subjected to the same stringent minute and detailed examination that British beef has now stood up to?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord slightly obliquely. Other countries with the same prevalence of BSE have to be subject to exactly the same stringent processes as this country in terms of BSE. Special regulations apply to countries with high levels of that epidemic.
On general issues of food safety, we should rightly demand a level playing field between ourselves and other beef producers.

Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill [H.L.]
5.42 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

761
This is a very short Bill. It is apparently only the second piece of legislation promoted by a Law Officer in over 50 years. The first was also a very short Bill and seemed to have as its only purpose the settling of the level of remuneration for any Law Officer who happened to be a Member of this House and was plainly, therefore, a piece of legislation of the utmost importance.
When the Crown Prosecution Service was established no provision was made for a body to inspect the CPS. There has been a non-statutory inspectorate within the CPS since 1996. The chief inspector and his staff are all at present either permanent members of the CPS or on loan to the CPS and therefore report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Those arrangements for the inspectorate did not guarantee independence. In opposition, we made a commitment that we should introduce an independent element into the inspectorate. The Glidewell Report, which is an admirable document for which I believe that we should all feel continuing gratitude to Sir lain and his colleagues, was published on 1st June 1998. The firm conclusion was that it is essential to retain and expand the role of the CPS inspectorate. The report acknowledged, as I am happy to do, the good work currently being carried out by the existing inspectorate. It recommended introducing an independent element to the inspectorate by way of a part-time independent chairman. Our response to this aspect of Sir Iain's report is to go significantly further.
This simple Bill establishes an inspectorate which is external to the CPS. Despite the fact that the Bill is simple, its importance is indicated by a speakers' list which demonstrates that every speaker is a Front Bench spokesman.
The chief inspector will report to me as Attorney-General. In preparation for these changes a new chief inspector was appointed late last year to plan the transition. At present he works within the infrastructure of the CPS, but is effectively autonomous. When the Bill becomes law and is implemented the financing of the inspectorate will be separated from the CPS and it will be mainly located in separate accommodation. The chief inspector will acquire management responsibility for all the functions of the inspectorate, again separate from the CPS.
Once the Bill is in force, the CPS inspectorate will enjoy the same status as other criminal justice inspectorates; namely, the inspectorates of prisons, probation, magistrates' courts and constabulary. The existing CPS inspectorate has already established good links with the other inspectorates and I very much look forward to its involvement in joint inspections on matters of common interest in the future.
The Bill achieves its purpose in a short and simple way. Clause 1 requires me to appoint a person as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the CPS. It allows the chief inspector to appoint inspectors and other staff to assist him in carrying out the work. Finally, it allows for the expenses of the inspectorate to be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
762
It is anticipated that there will be a significant "lay" element to the statutory inspectorate. By this I mean that the inspectors will not be drawn simply from the CPS as at present. Instead the chief inspector is currently conducting open competitions. That is very important, as I hope that noble Lords agree. The purpose is that a number of people with recent relevant experience in the private sector will be recruited on short-term contracts as inspectors. Such persons will be able to bring a fresh approach to the issues facing the CPS. I would welcome it if those who had practised as defence lawyers wished to put themselves forward in that open competition with a view to varying the composition of the possible inspectorate. The inspectorate is also exploring the possibility of introducing an additional element of more local public participation in the inspection of the different areas of the CPS.
Clause 2 sets out the functions. The chief inspector's primary function is to inspect the operation of the CPS. He will also be obliged to report to me on any matter connected with the operation of the service that I refer to him. He will submit an annual report to me on the operation of the CPS and I shall lay that report before Parliament. That is to say, it will be published automatically, which again is a matter of importance. It is also of importance, in my experience, that there should not be unconscionable delay between the submission of the report and its publication; and such delays in my experience sometimes occurred before May 1997 when there were hostile or critical reports by the Chief Inspector of Prisons.
Clause 2 makes provision for the chief inspector to designate another inspector to act in his place should he be absent or unable to act.
When Sir Iain's report was written, the existing inspectorate was concerned almost exclusively with matters of casework quality. The inspectorate has now broadened its approach and has a significantly wider remit. In future its inspection process will not be confined to casework but will include a substantial number of non-legal themes covering management and administration issues which support the casework process. The reports will therefore provide a more comprehensive assessment of overall performance.
I foresee that the statutory inspectorate will continue to develop within the framework contained in this Bill. Its work will include inspection on a geographic basis, thematic reviews and joint work with other criminal justice inspectorates. The importance of the thematic review cannot be overstated. I refer, for instance, to the excellent work of Sir David Ramsbotham in the prison context, for example in his thematic review of suicide in the prison estate, and the subsequent review he has begun to undertake on the problem of the remand prisoner across the whole estate. That aspect of its work is particularly important and reflects the view of the Government that the criminal justice system must operate on a more coherent basis.
Clause 3 of the Bill is the Short Title and commencement provision.

763
This simple Bill will place the CPS inspectorate on a sound independent footing and will impose specific statutory duties on the chief inspector. I commend the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am pleased to respond to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, by stating that we are broadly in support of the Bill. It assists in the implementation of reforms following recommendations made in a report on the review of the Crown Prosecution Service, chaired by Sir lain Glidewell. However, there are a number of points which we would like clarified and to which we may return in Committee.
The Bill is intended to facilitate the important recommendation in the Glidewell Report that the CPS inspectorate should become more independent from the CPS itself. That independence is to be realised by accommodating the inspectorate separately from the CPS, although it should be noted that the Glidewell Report does not focus upon accommodation for the inspectorate as being the key to a more independent and robust body; rather the staffing, internal or otherwise, together with the functions of the inspectorate are recommended as the focus for change.
As with most positions within an organisation, in particular those which are pivotal to the effective and efficient running of that organisation, the profile and the role of the chief inspector are key. I refer to his skills, expertise and experience together with his ability to be objective while fully understanding the internal workings of the CPS.
I believe that we would all agree that the Glidewell Report rightly pays considerable attention to the position of the chief inspector, his credentials and his relationship with the staff of the inspectorate and with the Director of Public Prosecutions and his staff. There is clearly an important balance to be struck, as highlighted in the Glidewell Report, between maintaining an appropriate degree of independence on the part of the inspectorate and having the benefit of in-house expertise, knowledge and understanding of the CPS.
I note that in a Written Answer dated 30th November 1998, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, proposed that, in addition to appointing an independent chief inspector, there should be a non-executive advisory board, which would include a lay member, and that inspectorate staff would include both CPS staff on secondment as well as some individuals from outside the CPS. The noble and learned Lord today referred to the need for a balance. We are pleased as regards open competition and we welcome his reference to a fresh approach.
The mix of in-house CPS staff and individuals employed from outside should, as the Glidewell Report recommends, provide a good balance, depending on how the internal workings of the
764
inspectorate are structured and thereby how well the individuals work together in practice. The provision of separate accommodation at a cost of £2.5 million, as set out in the explanatory notes, alone will not provide the panacea for a more independent inspectorate. However, we accept that it will help.
I turn to the functions of the chief inspector. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in his Written Answer of 30th November 1998, proposed a wider remit than at present to include performance efficiency and effectiveness so that the inspectorate can examine not only the quality of casework decisions and casework decision-making processes, but also any other areas of CPS performance where they impact on issues surrounding casework.
A stark example given in the Glidewell Report relates to the effective use of CPS resources and it is hoped that it will be addressed with the benefit of this broadened remit. It is the finding that:
"the most senior lawyers are now expected to devote the majority of their time to management. We estimate that the top 400 lawyers in the CPS spend less than a third of their time on casework and advocacy".
It is hoped that in a quest for a favourable mention in the annual report to be submitted by the inspectorate as a consequence of this Bill, one form of unnecessary bureaucracy is not replaced by another.
That brings me to a further point for clarification. As regards Clause 2, will the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, draw up the annual inspection programme and therefore set the parameters of the report? Furthermore, will the Director of Public Prosecutions have any opportunity to assist in the selection of subject matter for the annual inspection programme? Will he be afforded the chance to comment on the draft inspection reports before a final version is forwarded to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn?
A further important finding in the Glidewell Report relates to the lack of co-ordination between the various types of internal inspection and it is therefore hoped that this will be corrected with a broader remit. In addition, the Glidewell Report refers to the possibility of combining the work of the CPS inspectorate with the work of inspectorates in other parts of the criminal justice system. Given the Government's proposal for an independent inspectorate separate from the CPS, this suggestion would, I believe, make economic sense and be a practical possibility, albeit one which merits consideration in the future.
In conclusion, clearly the underlying aim of this Bill is to aid further development of the CPS inspectorate, thereby improving public accountability and so build public confidence. We are keen to support that aim.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we on these Benches give a qualified welcome to the Bill. It is short, as the noble and learned Lord said. It is indeed modest. Its proposal builds upon what exists and it is interesting that no more expenditure is envisaged, save for the housing of the inspectorate in a separate building.

