Sitting of 11 December 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Millennium Dome
    Mr. David Rendel: On what date it was agreed that BT and Ford would sponsor two zones of the millennium dome in addition to the original 12. [141873]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The New Millennium Experience Company announced BT as sponsor of the talk zone on 24 February 1998 and the contractual documentation was signed on 18 January 1999 after the necessary detailed negotiation on terms. Ford was announced as sponsor of the journey zone on 5 March 1999. In that case, the necessary contractual documentation was completed and signed prior to the announcement on 15 February 1999.
    Mr. Rendel: The dates that the Minister has given indicate that the New Millennium Experience Company must have known two years before it finally revised its budget in February this year, that there would be a shortfall of tens of millions of pounds in its sponsorship budget and that that money would have to come out of lottery funds. Why, therefore, did NMEC fail to change its budget and fail to ask for extra lottery money for two years? Why did the Government allow it to get away with that?
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman has omitted to point out that the problem was that visitor numbers to the dome did not reach the estimated figure. However, I can confirm that the £46 million sponsorship from Ford and BT for the two zones to which he referred was never included in NMEC's original budget.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: When does the Minister expect the Legacy document to be signed off?
    Janet Anderson: Negotiations are continuing and, if all goes well, we hope that contracts will be exchanged in February.

    Regional Theatres
    Ms Sally Keeble: What measures he is taking to support regional theatres. [141874]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): We recognise that many theatres in the regions have faced serious problems. We agreed with the Arts Council that it would commission the study that led to the Boyden report. The Arts Council and the regional arts boards are in discussion with local government and the theatre community with a view to developing a national policy for theatre in England. We have provided a 60 per cent. real-terms increase in funding for the arts over five years, which is radically improving the position of regional theatre.
    Ms Keeble: I thank my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that regional theatres, such as the excellent theatres in my Northampton constituency, are important in encouraging and building up live theatre throughout the country? What does my right hon. Friend intend to do to ensure that money identified in the next steps report goes to the English regional theatres? Given theatres' concern about financing, does he agree that it is important for them to know whether the Opposition would maintain the Government's commitment to regional theatre funding if they ever got into power?
    Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that that last matter is not the Minister's responsibility.
    Mr. Howarth: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the tenacity with which she has championed the Theatre Royal, the Derngate theatre and the Masque theatre company in her constituency, and I hope that she is pleased with the progress that they have made. The merger of the Theatre Royal and the Derngate theatre was assisted by £1 million of Arts Council for England capital lottery money and there has been a 22 per cent. increase in east midlands arts funding.
    The Boyden review, and the Arts Council's consideration of it, led to the view that it was important to look at the whole theatre ecology and not simply take regional theatre in isolation. However, we have provided substantial additional funding, which the Arts Council will be able to use. As a result, it has committed itself to an increase of £12 million and, subsequently, £25 million, in funding for theatre. Therefore, the resources will be there to help on a wider front so long as we have a Labour Government, as my hon. Friend suggested. It is all too evident that the Opposition's plans would undermine the Arts Council's capacity to deliver—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Minister did not hear the statement that I made a few weeks ago. The policy of the Opposition is nothing to do with him.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: We must be approaching the pantomime season, Mr. Speaker.
    The crisis in regional theatres is serious and deepening. Is not that partly a result of the complexity of the funding process, which benefits many consultants but is precious little use to theatres? Is it not also caused by an emphasis on funding politically correct activities and on social

    331
    engineering, which means that the funding of the fabric of theatres takes second place? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that the crisis is caused not least by the net cut in Arts Council funds of £64 million that has been made in the past three years, according to the Government's own figures?
    Mr. Howarth: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman disparages Mr. Boyden by implication, as I think that he did a remarkable job. I am sorry also that he plainly does not consider it important for us to pursue our strategy to increase access and to encourage and enable a far wider range of citizens to enjoy the theatre. I do not know whether it is in order, Mr. Speaker, for me to note that the hon. Gentleman's protestations about the importance of adequate funding seem hollow in view of the shadow Chancellor's commitment to cut the Government's plans for public expenditure.