765
The prime recommendation in the Glidewell Report has not been followed. The Government considered two models. The first was an inspectorate under an independent chairman on a part-time basis with a board consisting of half lay members and half professionals from within the CPS. The Government adopted a model much closer to that put forward by the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Dame Barbara Mills. It means that the chief inspector will be appointed by the Attorney-General and will be responsible to him. I welcome the independence that that gives. I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in asking whether the Attorney-General will exercise even more control over the inspectorate by approving the annual inspection programme and its content, which was envisaged in the model of the former DPP.
The areas of responsibility have been outlined. The existing inspectorate is concerned with casework quality. I understand that the new inspectorate will be engaged in financial auditing and management matters. I hope that the additional lay members who are to be appointed to the inspectorate are not simply the great and the good but are people with genuine experience of auditing and management in addition to those who have a legal background.
Presumably, as a result of the government briefing, on 11th November the Daily Telegraph suggested that inspectors would investigate miscarriages of justice and could call for controversial cases to be reopened. I should find that an extraordinary extension of the powers of the inspectorate. I hope we shall hear from the Attorney-General that no such role is envisaged.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred to bureaucracy. I fear an ever-extending and expanding bureaucracy. The Director of Public Prosecutions now has a chief executive and staff, and each of the 43 CPS areas, created from the previous 13 areas, has its own chief Crown prosecutor and area business manager, no doubt each with his own staff.
According to the Glidewell Report, the administration costs alone were £222 million. However, I noted that in the Attorney-General's statement of 28th June, only seven days after publication of the. Glidewell Report, those costs were said to be £300 million. Can the increase be explained? Where does the £80 million come from? Does it represent prosecution costs paid to counsel by way of fees and witness expenses which are not cash-limited? It would be useful to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General of the proportion of administrative staff to professional staff—those engaged in case work and representation in court—because we are concerned that there is an imbalance between administrative and professional staff. We are certainly promised more bureaucracy in the Court Service's consultation document which deals with a similar area and has just been published. Case management officers will be established as well as judges appointed to hand out fixed-penalty fines to lawyers who fail to cope with the protocols and so on. The bureaucracy in the area of the criminal justice system is growing all the time.
766
I regret to say that, despite all the administration, the present product of the CPS is poor. That must be faced. I say so with regret because I have many friends and colleagues who are involved with the CPS and I hope that I speak for them and not against them. It is not their fault. The CPS has been hopelessly under-funded and overloaded from the very beginning of its existence. Successive directors have not been able to win the funding which is so obviously required.
It is a fact that the most junior member of chambers is at an advantage in a magistrates' court when dealing with a CPS advocate because such is the pressure of work upon that advocate that he is ready to plea bargain cases away. Yesterday I sought the reaction of one of the foot soldiers of the CPS, in the court where I happened to be, to the institution of a statutory inspectorate. His response was to say, "Oh God, not another form to fill in." That is how it is perceived.
I recall the then Attorney-General's Written Answer on 28th June in which he announced:
"CPS Trial Units will also be established [which] will he responsible for all prosecutions in the Crown Court. They will provide a means by which CPS lawyers can focus on the most serious cases and a structural mechanism through which CPS Higher Court Advocates will be able to exercise their rights of audience to the benefit of the justice system".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/6/99; col. 12.]
However, the unfortunate fact is that the CPS is under pressure now. On Thursday we are to debate the proposals for more trials to take place in the magistrates' court—perhaps up to 18,000 trials. Under that sort of pressure, the present structure of the CPS will collapse. One need not take it from me. One can take it from any circuit judge or defence solicitor. Forests disappear in the correspondence that takes place trying to get information out of the CPS in serious cases in the Crown Court. That pressure on the CPS contributes largely to the Crown Court having,
"the perception of a fragmented and incoherent system, with frustration, wasted time and cancelled hearings".
That was the comment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the Court Service consultation document the other day.
It has been expressed more elegantly that the Crown Court is a system perceived to have the characteristics of "expense, incoherence and opacity." I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will recognise the author of those words. "Balance" is his favourite word. It is conveyed always with an air of mildness, modesty and sweet reasonableness which so characterises the noble and learned Lord. In that area the balance is heavily tipped against the efficiency and efficacy of the CPS as part of our criminal justice system.
I hope only that the Bill may result in the appointment of inspectors who will bring home the shortcomings and the immediate need for more funds from government to restore the equilibrium. At the end of the day it is essential that the Crown Prosecution Service be independent of government, fearless and able to exercise its own judgment.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord commented that many of the speakers in this short debate are Front Bench spokesmen. I want him to know that that is a compliment to him, because we always take him very seriously and it does not matter whether the Bill is short or long.
There is a general consensus on and a qualified welcome for the need to make provision for the inspection of the Crown Prosecution Service. We on this side of the House certainly welcome that initiative. As my noble friend has just pointed out, that will give us an opportunity to highlight some of our concerns.
This is an important initiative following the recommendations of the Glidewell Report. The Crown Prosecution Service is comparatively new and it has gone through difficult times in its short history.
When I was appointed a magistrate some years ago, the police service was responsible for prosecution in our courts. I believe that the decision of the government of that day to establish a prosecution authority independent of the police was correct. It was a difficult birth for the CPS because we knew then the police prosecutors were not too happy to give up their prosecuting role. That, however, is history.
It could not be an easy task for the service, which has to deal with more than 1.4 million cases in the magistrates' courts and around 125,000 cases in Crown Courts. That was its case load during 1998–99. Therefore, we should not underestimate the contribution of the previous directors of the service, including that of Dame Barbara Mills QC. They take much credit for steering the service through a difficult time.
Many of the Glidewell reforms have been implemented. A chief executive has been appointed and the service has now been reorganised to 42 areas in line with similar arrangements for the police and the Probation Service. Again, we should not underestimate the logistics of such an exercise. The director, David Calvert-Smith QC, and the staff should be congratulated for taking the reforms in their stride. They have ensured that confidence in the ability of the CPS to deliver has not lessened.
The reorganisation means greater autonomy for the 42 areas against much bureaucratic control which existed previously. There will now be a sharp focus on the core business of prosecuting, placing greater emphasis on the more serious cases and providing greater separation of management from legal work, greater autonomy for the areas and better prospects for the staff. We certainly should like to see those objectives met.
There are HM inspectors for the constabulary, prisons and the Probation Service. The CPS should not be an exception. There is a need for more and not less accountability. Crime and criminality are higher on the Government's agenda and public confidence is shaped by the service that the criminal justice agencies provide. Public confidence will undoubtedly increase if there is a fair and independent review of the operation
768
of the CPS. Even if that is the only reason, it is good enough to establish that accountability independent of the Government and the CPS.
The inspectorate which exists at present within the CPS published a report on 26 branches as well as two thematic reviews. The inspection programmes involved the scrutiny of over 6,500 cases. The inspections team found a consistently high standard of decision-making by branch staff. However, that does not mean that it could not do better. The team agreed with the decisions taken in over 97 per cent of the cases and with the advice given in 95 per cent of the cases submitted by the police before charge. That is a formidable record. However, those were the findings of the inspectorate. There is a difference in perception by the legal profession of the effectiveness of the CPS. It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord would confirm that the present arrangement of the inspectorate will continue but that it will now be placed on a statutory basis.
It would be useful to know what staffing arrangements are envisaged for the proposed chief inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service. Provision is made in the Bill before us for the chief inspector to designate an inspector to discharge his function during any period when he is absent or unable to act. Do we take it that the chief inspector will have a number of inspectors working under him? It would be helpful to know how many inspectors the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has in mind.
I am grateful for the assurance of the noble and learned Lord that any appointment will be properly advertised. In the past that has not been the case in regard to a number of appointments. I make no criticism of the present incumbent because he joined the service at a difficult time and he has provided valuable leadership. It is for the Government to ensure that their equal opportunity policy demands that positions are open to all. I understand that currently the CPS has, in the inspectorate, one black employee in the administrative grade.
I welcome the provision whereby the Attorney-General may refer to the inspector any matter connected with the operation of the service. There is also a provision that any report prepared will be laid before Parliament by the Attorney-General. Again, we welcome that, but often in the past many inspectors' reports, for example reports on prisons, have taken months before Parliament has had sight of them. Of course, the Attorney-General, must be congratulated on the way in which he ensured that such reports were not delayed when he was the Minister responsible for prisons.
Does the noble and learned Lord consider it appropriate for there to be a time-scale by which any reports submitted to him should be published and that his own response to a report should be time limited? After all, the system is designed to build public confidence in the inspectorate. It is too easy to put uncomfortable reports at the bottom of the tray. A time limit would ensure that that will not happen.

769
The CPS has had its difficulties. At present, its equal opportunity policies are being examined by the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). I understand that the CRE is minded to undertake a formal investigation into the Crown Prosecution Service.
Now that power has been devolved to 42 areas, it is important that the service of the inspector is also available to the director of the CPS. Why should he not be able to ask the inspector to investigate matters which concern him about the operation of the service? He could, for example, have asked the inspector to investigate the equal opportunity policies of the CPS. That would be helpful, as a good tool of management, and it would enable the director to improve matters, particularly now that he has responsibility for 42 divisions.
Overall, there is much good in what is proposed. However, the success of the CPS will be judged by its independence. We must always ensure that its independence in the exercise of its own legal judgment is never sacrificed. For that to happen would smack of it being a tool of control by central government and that would undermine the process of justice. I am sure that the Attorney-General will never be part of such a process, but we must be vigilant because, from time to time, power fluctuates from one government to another.
6.12 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, we have already heard two expert witnesses from the Liberal Democrat Benches as well as an informed and pertinent speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, so I shall be brief. I speak as a layman with nothing like the experience of either of my noble friends.
I welcome the report by Sir lain Glidewell. Reading it as a layman, it appeared to me to be a report of robust common sense. I also welcome the speed of the response of the Government in bringing forward the legislation so promptly.
There is no doubt that the CPS has had its image problems. Within the legal profession it is seen as a poor relation, as my noble and learned friend indicated. In the past, to the general public it has often seemed remote, accident prone, bureaucratic and inefficient.
The Bill does not follow the Glidewell proposals exactly, but it clarifies three key relationships: first, between the CPS and the local communities; secondly, between the CPS and its own inspectorate; and, finally, between the CPS, government and Parliament. All three clarifications are welcome.
I believe that the warning by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford about bureaucracy and costs is one that needs to be looked at and answered. Have we really slain the bureaucratic dragon?
In an earlier statement by the Attorney-General my eye was caught by the comment that the modernisation of the public services needs to develop a cohesive and coherent approach to policy, with agencies and departments working together for the benefit of the community as a whole. In reading those remarks, they
770
seem close to the ideals set out by the House of Lords Committee on the Public Service on which I had the pleasure of serving under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn.
In terms of good governance, I believe that the Bill points us in the right direction. As paragraph 28 of the report says:
"public confidence in any organisation is greatly enhanced if that organisation has an efficient and effective inspectorate system".
That must be especially so when dealing with the criminal justice system.
As my noble friend Lord Dholakia has indicated, this Bill puts into place another piece whereby each part of the criminal justice system has its own inspectorate. We welcome the commitment to greater openness and improved communications, particularly communications with victims of crime. My noble friend Lord Thomas referred to plea bargaining. Victims are often left in the dark about that aspect. Better communications are most welcome.
The warnings about underfunding and overloading have to be taken seriously. All in all we believe that this Bill, along with the new appointments to the CPS, give the opportunity not only for a fresh approach, but also for a fresh start. Last night in his speech, to which my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford has already referred—I think with approval—the Attorney-General warned of a criminal justice system too far removed from the public. Indeed, he said that it was typified by expense, incoherence and opacity. As a layman I agree with him. I wish him well in his commitment to massive change in that system. A radical and reforming Attorney-General, as I believe he is, needs wise counsel and candid friends. We aim to provide both at the Committee stage of the Bill and in other measures that form part of his reform programme in the year ahead.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, at this stage of a Second Reading debate it is customary to admire the perspicacious contributions made by all speakers— and I do so.
I have nothing to add to the excellent speech made by my noble friend Lady Buscombe about the general reaction of the Opposition to the Bill. In winding up I want merely to raise one question with the noble and learned Lord. It relates to the words in Clause 2(1)(a) and (b) of the Bill. Clause 2(1) states:
"The Chief Inspector shall—

(a) inspect or arrange for the inspection of the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service,

(b) report to the Attorney General on any matter connected with the operation of the Service which the Attorney General refers to him".

In my submission, those words are widely cast. The word "operation" in Clause 2(1)(a) and the words "on any matter" in Clause 2(1)(b) seem to me to include both the particular and the general. In other words, they may involve a thematic matter or a particular case.

771
I wish to draw to the attention of the noble and learned Lord the latter matter. How will Clause 2(1)(a) and (b) affect the existing constitutional relationship between the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions? To remind your Lordships what that relationship is I respectfully refer your Lordships to Chapter 13 of Sir fain Glidewell's report entitled Accountability, where your Lordships will find an excellent summary of the current constitutional position which is based on the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. I shall be as brief as I can.
In Section 3(1) the Act states:
"The Director shall discharge [his] functions … under the superintendence of the Attorney General".
In 1979 the then Attorney-General, Sir Michael Havers, said in a Commons Answer,
"My responsibility for superintendence of the duties of director does not require me to exercise day-to-day control and specific approval of every decision he takes. The Director makes many decisions in the course of his duties which he does not refer to me but, nevertheless, I am still responsible for his actions in the sense that I am answerable in the House for what he does. Superintendence means that I must have regard to the overall prosecution policy which he pursues".
In 1986, after the 1985 Act came into force, Sir Michael Havers in another Commons Answer stated:
"I intend to adopt the proposals set out in the White Paper on an Independent Prosecution Service for England and Wales. I shall therefore remain answerable in Parliament for decisions or actions that I or the Director of Public Prosecutions takes on prosecution matters and for the policy that is applied by the Crown Prosecution Service in the handling of particular cases".
Then in a speech in another place in 1998 the then Attorney-General, Mr (now Sir) John Morris, said:
"I would not expect to answer to the House for the nitty-gritty of each and every one of the 1.3 million cases conducted annually by the prosecuting authorities that I superintend".
In paragraph 12 of Chapter 13, Sir lain summarises the position:
"Thus the Attorney-General's practice has not changed. This long-established limitation on the extent of his accountability to Parliament obviously limits the DPP's accountability to Parliament through him. The extent of the autonomy which we are proposing should be given to the newly appointed CCPs reinforces our view that the DPP, while continuing to have overall accountability for the operation of the Service, should not personally be held responsible for a decision made in any individual case by a CCP or a member of his staff. The CCP will report on the decision to her [at the time it was Dame Barbara Mills; now it is 'him'] and she will report to the Attorney-General, but he in turn will not 'answer in Parliament for the intrinsic merits of' the particular decision".
To return to the Bill, in Clause 2(1)(c) it says,
"The Chief Inspector shall … submit an annual report to the Attorney-General on the operation of the Service";
and Clause 2(2) states:
"The Attorney-General shall lay before Parliament a copy of any report which he receives under subsection (1)(c)".
If there is a debate on that report, the noble and learned Lord will have to reply to observations made by Members of your Lordships' House, and indeed Members of another place, about its contents. They may contain observations on a specific case or on a range of specific cases. The noble and learned Lord
772
will no doubt wish to react to the observations made by the inspector on those cases. Does he see any conflict with that obligation and the nature of his constitutional relationship to the Director of Public Prosecutions as set out by Sir Iain Glidewell?
6.23 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome given to the Bill. I repeat that it goes a good deal further than the recommendations of Sir Iain Glidewell; in other words, it is taking the debate several steps further.
Perhaps I may deal first with the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I have read Chapter 13 on many occasions. It is an admirable, up-to-date and correct summary of the constitutional relationship. I do not see any difficulty between having an expanded inspectorate reporting in the way that the Bill requires and those constitutional responsibilities. We have to bear in mind that Sir lain Glidewell was the author not only of Chapter 13, which the noble Lord correctly cited quite extensively—that was most helpful—but also the author of the proposal that there ought to be an inspectorate. In the view of recent experience and public disquiet, we have rightly gone a good deal further.
A number of questions were asked. I can perhaps say something I might usefully have said earlier. Certainly, the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford, Lord McNally and Lord Dholakia, will recognise this. I am more than happy, as I have been on previous occasions, to listen to anything by way of suggested improvement following Second Reading. Some of these intricate questions are useful in terms of having discussion recorded as opposed to interfering with a simple Bill. It is how the inspectorate develops in practice that will be critically important.
I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Alone among the speakers he has previous convictions because he remains an unreconstructed member of the Bar. The product of the CPS is not poor. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has a closer working knowledge of what it actually does and was gracious enough to say that, struggling as it has been, it is in fact now being reinvigorated and remade under the leadership of David Calvert-Smith, an excellent DPP who has been in post for a very short time.
I go around, as does the Solicitor-General, as often as I can to CPS headquarters. The staff are first rate. They are committed to public service. They are working under difficult circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is quite right on that. They have been historically under-resourced. Their budget at the moment is of the order of £300 million. That is a small segment of the criminal justice budget. But they are good people. The criticisms from the judiciary and the police are now rarely to be seen in the newspapers because it is generally recognised that the quality of delivery has significantly increased—at a time, let us bear in mind, when the service has taken on significantly increased burdens, not least the proper burden laid upon it in consequence of Sir William

773
Macpherson's report following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Those further burdens are quite willingly accepted.
Reference was made to victims. This month, six pilot schemes are being started to see how the CPS can give a much better service to victims, by which I do not simply mean complainants. Witnesses are sometimes victims, and so are relatives of those who have been wounded, injured, burgled or stolen from. That has been taken on board by the CPS willingly and vigorously. It will give reasons as to charges or reductions in charges. That is a difficult, subtle, professional job of work. One must balance all sorts of deep sensitivities and, at the same time, try to run an efficient and effective service.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that there has been inequality and disparity in some cases between prosecution fees and fees available to the defence. That is a battle—a co-operative effort—in which I am presently engaged. Should your Lordships wish to return to that in the early months of next year, I am confident bat I shall be able to say that in that co-operative discussion more resource will have been made available for prosecution fees for the CPS. No one doubts that it has been under-resourced.
A number of questions were asked which I hope to answer briefly. The DPP will remain independent subject to supervision—the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is quite right—and not direction by me. That is as it should be. We do not want the sort of centralised prosecution system that rules by executive diktat with which we are all familiar in other jurisdictions.
What is to happen about the CPS inspectorate in terms of number? The noble Baroness asked how we envisage matters developing. We look to see an advisory committee. The chief inspector will bring forward proposals to me after discussion with his advisory committee. It is not my intention to set the parameters for annual reports. I look to the model which I found worked perfectly well when I was prisons Minister working with the Chief Inspector of Prisons and his colleagues.
In response to the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Thomas of Gresford, I confirm that the Bill does give me the power to direct, if necessary. It is not anticipated that should be looking at a particular miscarriage of justice and saying, "Please investigate this." That is really a matter for other existing bodies, like the Police Complaints Authority, the Court of Appeal Criminal Division or the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
However, if, for example, questions were raised suggesting that there was institutionalised racism either throughout the service or in a particular area, I hope noble Lords would think it a proper exercise of the power given to me to require, if request were not enough, the chief inspector to carry out that sub-thematic report in a particular area. That is the intention, and that is the reason for the power being given. In response to the noble Baroness, whose speech
774
was most helpful, I can say that we would look to area programmes, thematic inspections and joint work with other inspectorates, as I indicated earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about the ethnic mix. I am happy to be able to tell him in particular, and your Lordships more generally, that the recent case worker inspectorate selection exercises raised the number of those from ethnic minorities from one to three. That is not perfect, but the situation is a good deal better than it was.
As regards the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I can say that, at present, there are about 6,000 staff members, 2,000 of whom are lawyers. However, that is not to say that the other 4,000 are simply clerical workers; they are not. In fact, the vast majority of the non-legal staff are working as case workers—in other words, they are paralegals doing work of enormous importance. The system could not cope without them.
A few questions were asked about the number of inspectors anticipated. We would be looking to figures of the following order: 17 mainly legal inspectors; three business management inspectors—a specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—and six case worker inspectors. So there would be nine non-legal inspectors who would, of course, need the usual administrative and clerical back-up staff.
I do not believe that it has been a bureaucratic exercise to re-shape the CPS on the 42 areas. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, suggested that it was bureaucracy run wild. It is not; it is devolved decentralisation. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, we will shortly have co-terminus areas for the police, the CPS and, quite soon, for the Probation Service. That is only sensible management. What we are hoping to get in the CPS is something that will be recognised locally as a public service, which is both known and transparent to the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised a fair point about time limits. Certainly, when I was prisons Minister, there was no hiding of a report under the bed, or waiting for a happy opportunity, like a recess, or even, in the old days, Ascot, especially on a Thursday.
What I used to do is something I propose to continue to do. Sir David's reports were put to the Prison Service headquarters where they were checked for factual accuracy. Once that had been done, they were sent to me with an action plan relating to recommendations, whether accepted or not. Those were published. I see no difficulty in that process. That is the sort of question I would be more than happy to discuss either formally or informally, with or without officials, so that we might have views further developed.
The question was specifically put: what would the chief inspector's practice be? If he were making criticism of the director's staff, or of the Chief Crown Prosecutor, I would anticipate—although I have not discussed this with him in detail—that he would, in the

775
ordinary Salmon way, put those criticisms to see whether there was a misunderstanding and ascertain whether there was a proper response. He would give those criticised the opportunity to respond. That is the ordinary, decent way to proceed on the basis of natural justice and the Salmon procedures.
By and large, I am grateful for the welcome given to the Bill. We have gone further than Sir lain. I believe that we have discharged our duty to be as open and as thorough as possible. I think that Sir lain was absolutely right when he said—I paraphrase—that the CPS will not develop in public confidence and support unless it is an open, accountable and rigorous inspectorate. An annual series of reports published and made available for debate in Parliament is a significant advance. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill [H.L.]
6.34 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill will enable the United Kingdom to fulfil its commitment to adopt and implement a strengthened nuclear safeguards system by bringing into effect in the United Kingdom a protocol additional to our existing nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which I will call the "IAEA", and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom).
It is worth looking briefly at the background to the Bill. In 1970, the United Kingdom was one of the leading signatories to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which I shall call "NPT", mainly because I cannot say the word "proliferation" with any facility. The treaty forms the cornerstone of global efforts to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons, and it is from this treaty that the United Kingdom's obligations and commitments flow.
As one of the methods of verifying that NPT signatories fulfil their basic obligations not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, non-nuclear weapon states have to conclude comprehensive safeguards agreements with the IAEA that place all their nuclear material under safeguards. In essence, this means that the state must provide information to the IAEA on all its nuclear material and facilities, and IAEA inspectors are allowed access to facilities to check that material is not being diverted to clandestine nuclear weapons programmes. While nuclear weapon states, such as the United Kingdom, are not required by the NPT to have safeguards agreements, all five—that is, the UK, the United States, France, Russia and China—have so-called "voluntary-offer safeguards agreements". In the case of the United Kingdom, our voluntary offer safeguards agreement, signed in 1976, covers all our nuclear activities for civil purposes.
776
However, the need to strengthen this international nuclear safeguards system became clear when, after the Gulf War, Iraq was found to have been pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons programme even though it had in force a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA. The international community has agreed that the IAEA needs to have additional information and rights of access to nuclear facilities and other relevant locations to give it an increased capability to detect undeclared nuclear activities. In order to provide the IAEA with these, states across the world are now in the process of negotiating and signing legally binding protocols additional to their safeguards agreements with the IAEA. The UK Additional Protocol was signed in Vienna on 22nd September 1998.
Our Additional Protocol requires the UK to provide information to the IAEA about nuclear and nuclear-related activities carried out for or in co-operation with, or otherwise relevant to non-nuclear weapon states. The information we provide, along with that gathered from other states under their additional protocols, will enable the IAEA to draw up a comprehensive picture of nuclear activity in non-nuclear weapons states. This will act as a strong deterrent to the development of clandestine nuclear weapons programmes, and should help IAEA to detect any suspicious activity at an early stage.
As of today, 45 states around the world have signed additional protocols, though only seven of these have entered into force. Other states which have signed are understood, like the United Kingdom, to be still in the process of putting into place the national laws that they need in order to be able to fulfil their obligations under their additional protocols. However, there are some, like Monaco and the Holy See, which have been able to sign and ratify the additional protocol on the same day. That is presumably because their problems are slightly less complicated than ours.
I should perhaps emphasise that the obligations in the Additional Protocol do not extend to our defence-related activities. As is the case with our existing safeguards agreement, these will remain outside the scope of IAEA oversight. This is, of course, essential for reasons of national security.
Although the legislation would impose new obligations and requirements on civil nuclear operators and the nuclear industry in the United Kingdom, they have been widely consulted and are supportive. In view of these consultations, and in the light of our experience of the Act implementing the original safeguards agreement in 1976, we expect voluntary co-operation on the part of those affected by the new measures. Indeed we are not aware of any prosecutions under the 1978 Act; those concerned have always acted responsibly and co-operated voluntarily with the department's safeguards office. In October this year the Department of Trade and Industry completed a voluntary declaration exercise—a pilot, so to speak—gathering the information which would be required by our Additional Protocol if it were already in force, to ensure that our procedures for gathering the information will be fully operational in

777
time for providing the first proper declarations. This voluntary declaration exercise, which provided the IAEA with an indication of the situation in the UK as of 31st December 1998, was sent to the IAEA on 27th October. The Government believe that these declarations are complete and consistent with the terms of the UK Additional Protocol.
The burden on business of these measures is minimal. We have placed a regulatory impact assessment in the Libraries of both Houses. It shows that the estimated total cost for businesses likely to be affected by the new safeguards measures would be of the order of £150,000 in the first year. That is minimal compared to the cost of existing safeguards measures, which is over £10 million per year for British Nuclear Fuels alone. The cost to small businesses involved in manufacturing or consultancy work which would be caught by the proposed legislation would be of the order of a few thousand pounds per year.
The Government believe that industry will continue to support these measures and will continue to provide all relevant information voluntarily on request. However, in order to ensure that the United Kingdom can fulfil its international obligations even if someone fails or refuses to provide information voluntarily, primary legislation is required. The legal powers and duties contained in this Bill are those necessary to enable the United Kingdom to fulfil its obligations under our new Additional Protocol, and thus allow its entry into force.
The heart of the Bill is in Clauses 2 and 5. Clause 2 is there because much of the information the UK is required by the Additional Protocol to pass to the IAEA will not originate with the Government. Therefore this clause enables people to give relevant information to the Secretary of State unrestricted by any obligation of confidentiality or limit on disclosure which would otherwise inhibit them from doing so. The Government believe that the great majority of the information required by the IAEA from the UK will be given to the Secretary of State voluntarily by those who have it. However, there obviously needs to be a means of compelling people to provide information which the Government need so that the UK can fulfil its obligations under the Additional Protocol, even if they are unwilling to do so. Therefore Clause 2 also enables the Secretary of State to serve a notice on someone requiring them to give him relevant information, with a criminal sanction for non-compliance.
Clause 5—the other important clause—gives inspectors designated by the IAEA a right to enter various locations in accordance with the Additional Protocol, and to carry out the activities required by the Additional Protocol to be permitted at those locations. These activities are essentially designed to check information we and other countries have provided to the IAEA. The Bill makes it a criminal offence to obstruct an inspector in carrying out these functions, or to interfere with anything placed on land by an inspector in the course of exercising them.
778
The remaining clauses of the Bill deal, for the most part, with ancillary matters arising from Clauses 2 and 5. Clause 3 is necessary to enable the Secretary of State to identify those from whom he requires information. This clause empowers him to make regulations requiring persons to inform him if they carry out certain types of activity or are in a class of persons likely to have certain information he may need. The DTI has produced draft regulations to illustrate the types of powers that would be obtained in regulations made under this clause. I have made these available in the Library of the House; copies are also available in the Printed Paper Office.
Clause 4 is also essentially supplemental to Clause 2. It enables an officer authorised by the Secretary of State to enter any premises in the UK to search for information needed so that the United Kingdom can comply with its reporting obligations. It is necessary to include such a power for two extreme cases. The first is where a person has not provided the information voluntarily, and has still not provided it even after being served with a notice under Clause 2, perhaps despite even being prosecuted. The second even more extreme case is where the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry does not have certain information in his possession which he is required to provide to the IAEA, and believes that the information is likely to be amended, destroyed or otherwise disposed of without being given to him. In those two extreme circumstances a justice of the peace may issue a warrant, if he is satisfied that the numerous applicable conditions in Clause 4 are met, to allow an authorised officer to enter premises where there are reasonable grounds to believe the information in question is to be found, to search for the information for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. By making the powers to enter property to obtain information subject to a warrant, we ensure that there is independent judicial supervision over the exercise of this power. Any warrant may require that a police constable be present when the warrant is used.
Clause 6 protects information obtained under the Bill or the Additional Protocol. It prohibits the disclosure of certain types of information except for certain purposes or in certain circumstances, and sets out penalties for disclosure in breach of those limits. The clause is aimed primarily at civil servants who deal with the information to be passed on to the IAEA, or who accompany IAEA inspectors on visits.
Clauses 7 to 12 make it an offence knowingly or recklessly to give false or misleading information under the Bill; provide persons authorised by the Secretary of State and by a warrant with the power to search premises for evidence of an offence under the Bill; and set out the penalties for breaches of the Bill and the procedure for serving notices under the Bill. Generally, under Clause 9(2) such offences are to be punishable in a magistrates' court by a fine up to the statutory maximum, which is currently £5,000, or after a jury trial by an unlimited fine. However, knowingly or recklessly giving false or misleading information under the Bill, and wrongful disclosure of information, are to be punishable in a magistrates' court by a fine