    Tourism Industry
    Mr. Anthony Steen: What assessment he has made of the impact of regulation on the viability of the tourism industry. [141875]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The Government are committed to reforming outdated, overlapping and overburdensome legislation. Our aims are clearer and better-targeted legislation and a climate that encourages thriving business while providing proper protection for workers, consumers and the environment. That includes the tourism industry.
    Mr. Steen: The impact of regulation on the tourism industry is as nothing compared with the effect on it of the disintegration of our infrastructure. Is the Minister aware of the difficulties of getting to and from the west country? Last Friday, it took me five and a half hours to travel from Paddington to Totnes and, yesterday, it took me six and a half hours to travel from Totnes to London. Is the Minister also aware that plane services are unreliable and unpredictable, that the motorways are gridlocked, and that that is no way to encourage tourists—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Minister.
    Janet Anderson: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is suffering from amnesia. He may recall that it was the previous Government who established the current system for running our railways. Of course, the infrastructure is not a matter for my Department, but I remind him that one of the things that we have done for the tourism industry—in stark contrast with the Conservative party—is to establish an annual tourism ministerial summit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If Opposition Members listen, they might learn something. At the summit, we will take every opportunity, in support of the tourism industry, to press matters for which other Departments are responsible.
    Mr. John Greenway: Although the proposed regulatory changes announced by the Government and their promise of further reviews are welcome, does the Minister recognise the extent to which tourism businesses are being strangled by new legislation introduced by her Government? New employment laws, such as the working
    332
    time directive and the minimum wage, and new measures on part-time work, maternity leave and parental entitlement have all been heaped on the industry during the past two years. They have prompted the British Hospitality Association to comment that much legislation and guidance was badly drafted and incomprehensible. Hotel and restaurant managers are haunted by the fear of prosecution for inadvertent non-compliance. When can they expect more simplified and workable arrangements?
    Janet Anderson: It would be interesting to know whether the Conservative party would do away with the measures to which the hon. Gentleman refers if it ever returned to government. We look forward to hearing about that.
    I remind the hon. Gentleman that my Department welcomed the better regulation taskforce report, which concentrated specifically on hotels and restaurants. The report made a number of recommendations, which we have accepted. We are now undertaking reviews in Departments throughout Whitehall of much of the highlighted legislation.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's Regulatory Reform Bill, a new measure introduced to deal with regulatory powers, provides an opportunity to consider their priority of better regulation, rather than total deregulation? Does not the Government's priority of encouraging the tourism industry involve ensuring that its workers are given proper protection and conditions?
    Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right. We should remember that, thanks to the Government, workers in the tourism industry now enjoy the right to a national minimum wage. My hon. Friend is also right about the Regulatory Reform Bill, which will deliver more than 20 reforms to cut and simplify existing regulations. There is no doubt that those measures will help the tourism industry and many other industries.
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: How will the regulation powers deal with seaside resorts? Having gone round most of the tourist resorts, I feel that nothing is happening. I have also been to the latest tourism forum, but there is much talk and little action. What action has the Minister taken in respect of tourism in seaside resorts?
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have done a great deal to help seaside resorts, and I thank him for his continued constituency interest and his deep interest in tourism generally. We have done what we can to help through single regeneration budget money, assisted area status and so on, but he will also know that we await the report of the English Tourism Council's resorts taskforce, which is ably chaired by Peter Moore, the former managing director of CenterParcs. We expect the report early in the new year and look forward to reading the recommendations. I am sure that a number of sensible ones will be made, and we look forward to acting on them.