779
up to the statutory maximum, or after a jury trial by an unlimited fine or by up to two years' imprisonment (or both). Clause 9 also allows persons of authority in a corporate body, or partners in a Scottish partnership, to be charged if they are involved in commission of an offence by the body or partnership.
The remaining clauses are technical. They amend the Act implementing the original safeguards agreement of 1976, to bring it into line with this Bill and with corresponding provisions of the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. They amend the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954 and the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 to refer to IAEA inspectors designated under the Additional Protocol as well as those designated under the safeguards agreement; and they deal with the commencement, territorial extent and Short Title of the Bill.
We have given careful consideration in the drafting of the Bill to the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government are confident that all its provisions, including the power to require the provision of information and the rights of access to premises, are fully consistent with the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention. However, I should be happy to give further details if noble Lords are interested.
To sum up, enacting this Bill will represent an important demonstration of the United Kingdom's strong commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. As a nuclear weapons state, it is important that the United Kingdom shows a strong lead through the early implementation of its Additional Protocol. This will offer a tangible demonstration to the rest of the international community of the strength of our commitment to nuclear non-proliferation.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
6.50 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I should start by saying "Unaccustomed as I am to dealing with non-controversial matters". We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his speedy delivery as he took us through the various items in the Bill. I shall have to read Hansard to make sure that I have grasped all of what he said.
We on this side accept that the Bill provides for necessary and correct changes to our law to enable the Government to fulfil their obligations under the new Additional Protocol to the UK safeguards agreements concerned with nuclear proliferation.
I think that I heard the Minister say that the Bill did not affect our country's military nuclear defence industry. I appreciate why that should be so. At the risk of straying into the controversial, perhaps I may say as a slight aside that we do not need a Bill nowadays. Thanks to a decision of the sheriff at Greenock, it seems that pretty well anyone can walk into a nuclear installation related to Trident and do more or less what they want. No offence has been created because Trident has been declared illegal by
780
some international body. That is certainly not a view that we take on this side of the House; I am sure that the Government do not take that view either. Hopefully they are pursuing these matters in the Scottish courts to ensure that the decision of the Greenock sheriff does not act as an incentive to people to break into the various Trident installations in Scotland and in other parts of the United Kingdom and, so to speak, get away with it.
Although they are not quite reservations, the questions we have about the Bill are perhaps more of a Committee stage nature. However, if I ask them now it might save us time at Committee stage. The Minister can answer them either directly this evening or, if he wishes, he can write to me. Some of the questions are simply to seek confirmation so that I understand correctly what is happening in the Bill.
For example, if I am reading it correctly, it seems that the information required in Clause 2(3)(b) may be retrospective. It states:
"The information required by a notice … may relate to a state of affairs subsisting before the coming into force of this Act or of the Additional Protocol".
Ministers should always try to justify a retrospective clause. Perhaps the noble Lord will explain why the Government think that they need these powers, which seem, to me at least, to be retrospective.
As regards Clause 3, I think the Minister said that the draft regulations were in the Library and the Printed Paper Office. If that is the case, I look forward to reading them. I was puzzled as to the meaning of,
"persons of any description specified in the regulations to inform him that they are of such a description".
I was going to say to the Minister that we would want to see the regulations either before we dealt with the matter in Committee in this House or certainly before my colleagues deal with it in the other place. I am puzzled as to what exactly is meant here. The Minister is now assuring me that the regulations are there. I did not realise that. I will read them with interest. I welcome the fact they have been published. They will help us greatly to understand exactly what the Government intend. I can therefore leave that matter and move on.
As regards warrants, when he discussed Clause 4 the Minister mentioned that a constable might or might not be present, depending on the warrant. I presume the distinction will be that if the officials of the department carrying out the inspection feel that they may have some difficulty they will ask for a constable to be present and in those circumstances the warrant will allow a constable to be present. I presume that that is the case.
I have a slight worry about Clauses 4 and 5. The Minister rightly pointed out that in Clause 4 there is a safeguard that someone has to satisfy a justice of the peace before he can get an order allowing him to enter premises and make searches and so on. I welcome that. However, when I read Clause 5—this may be my inability to read legislation properly—it seems that agency inspectors will not be required to have a warrant in the same way as our United Kingdom

781
people. Surely inspectors who are agents of an international body should not be given greater rights of entry than those given to agents of our Government. Should not the inspectors of the agency require a warrant from a justice of the peace as well?
When they were in Opposition, one of the fundamental points I can remember the party opposite hammering Conservative governments about was that warrants to search premises—especially to search a person's home, which I understand can be done under the Bill—should be dealt with very carefully. The warrant should be signed and agreed by a justice of the peace. I therefore wonder why there is no reference in Clause 5 to requiring a justice of the peace to give his or her permission for a warrant.
As I said, these are probably Committee points. But it will be easier if we get rid of them now because it will save me the bother of tabling an amendment that I do not really mean in order to explore them.
I read Clause 8 and then I went back to read Clause 4 because I thought I had seen those words before. Clause 8 seems to be pretty well a replica of Clause 4. I wonder why we need two clauses in the Bill which look so similar. Why cannot we have only one clause that subsumes any difference there may be? It almost defeated me to see what difference there is between the situation which would require the power to search and obtain evidence to be used under Clause 8 and the power of entry in relation to additional protocol information under Clause 4. Is this to make the Bill a bit longer so that it looks more serious? In that case, it will fall under the eye of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who considers that legislation is far too long anyway. I wonder why we need those two clauses.
I notice that the Bill applies to Scotland. I am not sure that we should not say that on the face of Bills nowadays, when so many Acts of this Parliament will not apply to Scotland.
I also wonder why we do not say in Clause 12 that the Act will come into force either immediately or within three months of Royal Assent. Why is it left rather vague—that it will come into effect only on such day as another statutory instrument? I know that this is often the way of doing this. I can remember people being quite critical of it. Is it not time to ask ourselves whether we should say "This Bill is important"—as indeed it is—"We need it"? Why do we not say that it will come into force either the day after Royal Assent or within three months of Royal Assent? Why do we keep it open-ended?
I do not know whether we will need a Committee stage. That will depend on what I find in the regulations when I read them and on the Minister's reply. In general terms, we certainly welcome anything that will help prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I agree with the Minister when he draws to our attention that Iraq, despite being a signatory, and all the other precautions that were supposedly there, was attempting build a nuclear capacity. We could mention a few other states which have secretly built a nuclear capacity over the years, but that would not add anything to the debate.
782
With those few words, I am content to agree with the principles of the Bill and I look forward to a very short Committee stage.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we also welcome the Bill. One of those whose advice I took on the Bill said:
"We are all in favour of the most draconian measures to protect the nuclear non-proliferation treaty".
I understand that it is the priority of all the members of Euratom to ratify as soon as possible. This requires all members to ensure that they have amended their domestic legislation appropriately.
As a university teacher, I am conscious that occasionally there are problems with foreign research students in British universities as well as elsewhere—particularly with research teams not understanding exactly what is going on and to what use knowledge gained in British research institutions might be put in less friendly countries. Therefore, we entirely welcome the Bill and I have only a few questions.
The powers are draconian. In Clauses 4 and 8 the powers of entry and search are accessible only with the consent of a justice of the peace. I should like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that a justice of the peace is adequate for those sorts of powers or whether one should go to a more senior judge for such permission. I have a certain interest, as I see successive pieces of legislation and European Community regulation; I wonder when the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man come under the provisions in Clause 12 and when they do not. That is no doubt a less important point but it is one which I believe many of us wish to explore in more detail.
I wish to question the Minister on whether the Government's own defence and nuclear weapons facilities remain entirely outside the Bill. My party and others believe that in the long run, if we are to have an effective nuclear non-proliferation regime acceptable to those states which are close to becoming nuclear weapon states, that is a privilege of declared nuclear weapon states which will have to go. Not now necessarily, but it is something which the Government will need to consider.
Since this is a DTI Bill, I assume that the police referred to are regular and civil police and that the contentious issue of the role of Ministry of Defence police in a number of activities concerned with defence nuclear installations does not arise. I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure us on all those issues. With those provisos, we welcome the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, we look forward to a brief Committee stage, if one at all, and to early passage of the Bill.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity to participate in the Second Reading of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill. Anything which increases the availability of information about any aspect of the nuclear industry is good. This is an

783
industry with a proud record of safety and achievement in this country, and nothing but good can come from openness and information about its workings.
At the outset I must declare an interest. I was an adviser to Scottish Nuclear Limited, later to become part of British Energy plc, for about three years, which included the period in the run-up to privatisation. However, my interest in the nuclear industry goes back nearly 30 years. For 13 years I was Member of Parliament for Ross and Cromarty, the adjoining constituency to Caithness and Sutherland in which the Dounreay nuclear establishment is located. I have been an ardent supporter of nuclear power for all that time and I am convinced that future generations will not forgive us if we abandon what is unquestionably the most efficient, cost-effective and pollution-free source of power generation. I shall return to this theme in a few minutes, but first to the Bill itself.
The Additional Protocol to the United Kingdom's safeguards agreement continues and extends the terms already agreed on a voluntary basis between the UK and the International Atomic Energy Agency. It seems to me highly desirable that nuclear weapons states, of which we are one, make information available to inspectors as to the whereabouts and use of nuclear materials already in civil use in order that they are not diverted to non-nuclear weapons states, where they are liable to be used for undercover development of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, it is important that the IAEA is given every support to gather information on nuclear fuel cycle related activities and, in particular, the manufacture of specialised equipment and research and development, even where nuclear materials are not directly involved.
Apart from explaining that the Additional Protocol of the UK safeguards agreement takes account of the UK status, note 9 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill also goes on to point out that that involves three parties: the UK, the European Atomic Energy Community and IAEA. My point here has already been answered to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in that I was going to point out to the Minister that presumably similar legislation to this is being enacted elsewhere.
It would be useful to know also how extensive the powers of the inspectors will be. I note that in Clause 4 a warrant is required, but does that warrant entitle the inspectors to examine contract terms and other commercially confidential documents?
Clause 3 may require some consideration in Committee, if we have a Committee stage, which now seems slightly doubtful according to my noble friend on the Front Bench. This is an area which I believe we might explore a little; for example, why is it necessary to involve individuals in such detailed examination, rather than companies? Might it not be that civil liberties are being interfered with to some extent? I admit that I am not normally particularly anxious about civil liberties because I usually associate them with Left-wing agitators. However, I do not believe that that would apply in this case. Do employees who
784
handle highly confidential or secret information not already have to comply with such regulations? For example, what about the Official Secrets Act? Is there any overlap as far as that is concerned? There may be further minor points concerning the Bill. If there are, we can deal with those in Committee.
I must reiterate my long-felt concern that it is most unfortunate that we should again find ourselves discussing the nuclear industry and its involvement in nuclear weapons and civil use in the same context. I fully support our involvement in both spheres, but it is not surprising that the general public still tend to link that very association. That is unfortunate. Nuclear power is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of the century, if not of the millennium. But its full potential for peaceful purposes and, in particular, for power generation will not be fulfilled until existing prejudices are set aside. Nevertheless, the need for civil nuclear power is undeniable. Fossil fuels ultimately will be wholly depleted.
Twenty years ago I was Minister of State at the Department of Energy. At that time the estimated contribution to power generation by the year 2000 of all the alternative sources of energy added together was 8 per cent. Far from reaching that target, the figure is well short of it—5.3 per cent in the European Union and, I understand, still below 6 per cent in the United Kingdom.
Nuclear power currently provides approximately 30 per cent of our power generation. In Scotland the figure is higher—more than 40 per cent. Therefore, government should be encouraging more, not less, nuclear power as well as supporting wind, wave and solar power. The same is applicable on a world-wide basis. For example, China is about to embark on a programme of coal-fired power stations. That is a huge programme and will create pollution on a horrendous scale.
With the demise of most of our old heavy industries, the reliance on fossil fuels has declined. More than half the world-wide growth in electricity demand now comes from microprocessors. Electricity uses can no longer be substituted by fossil fuels. Therefore, electricity trends will evolve on their own in a linear relationship with GDP. Electrically-driven applications, such as technologically advanced production processes using advanced computer controls, are taking over in both commercial and domestic sectors.
Electricity generation is already the largest source of CO2 emissions in the European Union—about 30 per cent of the total. This emphasises the folly in the climate change and energy tax for the rate on electricity to be three times higher than on fossil fuels. That is likely to decrease, not increase, energy efficiency. However, I realise that separate legislation deals with that point so I shall not pursue it further. In my view, even a carbon tax would be preferable to a climate change levy, particularly one which discriminates so wickedly against the nuclear industry.
All in all, I am sympathetic to the objectives of the legislation, but as this is a Second Reading debate I see no reason why I should not use the occasion to plug in