    Schoolchildren (Creative Activities)
    Ms Ruth Kelly: What steps he is taking to give schoolchildren more opportunities to participate in creative activities out of school hours. [141876]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): We are providing a number of new opportunities for schoolchildren to engage in creative activities, including sport and arts, both in and out of school hours, and £130 million is being made available to primary schools under the space for sport and arts scheme. From 2002, my Department will make £40 million available to introduce at least 12 creative partnerships, targeted on particularly deprived areas. The new opportunities fund is already providing £205 million to support a wide range of out-of-school-hours learning projects across the UK.
    Ms Kelly: What impact will the declaration on sport agreed at the European Union's Nice summit have on creative and sporting activities for our schoolchildren?
    Mr. Smith: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the declaration on sport adopted at Nice carries a specific reference, included very much with our encouragement, to the value of using part of the broadcasting income that comes into sport for the benefit of grass-roots sporting activity, especially among children. The declaration rightly identifies sport as special and as having a significance that takes it beyond the normal commodity rules of the EU. However, there is another side to the coin: sport must recognise that it has a responsibility to society, too. That means ensuring that smaller clubs are helped by any transfer fee system; that the grass roots of sport are nurtured with help from income at the top; and, above all, that opportunities are fostered for children to experience and enjoy sporting activity.
    Mr. John Bercow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there appears to be ample time for sport, art and other creative activities out of school hours in private schools of the kind to which the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) is fortunate enough to be able to send her child, but that that contrasts starkly with the position in the state school sector, which more than 93 per cent. of children are obliged to attend? Given the over-prescriptive nature of the national curriculum, what will he do to improve the situation in the interests of millions of children who depend, and will always depend, on a taxpayer-financed education system?
    Mr. Smith: I have to ask the hon. Gentleman which party was in power in the 1980s, when the collapse in provision of out-of-school-hours sporting activity occurred, and which party was in power when playing fields were being sold off at an average of 50 a month? I also have to ask him whether, were he ever to get into government, he would cut the new opportunities fund money that will go to replace those sporting activities and facilities for children up and down the country.
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: On the new opportunities fund, will my right hon. Friend join me
    334
    in welcoming the extra £20,000 that is going to one of the most deprived areas in Chatham in my constituency, to provide after-school and holiday clubs? That is on top of the £2.4 million from the sure start programme which is being put into that area and which was welcomed by the Tory chairman of social services. The irony is that he would campaign for that to be abolished should the Tories win the election.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That example is just one of many thousands that are now in place around the country. Overall, the new opportunities fund has already committed more than £83 million to out-of-school-hours learning, sporting and artistic activities involving some 6,186 schools up and down the country. That is good news, and we want it to continue.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not know whether the Secretary of State had the good fortune to be in the audience last night for the BBC sports personality of the year awards, and hear the brilliant tribute that Steve Redgrave paid to those who had got him into rowing and supported him throughout his career. He is a role model who shows modesty and dignity. Such inspiration points to the importance of encouraging youngsters into sport while they are still of school age. Would the Secretary of State consider the idea of someone outside school interviewing all youngsters, once in primary school and once when they start secondary school, to see what arts or sport they have a particular interest in pursuing that is either not offered by the school or not sufficiently available within the school timetable and school hours?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport was present at the award ceremony last night, and I am sure that the whole House sends congratulations to Steve Redgrave on a well-deserved achievement. While we are on the subject of congratulations, can we marry that with congratulations to the England cricket team who, for the first time in almost 40 years, have achieved victory against Pakistan in a test match in Pakistan? The success of our cricketers, rugby union players, athletes and Paralympic athletes has brought a lot of joy to many people in this country. Of course, such success has to be on a broad base of mass participation in sport, especially from an early age. We cannot have success at international level unless we have that broad participation in the early years. School is a very important place for that to start. We shall certainly keenly consider the hon. Gentleman's particular proposal.