785
favour of the nuclear industry overall. I would much prefer to see some positive signs of long-term support for the nuclear industry from the Government. I should like to see a greater realisation of the major role of nuclear power in reducing environmental pollution, and that any decline in the use of nuclear power in power generation will have very serious implications for the UK's long-term strategic energy and environmental policies.
The nuclear industry employs 30,000 highly skilled workers, with double that number indirectly participating. We have a competitive world-class nuclear industry underpinned by hundreds of non-nuclear support companies throughout the country. If we ignore those facts, we do so at our peril.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I bow to his great knowledge of the nuclear industry. However, does he agree that one of the problems of the nuclear industry is that it is difficult to draw a hard boundary line between the civil and military sides? Part of the problem which the Bill seeks to address, particularly if one is talking about exports, as the noble Lord was, is that one needs to be sure that civil plants are being used only for civil purposes, that research is carefully watched and that exported equipment is also carefully monitored in order to ensure that it is not being diverted from civil to military operations.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I wholly agree with the noble Lord. I hope that I did not in any way suggest that I was doing other than supporting the legislation. When one speaks towards the end of a debate it is not unusual to feel that all that can be said has been said. I found today that even in this short debate the three speakers who preceded me said most of the things about the Bill that could be said. That is why I used the occasion to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that they are not being positive enough in their support of nuclear power.
7.13 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is my experience in this House that even when in the course of a long debate everything that needs to be said has been said, the debate goes on because it has not been said by everyone. Until everything that needs to be said has been said by everyone, your Lordships find it difficult to draw a debate to a conclusion.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken for the support they have given to the Bill, not just in general but in a great deal of the detail, either implicitly or explicitly. I am grateful for the support they have given to the need for us to play our full part in the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and for the particular measures which are necessary in order to achieve that goal and to provide the primary legislation which is necessary for that purpose. I am grateful for the suggestion, which could never have come from me in the first place, that we could curtail or even eliminate the need for a Committee stage. Perhaps I may try to answer as many of the specific questions as I can.
786
I think I can answer most of them. If I cannot, I shall write to noble Lords and then a decision can be made based both on my answers today and any letters that I send out afterwards.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, teased me about the Greenock sheriffs. My understanding is that the Greenock sheriffs were saying that no penalty should be imposed rather than that no offence had been committed. However, if I am wrong, I certainly yield to the noble Lord's closer local knowledge. In any case, I rather assume that the Government will not allow free access to Trident nuclear installations and they will see that Scots law upholds their denial of access.
The noble Lord asked me whether Clause 2(3)(b) is, in effect, retrospective legislation. Retrospectivity would mean that the Bill changed the law for the past. It does not do that. What it means is that, in future, notice served under Clause 2 can ask for information about events which occurred before the Bill came into force, which is not quite the same thing as changing the law for the past.
The noble Lord asked me about the regulations. When I showed him the copy of what is in the Printed Paper Office and in the Library, I think that he was satisfied. Perhaps I may also say that we have produced a memorandum for the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I understand that the committee will be considering the memorandum at a meeting this week. We shall, of course, pay full attention to anything the committee says. It is a rather good precedent, to which I cannot promise to adhere in the future, that we produced a draft of the regulations before Second Reading. Quite a number of complaints have been made about failure to produce regulations. But they are certainly available for inspection.
The noble Lord referred in particular to Clause 3 and asked what is meant by "persons of any description". The provision sets out the types of person who need to identify themselves as being potential informants. These are people who have carried out certain manufacturing, assembly or construction activities, certain research and development activities or exported certain goods. They are the ones we expect may be suitable informants.
The noble Lord asked whether the optional presence of a constable indicates a judgment as to whether there would be any difficulty in achieving access. The answer is that it will be the responsibility of the applicant for a warrant to decide whether the presence of a constable is necessary. Making it optional is an attempt not to be too heavy handed. I am grateful for the noble Lord's support for the judicial authorisation procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked whether this draconian process, as he described it, although it is very common, was satisfied by having a justice of the peace or whether a more senior judge should be required. We have looked at existing legislation on this point. The existing legislation—for example, the Chemical Weapons Act and the Landmines Act—

787
requires warrants to be made by justices of the peace. We are satisfied that the analogy is good enough for that purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, asked about access by agency inspectors under Clause 5. Here again it is true that agency inspectors have access without a warrant, but there are other similar provisions in the Chemical Weapons Act and the Landmines Act. They do not require warrants for the exercise of entry powers which are specifically required under the underlying treaty or convention or protocol, which are very limited and subject to conditions clearly set out, as in this case, in the additional protocol.
The noble Lord asked whether Clause 8 was repeating Clause 4. I do not think it is, but it probably requires a more complicated answer than I am able to give him from the Dispatch Box. If I may, I will write to him about it. He asked whether it should not be a convention that when an Act applied to Scotland it should say so. It is not the convention. The Bill says that the Act applies to Northern Ireland, although that may change, of course, after devolution later this week.
The noble Lord asked about the commencement provisions. These do indeed require another statutory instrument, but we will be able to bring the powers and duties under the Bill into force only when the additional protocol itself is ready to come into force. This will be when all members of the European Union are ready for that. We do not know when that will be and therefore we have to seek an order rather than fixing a date now for that purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on a similar point, agreed with the need for early ratification. I think we are ahead of the game, if I may put it like that, particularly if the Bill passes speedily through Parliament. We are ahead of most of our European colleagues. Some very small countries, as I mentioned—the Holy See, Monaco and some others such as New Zealand—have already ratified. Although 45 have signed only seven have ratified, and if we can pass this quickly I think we shall be gaining for ourselves some credit among the international community.
I hope I have answered the noble Lord's question about the justice of the peace and draconian powers. He asked me about the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the colonies. We have to make this provision, although we do not suspect that there is much in the way of nuclear activity in the Channel Islands. As he raised the point, I was interested to see that the word "colonies" appears in the Bill. I thought that we talked about "overseas territories" these days, but perhaps that is an intention rather than something which has got into legislation.
On a much more serious point, the noble Lord asked whether defence and nuclear weapons are entirely outside the scope of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we, as a nuclear weapon power, do not do anything inadvertently which increases the possibility of non-nuclear weapon
788
powers developing nuclear weapons. Therefore, the coverage of the Bill is for nuclear and nuclear-related activity carried out for or in co-operation with, or otherwise relevant to non-nuclear weapon states.
Normally that will be in civilian establishments, but if defence establishments were to be carrying out such work in such a way for or in co-operation with other relevant non-nuclear states they would not be excluded from the Bill. The overriding provision of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty arrangement is that the five nuclear weapon states are recognised as having nuclear weapon capability and therefore they do not have to declare it. However, they have to co-operate as far as they can in ensuring that it does not spread. That is the reason for the definitions that we use in the Bill.
I think I can now answer more fully the question of potential overlap between Clauses 4 and 8. This may save us time in the future even if it takes a minute or two now. Clause 4 relates to the powers of entry to premises in order to obtain the information that the United Kingdom is required to provide to the IAEA under the additional protocol; for example, information on all research and development on nuclear-related activities. Clause 8 relates to the powers of entry to premises in order to obtain evidence that an offence under the Act has been committed: for example, evidence that the Secretary of State is required to provide to the IAEA has been destroyed or tampered with. That is the difference between the two.
The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, asked about the inspector's powers under Clause 5. I think I can reassure him that, first of all, this is similar to legislation elsewhere. Secondly, the information which the IAEA inspectors or the Euratom inspectors are looking for is closely defined. He also asked about contract terms in commercially confidential documents. Yes indeed, documents are an essential part of what may be necessary, as evidence, to see that no breach of the Act is in course.
I have here the words "correction to previous answer" and so I will now give it. The presence of a constable may be requested by an applicant for a warrant, or the JP may consider that there ought to be a constable there to ensure order. I do not think that is much of a correction. It is very similar to the answer that I have just given.
The rest of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, was a perfectly legitimate defence of nuclear energy. I do not want to enter into a subject which is not fundamentally the subject matter of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is quite right: it is not that we are anti nuclear energy, and certainly not that this Bill contains any supposition against nuclear energy, but it is that the technology may to a significant extent overlap with that necessary for the development of nuclear weapons, and to that extent we have to cover civil nuclear energy establishments in the provisions of this Bill.

789
Again, I am grateful to your Lordships for the attention that you have paid to the wording of the Bill. I hope that I have given the answers which are necessary to enable us to proceed without a Committee stage, and I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Eritrea and Ethiopia
7.27 p.m.
Lord Aveburyrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they will take to help solve the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the House and to your Lordships who are to take part in this debate for the opportunity to raise a conflict which has claimed more lives than any other in the world. Some 15,000 people have been killed so far in the Eritrea/Ethiopia war; that is, up to 1st August of this year. Some authorities put the numbers much higher. A journalist says that each side is mobilising an army of a quarter of a million men and that tens of thousands of people have been killed in fighting that has used First World War tactics. He is probably not exaggerating the capacity of Ethiopia to put men into the field but Eritrea, with a twentieth of the population of its neighbour, probably could not raise an army of that size.
Amnesty International says that up to the end of January this year 53,000 Eritreans had been expelled from Ethiopia since the fighting began. Further deportations, including 635 only last month, have brought the total up to 65,000. As an added twist, the Ethiopians charged the deportees in the latest batch between six and 18 dollars for "transportation and baggage handling". However, the expulsions do not seem to have been organised in the deliberately cruel manner of earlier ones when families were deliberately split up, with children being kicked out of Ethiopia at different times, sometimes months apart, from their parents.
On the other side, the ICRC says that it helped 22,000 Ethiopians who were living in Eritrea to return home and that many others went back under their own steam. There was no systematic policy of ill-treatment of Ethiopians by the Eritrean Government or their security forces. The UNHCR says that 300,000 people have been internally displaced by the conflict in Eritrea and 272,000 in Ethiopia.
What are these colossal upheavals and losses of life all about? When Eritrea gained independence in 1991, the borders between Eritrea and Ethiopia were not clearly defined, although the two states had agreed that the colonial boundaries between the Italian colony and Ethiopia should be retained in accordance with Organisation for African Unity principles. However, each side encroached on the other and the problem continued to smoulder until 1997 when a border commission was established following the alleged occupation of an Eritrean town by Ethiopian
790
forces. The border commission met several times but reached no conclusions. Then on 6th May 1998 fighting broke out after the Eritreans occupied the thinly inhabited area known as the Badme triangle, which they claimed, even though it had been administered by Ethiopia.
Such local border disputes cannot be the whole reason for the war, any more than the Archduke Ferdinand's assassination caused the First World War. Many Ethiopians still resent Eritrea's independence, its military superiority in the war of liberation and its desire to have its own currency. As a landlocked country, the Ethiopians disliked their dependence on the Eritrean port of Assab. Indeed, Ethiopia's real agenda may have been revealed when last week its Minister of Defence said that Ethiopia had the capacity to,
"break the backbone of the invading army and restore its territorial integrity".
If the Ethiopians had been concerned only to restore their correct borders with Eritrea, by now they would have accepted the proposals made by the OAU which I know that Ministers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have done their best to support.
In summary, the OAU framework agreement of June 1998 recommended that there should be an immediate cessation of hostilities; redeployment of armed forces to the positions they held before the fighting started, supervised by OAU military observers in all contested areas of the border; demilitarisation of the border; delineation of the border by UN cartographic experts; investigation of the circumstances which led to the hostilities; and the cessation of action by either party against each other's nationals.
The Eritreans, who have been put at a disadvantage by the expulsion of their ambassador to the OAU from Addis Ababa, at first quibbled a little about the framework agreement by submitting a number of questions for clarification. However, they accepted the replies and signed up to the agreement after both parties were urged to do so by the UN Security Council in February 1999.
At the Algiers summit of the OAU, the parties signed up to the modalities for the implementation of that agreement, agreeing to put an end not only to all military activities, but also to,
"all forms of expression likely to sustain and exacerbate the climate of hostility".
That has not been honoured. Both sides have continued to hurl insults at each other. Furthermore, the formal cessation of hostilities, which was to be the first step in the sequence of implementation, has not yet occurred. Notwithstanding the firm statement issued on 11th August by the chairman and secretary-general of the OAU that interpretation of the framework agreement—the modalities and the technical arrangements—fell within the exclusive competence of the OAU, the Ethiopians submitted a long list of questions about the technical arrangements. To take just one example, they asked

791
why the modalities called for the immediate redeployment of troops to the positions they held before 6th May 1998 while the arrangements said that this would occur 50 days after D-Day. They received a response saying that the experts had advised that it would take that long to deploy OAU military observers. However, the Ethiopians have continued to quibble and prevaricate ever since they received a very detailed explanation from the OAU in mid-August. They have argued that further dialogue is necessary to,
"close the loopholes and eliminate the inconsistencies between the Technical Arrangements and the Framework Agreement".
Thus they have challenged the OAU's sole right of interpretation and, in effect, have threatened to start the whole process of conflict resolution, laboriously undertaken by the OAU, again from square one.
A note of the current position of the Ethiopians sent to me by their ambassador states why they are dissatisfied with the explanations given by the OAU. They want the TA document to repeat words already included in the framework agreement which they interpret as being critical of Eritrea but which have nothing to do with the solution. They want Eritrea to withdraw from all occupied areas before the cessation of hostilities, even though paragraph 4 of the modalities, which they themselves signed on 14th July, states plainly:
"The redeployment of troops shall commence immediately after the cessation of hostilities".
In practice, that means as soon as the OAU observers can get there. The Ethiopians say that the TA document has to specify the areas from which Eritrea must withdraw, again ignoring the modalities' requirement that OAU military observers should supervise the redeployment of both Eritrean and Ethiopian forces. The TA document provides for a neutral commission to decide as a matter of fact what were the positions occupied by the respective forces prior to 6th May 1998. That is fair, considering that in any case the resumption of those positions is without prejudice to the ultimate determination of the boundary by the UN cartographers.
Mr Ahmed Ouyahia, the OAU special envoy on the Horn of Africa, has worked hard to bring Ethiopia into conformity with formulas so carefully and systematically developed. But when his last round of shuttling between the capitals of Asmara and Addis Ababa was completed at the end of last month, there was no announcement. Again, at about that time the rainy season was coming to an end and the de facto ceasefire which had operated since the Algiers summit began to look increasingly fragile. Tension is rising and there is even a danger that Djibouti would be drawn in if fighting started again. On 11th November the president of the UN Security Council urged Ethiopia and Eritrea to exercise maximum restraint. However, there are reports that Ethiopia is getting ready to launch a new offensive. As someone I was
792
talking to this morning who has just returned from Addis put it,
"They want to destroy Eritrea. The media is completely dominated by warmongering and reconciliation is not discussed at any level. Isaias is compared to Hitler. It is common knowledge that troops and heavy armaments are being moved up to the front line".
Can the Minister tell the House whether the UN Security Council has access to satellite intelligence of troop movements on either side and, if so, would it consider asking for that intelligence to be published so that the world can judge who is the aggressor and who will start the fighting again? If the Security Council does not have access to that data, would Britain suggest to the other member states of the council that an approach be made to satellite-owning member states to see if they would be prepared to make available the images and analyses both in this case and in any others where large military operations may be apprehended?
As I see it, the problem has been that up to now the Security Council has treated the two parties as being equally responsible for the failure to resolve this conflict. If an even greater catastrophe is to be prevented in the Horn of Africa than has already occurred, it needs to identify Addis Ababa as the one responsible. The Eritreans have no motive for prolonging a war they cannot win. They have signed up to the spirit and letter of all three OAU documents. On the other hand, Ethiopia wants to defeat Eritrea on the battlefield and has turned a deaf ear to pleas from the OAU.
No doubt it was considered that Ethiopia was more likely to be persuaded into compliance if it was not blamed for the failure to implement the agreements that it had signed. However, surely there must come a point where the aggressor is identified and measures taken against it. The Security Council determined in its resolution of 10th February that the situation constitutes a threat to peace and security, but it has not taken the further step of deciding, in the words of Chapter 7,
"what measures shall be taken … to maintain or restore international peace and security".
Before deciding what measures should be taken, I propose that the Security Council should ask President Bouteflika whether it may see copies of the special envoy's reports on his efforts to persuade the two parties to agree to the OAU package. If he says that Eritrea did agree to the OAU proposals but that Ethiopia is backtracking not only on the technical arrangements but also on the modalities, then the Security Council should not express its next resolution in terms of an equal demand on both states but should welcome Eritrea's co-operation and require Ethiopia to accept the OAU package as well. Have the Government seen Mr Ouyahia's reports, and will they try to get them into the public domain? Will the Government ensure that the obstacles to peace are clearly identified in a Security Council resolution and, if one party turns out to be mainly responsible, that that party is identified?

793
It is a pity that the Security Council did not act immediately in May 1998 to prevent fresh arms supplies pouring into the region. The EU decided on an arms embargo last year, but western Europe was never the main supplier to the region. At the end of last year Eritrea acquired six MiG 29s and Ethiopia eight Sukhoi 27s. In each case there was reported to be a package of support in terms of training for pilots and technicians. Since the de facto cease-fire in June, both sides have been re-arming. One authority on the region says that, between them, the two countries are spending an estimated 600 million dollars a year on foreign weapons, a shocking diversion of resources from the development needs of a desperately poor region. In Ethiopia, humanitarian agencies are asking for extra money to help the internally displaced and those affected by the severe drought. The number of people in need of food aid in Ethiopia has been revised from the previous estimate of 5.6 million to 6.8 million for November and 4.6 million for December, according to USA ID's famine early warning system.
The United Nations ought to be more joined up and say that countries which cannot afford to feed their people should not be spending billions of dollars on weapons. Will the Government propose a mandatory UN arms embargo on the Horn of Africa as a whole, plus Yemen, which has broken the existing embargo on Sudan and could well be dealing with other countries in the region?
After Mengistu was overthrown and Eritrea gained its independence by force of arms, it looked as though a new era of peace and co-operation between previous enemies was beginning. The UK and the EU were ready to help with development aid and technical help in promoting good governance, democracy and human rights, and Ethiopia was receiving steadily increasing amounts of development assistance. Now all that is being jeopardised by the conflict and the refusal of Addis Ababa to listen to the advice being offered by the OAU and the UN with the support of the whole world. The loss of life, the immense suffering of the wounded and the displaced, the sacrifice of economic potential and the criminal waste of resources on military hardware have already threatened the future of the people of both countries. If the fighting is resumed, the catastrophe will have repercussions far beyond the region. Britain, as a friend and ally of both states concerned, must do everything to prevent this tragedy.
7.42 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I listened with particular interest to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, having studied with an Eritrean who kindly invited me to his country's festival of independence. I am not surprised that the war is so atrocious. The Eritreans are a united people, dedicated to their nation; it is very much a team co-operative society. I am sure that they will put a great deal of effort into the war and there will be great difficulties there. Eritrea has also inherited factories for making weapons from previous colonists, and that may have consequences for the current conflict.
794
Perhaps noble Lords will permit me to say a few words on those who are homeless and have sought asylum in this country from the conflicts in Eritrea, Ethiopia and similar areas. There is a chronic shortage of beds for the homeless, a problem which has been worsening for some time. Asylum seekers are not seen as the intended client group of the homelessness agencies. Consequently, it is far harder for asylum seekers to find accommodation.
As a result, vulnerable young people, who often speak little or no English and who may well be recovering from the effect of family members being murdered, or of family members being lost and of not knowing whether they are alive or dead, or having the home in which they grew up razed, stay in direct access emergency accommodation for months on end.
Such accommodation is designed to be a clearing-house, a place to stay for a maximum of three weeks while suitable, more permanent accommodation is sought. It is cramped; there is a curfew; residents are asked to leave during the day and are not allowed to spend more than 30 minutes alone in their room before lights out. Some of the other residents may have emotional problems which make them difficult to live with. However, those who have escaped are grateful for any help and do not complain. I am sure that your Lordships are most concerned that young people who have suffered appallingly in their own countries continue to suffer in this country when we could be of help.
I have just one question for the Minister. Would it be possible for the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to work together to discover which asylum seekers are the most vulnerable and target them for increased support? The voluntary agencies exist which could provide accommodation and the language and counselling support that are required. However, they lack the resources to deliver such support. The trauma of those escaping Kosovo was recognised by the Government and appropriate help was provided for them. Why should not those who are equally traumatised, especially those who are young and non-English speaking, who escape from other conflicts also receive appropriate help?
7.46 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for asking this Unstarred Question, because it allows me to make the speech which I tried to compress into a supplementary question on the previous occasion when the noble Lord raised this subject during a Starred Question on 28th October. As I mentioned then, I was privileged to be part of a parliamentary delegation to Ethiopia in July this year which took place at the invitation of the Ethiopian Government and was led by John Austin, MP. We were taken to see some of the most attractive and impressive geographical and cultural centres in the country, in the process passing through highland areas where we witnessed the industrious nature of the people in basic agricultural activities, as well as their extreme poverty. The Ethiopian Government realise