    Arts Education
    Mr. Phil Hope: What contribution his Department is making to the improvement of arts education. [141878]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): Ensuring that everyone has access to high-quality arts education, from pre-school through to lifelong learning, is a key priority for my Department. In addition to initiatives outlined by my right hon. Friend in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly), we are working closely with partners on a range of policies to deliver that priority, including the Department for

    335
    Education and Employment's £270 million music standards fund and the £30 million lottery-funded National Foundation for Youth Music. The new artsmark scheme will be made available to all schools in January. The Arts Council of England's arts and education interface projects in Bristol and Corby—I know that my hon. Friend has taken a close interest in that—are developing good practice in arts teaching and learning.
    Mr. Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. He will be aware of the excellent work in Corby, through the education action zone, to introduce and expand the arts in poetry, dance and music. A great job is being done. In particular, an Arts Council-funded study is examining the impact of arts education on the broader general development of children in schools—their behaviour, performance and academic standards. Would my hon. Friend take account of the findings in Corby as he rolls out the £40 million programme for introducing arts education in the most deprived areas of the country?
    Mr. Howarth: We certainly shall take account of the early findings. That project is not due to produce its final report until 2004, but we are anxious to make good, rapid progress with creative partnerships. My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of how involvement in the arts leads to improved motivation; encourages young people to develop skills; and enables them to experience success and achievement that spreads across the range of their activities and curricular requirements. What we shall learn from the experience in the education action zone in Corby will be of prime importance as we develop our policy thinking in this area.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: On arts education funding, could the Minister confirm whether the extra money that I hope will go through the new opportunities fund to arts education replaces the £97 million reduction in the Arts Council grant from the national lottery? Will he consider what many people think are the ludicrous, complicated criteria for applying for arts funding, particularly arts education funding? Surely applications can be made simpler so that more direct decisions can be taken.
    Mr. Howarth: All in all, taking grant in aid and lottery funding together, we are seeing substantial growth. We believe strongly in the priority that we have given to linking the arts with education, and the creative partnerships programme mentioned earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make an additional £40 million available for the development of new models of collaboration between the two.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke of the complexity of lottery funding application procedures. We agree, and have already gone a long way towards simplifying them.
    Angela Smith: The Minister will know that not all arts education is school based. There are a number of small local community-based drama groups throughout the country, including La Danse Fantastique in my constituency, which also deals with children with special needs. Such organisations, however, find it difficult to
    336
    obtain premises. Will my hon. Friend urge county councils and other local authorities to do all they can to secure adequate premises for those groups?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Through the creative partnerships, we shall examine—initially in 12 areas of deprivation—how we can bring about more collaboration between the formal education system and the range of arts and cultural organisations in those areas.

    Millennium Dome
    Mr. Edward Leigh: If he will make a statement on the future of the millennium dome. [141879]
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the future use of the millennium dome at Greenwich from 1 January 2001. [141880]
    Mr. Tony Baldry: If he will make a statement on the sale of the millennium dome. [141883]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): On 20 November, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions announced that Legacy plc had been awarded preferred bidder status. Negotiations will continue, and if all goes well, we expect to exchange contracts during February. Progress will be reviewed regularly.
    Mr. Leigh: Can the Minister confirm reports that the site would be worth £300 million more if the dome were pulled down? Is it not entirely appropriate that the greatest white elephant in history should be worth more dead than alive?
    Janet Anderson: I can only say that the price being offered by Legacy is good value for money. That is the advice that Ministers have received from the competition team, which has also advised us that the site offers as good value as a cleared site might offer.
    Mr. Fabricant: But the price being offered by Legacy, which is supposedly such good value for money, is £25 million less now than it was in June, when Legacy first made its offer. Moreover, as the Minister just told us, the offer is subject to "all going well". That does not exactly fill us with enthusiasm.
    Will the Minister confirm that the farce continues—that from January until June there will be decommissioning costs of up to £2 million a year to be paid by the poor lottery player? [HON. MEMBERS: "A week."] I mean £2 million a week. [Interruption.]
    Janet Anderson: I did not hear that, so I will ignore it.
    The details of the sale are commercially confidential, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that £50 million will be paid on completion, and that the value of the total offer has been assessed to be more than £100 million. Let me also remind him—this, too, is very important—that Legacy's proposals will deliver investment of more than £130 million in the first three years, and more than £250 million by 2006. That will have a major knock-on