795
that the population in the highland areas is too high in relation to their current productive possibilities and the uncertain climate, and are encouraging resettlement; and they are not using the coercive methods of the previous regime. We observed grain distribution points in two places, organised through the World Food Programme, necessary because of the inadequate rainfall last year. That should avert a recurrence of the famine conditions of 1985.
Ethiopia is a very beautiful country with a long and important history. But it is in need of massive development assistance. What is encouraging is the recognition of that need by the present government and their willingness to co-operate with the numerous agencies, both private and public, which are involved. The tragedy of the current conflict is that that urgent development is being delayed by the diversion of resources to military expenditure and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people in or near the border with Eritrea, as was described graphically by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
The same is obviously the case in Eritrea. It is a pity that our delegation was not taken anywhere near the war zone. Ostensibly, that was out of consideration for-our safety, but as there were no hostilities at the time we were rather surprised, since we had come to Ethiopia, in part, to learn about the effects of the conflict. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, there is remarkably little information available to us in any part of the world through the media. It would be extremely interesting to know about the satellite surveillance which the noble Lord suggested is going on. We understood that the casualties in the battle to retake the land around the town of Badme had been very heavy indeed, a figure of 15,000 to 20,000 dead was thought probable. That agrees with the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. If indeed that was the case, there must be many families in Ethiopia who are bereaved. There will be political pressure on the government to justify those losses and possibly to seek revenge for them.
In our discussions with government ministers and representatives, including a short meeting with the Prime Minister, Mr Meles Zenawi, the conflict with Eritrea was, of course, at the top of the agenda. The Algerian summit meeting of the OAU had just taken place and both sides had accepted the framework agreement described by the noble Lord. At that point, Eritrea was seeking clarification on the modalities of the agreement. It was suggested to us that this was because the Eritreans did not really accept the agreement, that as an aggressor state it was not really interested in peace.
However, the Eritreans shortly afterwards did agree unconditionally to those modalities, despite their initial reservations. From then onwards, it has been the Ethiopians who have found reasons to delay their acceptance, this time because of the technical arrangements for bringing the modalities into force. That was described in more detail by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. In particular, they object to the mention of an interim "peacekeeping force" and have
796
a new requirement for a detailed description of the territory that will be vacated by each side, before agreeing to a cease-fire. In the meantime, both sides appear to be mobilising their military strength, although details are unknown to us. It would be interesting to know what information Her Majesty's Government have on that. However, skirmishes continue along the frontier, although there have apparently been no major confrontations since February.
At the time of our visit there appeared to be an officially sanctioned campaign to brand Eritrea as "an aggressor state", with the implication that it was therefore not to be trusted. There was an atmosphere of what I can only describe as "belligerent indignation". I have a newspaper quotation from the Ethiopian Herald, a government newspaper, of 21st July. It states:
"The Eritrean leaders are not concerned by what tomorrow might bring. They behave and continue to behave like a group of hoodlums who do not care about consequences that their actions might bring about but instead chose to be blinded by their tremendous ego that is costing the lives of a whole generation of Eritreans. This is the trademark of fascist leaders that will go on performing in their evil ways until judgement day and until total darkness takes over".
I do not believe that that attitude is likely to engender the even-handed approach needed in peace negotiations. It must be said—and I heard these opinions being expressed, as the noble Lord mentioned—that many people in Ethiopia are still unhappy that Eritrea was granted its independence in 1991. They may be putting pressure on the government to take a hard line and risk escalating the conflict.
In a publication that we were given as background reading material, entitled Peace under Assault (a report of a meeting in Addis Ababa in December 1998) Sarah Vaughan of the Centre of African Studies, University of Edinburgh, who is also attached to the University of Addis Ababa, said:
"When EPRDF assumed responsibility for the establishment of a Transitional Government in 1991. it also acquired responsibility for dealing with negative Ethiopian public reaction to the 'loss' of Eritrea, which after decades of highly effective Ethiopian government calls for 'unity above all', ranged from extremes of well articulated rage, to quiet despondency in many quarters".
Eritrea is being accused by Ethiopia of arming Somalian warlords such as General Aideed and supporting the OLF, the Oromo Liberation Front, thus justifying Ethiopian incursions deep into Somalia. This, of course, is denied by Eritrea. I would be very interested to know whether Her Majesty's Government have any confirmation of those activities.
The OAU agreement is ready on the table to be enacted. Ethiopia has a few difficulties with the technical arrangements. On the face of it, there should be no insuperable obstacles in the way of declaring a cease-fire. Ethiopia would gain far more by agreeing to the technical arrangements on the table and achieving a cease-fire than it is likely to gain by insisting on the removal of the features to which it objects.
On the other hand, the same applies to Eritrea. If a genuine cease-fire could be achieved, the Eritreans might forgo a peacekeeping force as such, if the

797
international military observers to which they have agreed and who are part of the framework agreement, are given sufficient powers.
There is still a window of opportunity, but there are forces building—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury on this—which do not want a cease-fire. They are playing with fire, of course, by not having a cease-fire. If the war enters a new destructive phase, the development of both countries will be put back for decades, quite apart from the human suffering which will ensue. The only winners will be the arms manufacturers who are already making a tidy profit from the existing state of tension.
The British Government can still play a major role alone, or through the EU or in the Security Council in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, by putting pressure on both parties to come to an agreement. I suggest that perhaps more pressure now needs to be put on Ethiopia than has been the case in the past.
7.56 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, should be thanked for raising this matter. This war has gone on long enough and, as so often with vehemently held points of principle, participants believe that solutions lie on the battlefield. However, equitable peace, through negotiation, is the only practical remedy.
The situation is nevertheless grave, with its territorial origins exacerbated by the expulsion of nationals and virulent propaganda campaigns. Please allow me briefly to review subsequent key events, as they have a bearing on my thesis.
A number of mediation attempts have been made, with Secretary-General Annan initiating direct contacts with the leadership of both sides and offering good offices. The joint facilitation efforts by the United States and Rwanda initially appeared promising, but it soon became clear that their recommendations requiring Eritrea to withdraw to the position held prior to May 1998 in Badme and its environs were acceptable to Ethiopia but not to Eritrea. Following the OAU's summit on 10th June which called on the parties to accept and implement the US/Rwandan recommendations, the OAU took the lead on mediation efforts.
The Security Council adopted a resolution in which it expressed its strong support for the OAU effort and called on the parties to co-operate. The council asked the Secretary-General to make available his good offices in support of a peaceful resolution, requesting him to provide technical support in the eventual delimitation and demarcation of the common border. A trust fund was established for that purpose.
The OAU high level delegation then presented its framework agreement, again essentially based on the US/Rwandan recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has outlined the detail adequately, so there is no need to elaborate.
798
It is worthy of reiteration, however, that a further Security Council resolution strongly supported the OAU framework agreement and called for Eritrea's acceptance of it. Following US Envoy Anthony Lake's recommendation, Ambassador Mohamed Sahnoun was charged as the Secretary-General's special envoy and made his first trip to the two capitals. His mission was complicated by the eruption of major fighting on the Badme front, increasing to a second front around Tsorona. Forty thousand casualties were reported on the Badme front alone.
Ambassador Sahnoun made a second mission to the region in April and May, during which time the gap between the two sides blocking the implementation of the OAU framework agreement narrowed. UN departments stepped up contingency planning in anticipation of the implementation of the framework agreement to ensure a rapid response to assist the OAU, together with a document of technical arrangements calling for the establishment of a neutral commission.
While on the one hand I believe that we are well on the way to a settlement, the other continues to send conflicting messages. What can the UK Government do at this time? Beyond supporting the process, poor donor response to the UN Country Team Appeals to meet emergency requirements, especially non-food items, is worrying and should be addressed. Shelter, blankets and medical support, especially for the displaced who live in camps, are needed. Over 500,000 Eritreans and 400,000 Ethiopians who are either internally displaced or deportees have been affected. The commission's responsibility would be the determination of the precise areas from which the two sides are to redeploy. It should be noted that Norway contributed some 500,000 US dollars to the trust fund in support of the delimitation and demarcation of the Ethiopian/Eritrean border.
This brings me full circle to current events. With regret, in recent weeks the two sides have resumed hostile propaganda. In his meetings with the Foreign Ministers during the recent General Assembly, Secretary-General Annan appealed for maximum restraint on the military front as well as in public posturing.
The World Food Programme already has emergency food aid programmes in both countries, with the European Union also offering additional food aid support. While donors have responded positively to the programmes, the response to emergency appeals for drought-affected populations and support for war-affected populations has been poor, especially in Eritrea. The humanitarian situation in parts of Ethiopia has been exacerbated by severe drought which has led to the emergence of a major food crisis, with almost 5 million people affected. UNDP reports that levels of malnutrition are high. Livestock prices have fallen and families have been forced to move from their homes in search of food.
The humanitarian community is also concerned about reports of new landmines laid in disputed areas along the border which will prevent the early return of

799
displaced people to their places of origin. According to government figures, there are over 150,000 new landmines in the Badme region and other areas will be equally affected. This will be detrimental to the rehabilitation of these areas, especially agricultural activities.
The United Nations has supported the OAU mediation efforts, and rightly so. I do not believe that at this stage the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the UN should consider taking the lead from OAU has merit, believing that any out-manoeuvring would have a detrimental effect. I am satisfied that Ambassador Sahnoun is aware of and reacting to any issues that require personal intervention, and recent trips point to that.
I agree with the noble Lord, however, that the Algerian presidency of the OAU should consider a new shuttling round between capitals to clarify points of detail or iron out any procedural bottlenecks. The OAU is in any event in the process of clarifying some remaining points in the technical arrangements to secure Ethiopia's acceptance. I sense peace. I ask the Minister, who is within the sphere of influence, to encourage the participants to patch up remaining differences and enter an era of regional stability and prosperity.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has been a dedicated supporter of the need to achieve peace in the Horn of Africa. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out, it is only a month ago almost to the day that he last asked a Question in your Lordships' House about the situation in Ethiopia and Eritrea and what HMG would do about it. To paraphrase it, the answer then was, very little. I fear that this evening the Minister will be forced to give the same answer. This is not a criticism of Her Majesty's Government, for unless we are prepared to recommend that the UN unleash its full power—obviously, we shall not act unilaterally—it is difficult to see what else can be done.
The Government are aware of the situation, which is that two countries, newly separated, are competing for the ownership of a piece of land that is really of no use to either of them; at least that is the ostensible reason. Until the contestants can be convinced that it is of no use it is difficult to see how the problem can be resolved.
In his speech the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, appeared to be marginally in favour of the position held by Eritrea. No doubt in common with all noble Lords who speak in the debate this evening, I have received a letter from the Ethiopian Ambassador in London, who puts the matter a little differently. Therefore, it may be wise for me to refrain from referring to the causes and conduct of the conflict.
Last week your Lordships debated, once formally in a Question which I asked and once in a debate over Chechnya, the Government's ethical foreign policy. Ethically, the Government must disapprove of what is
800
going on and work to resolve it. But the question then and now is how far they are prepared to go and to what extent they are prepared to commit the country. "Overstretch" is a word that we apply not only to the country's defence policies; it is most relevant to the whole economic and political situation.
The precise wording of the noble Lord's Question is to ask what steps Her Majesty's Government will take to help solve the conflict. In the circumstances I cannot see how the Minister can give any answer other than the one that she has given; namely, that the Government continue to urge both sides to refrain from a return to military action and to accept the OAU peace proposals. That is exactly the same answer as her noble friend Lady Symons gave the noble Lord when he asked an almost identical Question in February.
But there are specific things that can be done to underwrite that answer. One step that the Government can take—to be fair, I am sure that they are taking it, for the Minister in another place said so at the time—is to implement most rigorously United Nations Security Council Resolution 1227 of February of this year which discouraged sales of arms to both sides. The Government can encourage the United Nations to go further and ban all arms sales, for the February resolution was not mandatory. The world being as it is and Russia being what it is, even a mandatory resolution will not stop Ethiopia and Eritrea from getting arms but it will go some way to help. In this context I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness can inform the House whether Her Majesty's Government know of any occasion when licences have been granted to British companies to export arms to either country. As I have said, the UNSCR is not mandatory.
The coup in Sierra Leone, the bloodshed in the Republic of Congo and the former Zaire and the continuing border conflict in the Horn of Africa between the two former allies, Ethiopia and Eritrea, have delivered a blow to the much-trumpeted vision of Africa's fin de siècle renaissance of democracies and free market economies. This conflict is a particular blow since both Isaias Afewerki of Eritrea and Melas Zenawi have been widely hailed as Africa's new men who would guide the continent out of its cycle of corruption and poverty.
In pursuit of their declared policy the Government can encourage the United Nations and the Organisation of African Unity to establish an African-based and African-controlled peacekeeping force which could be deployed in any area of tension, and the Ethiopian-Eritrean border is not the only one, while political solutions are being sought.
If the United Nations cannot solve this problem, do the Government agree with our ambassador at the United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, that conflicts in Africa could emerge as real threats to world peace which the United Nations will be powerless to prevent as it is not equipped to tackle the real problems in Africa?
The United Nations and the OAU are the only bodies which can do it. The phrase "white man's burden" is many decades out of date and this country

801
cannot be expected to punch more than its weight in the world, to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, on defence. Britain and France already appear to be playing a large part. The countries have agreed, to quote the Foreign Secretary and M Vedrine,
"to strengthen their co-operation in Africa … based on a common vision of promoting positive change and respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Africa".
Her Majesty's Government could ensure that the Government are represented in Eritrea. At present our ambassador is in Addis Ababa. When the two countries are in conflict it must be a little difficult for the diplomat to adhere strictly to Her Majesty's Government's policy in both countries.
Britain has a special relationship with Eritrea, for Her Majesty's Government administered it for more than a decade following the liberation of the country from the Italians in 1941. That being the case, why is the planned expenditure aid to Ethiopia set to increase three times from 1998 to 2002 while that to Eritrea falls to a quarter over the same period? It would be unwise to take sides in this conflict but this seems a perverse judgment on the needs of the two states, both of which have least-developed status. Perhaps I have that wrong. I hope that the noble Baroness may be able to help.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is so persistent in asking this Question because no one else is doing so. Certainly it is a conflict that has had little oxygen of publicity of late. Could the reality therefore be that compared with Kosovo or East Timor, and perhaps Chechnya, this is a war that has become unfashionable to the sensibilities of the international community?
I can assure the Minister of our support from these Benches of the broad trend of the Government's policy. I hope and pray that the Government's efforts will bring peace, and even more importantly prosperity, indivisible from peace, to this sad region.
8.13 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I join those who congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on asking this Question. It is obvious to all who participated that it is timely.
The difficulties which face both Ethiopia and Eritrea are well known to all in this House. The Government are deeply saddened that the governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea, who for 17 years fought together against the terrible tyranny of the Derg regime, continue to find themselves in a state of war.
As noble Lords are aware, this dispute arose when Ethiopian and Eritrean forces clashed near the Ethiopian border town of Badume between 6th and 12th May 1998. Ethiopia accused Eritrea of invading its territory; Eritrea defended its actions by claiming that it was responding to earlier Ethiopian incursions into Eritrea. It is a common story in terms of how things are seen.
802
A mediation team led by Susan Rice, the United States Assistant Secretary of State, and including Vice-President Kagame of Rwanda engaged in an initial round of shuttle diplomacy in an effort to find a peaceful solution to the dispute. Many noble Lords mentioned this. They presented peace proposals to both sides on 31st May 1998. Those called for the withdrawal of Eritrean forces from Badume, restoration of the status quo ante, demilitarisation and demarcation of the border according to colonial boundaries. Ethiopia accepted these proposals, while Eritrea made it clear that she would not consider withdrawing from Badume. We deeply regret that Eritrea did not take that opportunity swiftly to end the conflict. It was an opportunity missed.
Sadly, the level of military engagement escalated on 5th June 1998. The Ethiopians launched air attacks on the airport in Asmara and the Eritreans retaliated by attacking the Ethiopian town of Mekele. These raids caused civilian casualties and deaths on both sides of the border.
At its summit on 8th to 10th June 1998, the Organisation of African Unity endorsed the US/Rwandan proposals as the basis for a peaceful resolution of the dispute. I welcome the support by all speakers tonight of those efforts. The heads of state of Burkina Faso, Djibouti and Zimbabwe were asked to mediate. They visited the region from 17th to 19th June. I think that there is general agreement that they were the most effective interlocutors at that stage.
After several rounds of discussion in Ouagadougou on 7th and 8th November 1998, the mediators presented a Framework Peace Agreement to the Prime Minister of Ethiopia and the President of Eritrea. This was based largely on the original US/Rwandan proposals. Ethiopia issued a statement on 9th November accepting the framework agreement. Eritrea did not accept it and sought clarification on a number of points. That history—it has been highlighted by a number of noble Lords—is important when one tries to understand what has happened in the region.
On 5th February of this year, an Ethiopian government press statement announced that the Eritrean air force had bombed the northern Ethiopian town of Adigrat. Ethiopia launched a full offensive at Badume on 6th February. The United Nations responded to the resumption of fighting with Security Council Resolution 1227 of 10th February. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, mentioned it. It condemned the use of force by both sides, demanded an immediate cease-fire and urged member states to end the sale of arms to both countries. This in effect called for a voluntary arms embargo. We had pushed for a full and binding UN arms embargo, but there was little international support. As your Lordships know, it is a matter which caused anxiety. Consequently we decided to implement a full bilateral arms embargo against both countries and informed Parliament of this on 15th February. We also pushed for a mandatory European Union-wide arms embargo against both countries, which came into effect on 15th March. We remain concerned at the continuing flow of

803
sophisticated weaponry to both sides. That is particularly regrettable as these are two of the world's poorest countries.
I turn to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. What do we know about Eritrea supporting Ethiopian opposition groups in Somalia? Ethiopia and a number of Somali faction leaders have accused Eritrea of supplying weapons and financial support to the Oromo Liberation Front, an armed group opposed to the Ethiopian government. Ethiopia has responded by sending forces into Somalia to attack Oromo bases. We deplore any and all breaches of the UN arms embargo against Somalia and we have told both governments that deliberate use of Somalia to further their military aims is not acceptable and must cease.
Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, who asked about the UN arms embargo. It is regrettable that the bilateral arms embargo currently in place is not a binding UN arms embargo. Many countries have not followed the example set by the UK and the EU in implementing their own binding embargo. There are persistent rumours of arms shipments to both sides. That remains a matter of concern to us all.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. As regards allegations about the supply of weapons to the OLF and the aid alleged to have been given by the Eritreans to General Aideed in Somalia, does she really believe that it is plausible that Eritrea, with its back to the wall and facing the possibility of another enormous offensive, would divert sadly needed weapons from the front at home to adventures in a foreign land thousands of miles away?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is not really what we believe; it simply emphasises the propaganda battle—although one does not want to say that—in the region. There are allegations and counter allegations from both sides. That is why we have said that the need for balance, care and judicious management of this delicate situation is of prime importance.
Your Lordships will know that prior to the conflict we judged all defence export licence applications for both countries against the criteria announced by the Foreign Secretary on 28th July 1997. Following the outbreak of fighting on 6th May 1998, we considered all applications for both countries against our commitment not to issue a licence if there were a clearly identifiable risk that the intended recipient would use the proposed export aggressively against another country. We also reviewed all extant export licences for both countries. We revoked four licences for Eritrea. There were no similar extant licences for Ethiopia. Therefore, throughout, our approach to both countries has been balanced.
Ethiopian forces retook Badume on 27th February. This was followed by Eritrean acceptance of the framework agreement. But fighting continued until the start of the rainy season in late June. We are most conscious that the rainy season is now over and that is
804
why we highlight the need for caution and delicacy at this stage if the situation is not to degenerate into something more acute. However, I am happy to assure the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that we will do all we can to encourage both sides to engage in the peace process.
At the Organisation of African Unity summit in Algiers on 14th July this year, both heads of state accepted the modalities for the implementation of the framework agreement. The incoming chairman of the organisation, President Bouteflika of Algeria, was tasked with continuing the mediation effort. He appointed Ahmed Ouyahiya, a former Prime Minister of Algeria, as his special envoy.
As your Lordships know, Mr Ouyahiya visited the region from 4th to 9th August and presented both sides with technical arrangements for implementing the framework agreement. This document added flesh to the bones of the framework and modalities agreements. The technical arrangements include an implementation timetable. They recommended a formal cessation of hostilities followed by the establishment of a neutral commission to determine the position of each side prior to the start of the conflict on 6th May 1998 and therefore where each side must withdraw to. A United Nations peacekeeping mission would then be established to oversee the redeployment of the forces from both sides, starting with Eritrea. Civil administrations that were in place prior to the start of the conflict would be restored, followed by demarcation and delimitation.
This time, it was Eritrea which accepted the proposals in full and Ethiopia which sought clarification. The Ethiopians assert that certain elements of the technical arrangements are inconsistent with the earlier agreed documents. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made mention of some of those. In particular, it insists that it cannot accept a cessation of hostilities without assurances that Eritrea will withdraw from all areas taken by force. It claims that the absence of such an assurance would amount to rewarding an act of international aggression.
The technical arrangements are non-negotiable. But Mr Ouyahiya is currently working to find a formula that is acceptable to both sides. He has the trust and co-operation of both sides and we believe that this process offers the best chance for peace.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether we would publish details about the movement of peace troops. We are aware of the movement of troops and weapons on both sides of the border. It is true that the rainy season has stopped, but that is why it is even more important to tread carefully now. Negotiations are delicate and it would only damage the chances of peace to publish the negotiations, as the noble Lord suggests. We have not seen Mr Ouyahiya's report, which is for the use of the mediators and the parties engaged in the process. Her Majesty's Government want to do nothing which will undermine the good work that is currently being done with the parties.
In recent weeks, we have made very clear to both sides the consequences of a return to fighting. The Secretary of State for International Development

805
spoke to Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia on 13th October and to President Isaias of Eritrea on 19th October. She urged both leaders to seek a peaceful solution and stressed the negative impact that the dispute was having on development efforts.
The Secretary of State for International Development also held a meeting with the Algerian Ambassador to London to convey the UK Government's full support for Algerian mediation efforts. The World Bank and the European Union have advised both governments that there will be no funds for new projects and programmes until the border dispute has been settled peacefully.
The United Kingdom and other bilateral donors support this line and have applied the same principles to their own development programmes. Most bilateral donors, including the United Kingdom, are completing current commitments and continuing to provide humanitarian assistance. But we will not agree any new funding proposals for either Ethiopia or Eritrea until peace has been secured.
I can give a few details on the current assistance to Ethiopia and Eritrea, but I shall do so briefly. The United Kingdom assistance to Ethiopia in 1999–2000 is expected to be £7.5 million. The main sectors we are working on are agriculture/food security, rural roads and support for the police training college which has an emphasis on human rights. In addition, we are supporting rehabilitation projects through international non-governmental organisations. That touches on the issues raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley.
Like most other donors, the Department for International Development is completing current commitments, but not embarking on new ones. In addition, in 1999 we have given £2 million to provide food for people affected by drought. All that is emergency assistance provided by agencies such as The Save the Children Fund.
The Eritreans take a robust view of aid conditionality arid accordingly our aid programme to Eritrea is relatively small. It consists at present of a small grant scheme of £250,000 supporting projects in education, health and other sectors which help poor people. We have also been giving emergency support. We provided £150,000 in response to the 1998 United Nations consolidated flash appeal for Eritrea for the World Health Organisation's emergency health assistance to those displaced by the fighting. I am pleased to say that as recently as last night—to respond to questions in relation to intent—at a meeting with our ambassador, Mr Meles reassured us that Ethiopia is continuing to work with the Algerian mediators to secure peaceful resolution of the conflict. Those are hopeful signs.
806
I turn to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. He raised the plight of asylum seekers who have suffered a great deal as a result of the dispute. The noble Earl made a good point in relation to the working together of departments. Your Lordships will know that the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office work closely together. That is an issue for the Home Office, but I am sure that it will look carefully at the noble Earl's suggestion.
The Government's policy towards the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict has been entirely consistent with our commitment to human rights. We have pursued a balanced policy which offers the best chance of peace. Peace, stability and respect for human rights in the Horn of Africa are our goals. I make that point in particular in response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and indeed, the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Our efforts to secure a full and binding UN arms embargo, our swift implementation of the bilateral arms embargo and our criticisms of both governments over their treatment of civilian populations and prisoners of war demonstrate our commitment to achieving those goals.
We are extremely concerned at the humanitarian impact of the conflict. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, more than 38,000 ethnic Eritreans have been expelled from Ethiopia since July 1998. We have made clear to the Ethiopian authorities that we deplore that policy. Unlike Ethiopia, Eritrea has still not allowed the International Committee of the Red Cross access to its prisoners of war. We have raised the issue with the Eritrean Government and have urged them to grant access to all prisoners. Although Eritrea has not signed the Geneva Convention, we expect it to respect it. We welcome the fact that the OAU proposals specifically deal with deportees and other groups affected by the conflict.
We, along with the rest of the international community, have consistently supported the Organisation of African Unity process since the start of the conflict. We remain convinced that that is the correct policy. It is vital, in our respectful view, that both sides understand that the international community is united in support for the Organisation of African Unity process. The slightest doubt will weaken the chances of peace. We have heard calls for condemnatory statements and for punitive action against Ethiopia. However, such statements would achieve nothing and would almost certainly be counter-productive. We are convinced that punitive action against either side now would trigger a return to brutal warfare which would be disastrous for the people of both Ethiopia and Eritrea. I commend the support that all noble Lords have given to our efforts in this regard and I express our gratitude for it.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before nine o'clock.

  Stipendiary and Lay Magistrates
  Stipendiary and Lay Magistrates
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man: Civil Rights
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man: Civil Rights
  European Parliamentary Elections
  European Parliamentary Elections
  Tampere European Council: Presidency Paper
  Tampere European Council: Presidency Paper
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Investors in People Standard
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Investors in People Standard
  Retained Fire Service
  Retained Fire Service
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate Staff
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate Staff
  Water Fluoridation
  Water Fluoridation
  Carers Grant
  Carers Grant
  Pensioners: Minimum Income Guarantee
  Pensioners: Minimum Income Guarantee
  Women Entering Hostels: National Insurance Numbers
  Women Entering Hostels: National Insurance Numbers
  Companies Act Inspections
  Companies Act Inspections
  Chemical Warfare Mental Incapacitants: Agent 15
  Chemical Warfare Mental Incapacitants: Agent 15