    337
    effect on investment across the rest of the peninsula and more widely, and will act as a further stimulus to the development of the Thames gateway.
    Mr. Baldry: As the Minister may know, some of us consider the dome to be a rather fine structure, and do not share the Visigoth approach of our friends from the fens. Will she accept, however, that what is important is the provision of transparency and accountability, given the rather sorry history of the National Millennium Experience Company? Will she give an undertaking that, when the deal is eventually done—with whomever it is done—she will explain to the House, in terms that all can understand, exactly what it involves? Will she ensure that the deal is not obfuscated by phrases such as "commercial in confidence", which always raise suspicions that some rather shady deal is being done behind closed doors, to which Ministers are not prepared to admit?
    Janet Anderson: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Having bungled the operation of the dome, are not the Government now setting about bungling the sale of the dome? How can the Minister possibly be sure that the maximum amount will be raised for regeneration and for paying back some of the appalling losses, when the Government have flatly refused to enter discussions with anyone other than a single bidder, which happens to be run by someone who has given the Secretary of State's local Labour party quite a lot of money? Is that not typical of the deceitful, dishonourable and shameful way in which the whole project has been managed by Labour? Questions have been unanswered and avoided; the public have been misled by weasel words, if not downright lies; and attempts have been made to shift the blame everywhere but where it is properly due—on Ministers. Are we not witnessing a desperate attempt to stitch up a deal before the general election, and the triumph of political expediency over public value?
    Janet Anderson: I am ever more astonished at some of the hon. Gentleman's interventions. He will recall—Labour Members certainly all do—that he was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Secretary of State for National Heritage, who first proposed the whole scheme. I also remind him that only two bidders reached the original shortlist: Legacy plc and Nomura. Once Nomura had pulled out, Legacy plc was the sole remaining shortlisted bidder within the rules previously established for the millennium dome competition. It would not have been appropriate to enter negotiations with another proposed bidder while those discussions continued.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's cheap points about the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State took no part in the selection of Dome Europe and Legacy plc for the final shortlist for the dome competition.
    Mr. Ainsworth: How much?
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman asks from a sedentary position, "How much?" Robert Bourne is recorded in the Labour party's annual accounts as having made contributions of more than £5,000 in both 1999
    338
    and 2000. In stark contrast with the Conservative party, we have always been open and transparent about the way in which our party is funded.

    Seaside Holidays
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: If he will make a statement on how his Department intends to promote seaside holidays. [141882]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): We are making good progress in promoting resort regeneration. This summer, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting toured seaside resorts, including my hon. Friend's constituency, to see at first hand the problems and the opportunities. We fund the British Tourist Authority, which does an excellent job in marketing England abroad. Regional tourist boards, local authorities and other destination organisations all play an important part in promoting seaside holidays. I am pleased that we have been able to secure regeneration assistance for a large number of seaside resorts.
    Mr. Quinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Not only Scarborough and Whitby but the constituency of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) are benefiting from objective 2 status. Will my right hon. Friend make every effort possible to discuss with lottery-awarding bodies whether we can lever in extra assistance for the many seaside resorts throughout the country that desperately need regeneration? I thank him and his Front-Bench team for all their efforts to promote the traditional seaside holiday in Britain.
    Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Eight wards in Scarborough are included in objective 2 for potential funding. That is welcome. In relation to lottery funding, we are determinedly bringing pressure to bear on the lottery distributors to ensure that the spread of funding is fairer geographically throughout the country than it has been in the first five to six years of lottery funding. We shall look particularly at seaside resorts that have hitherto lost out in the fair sharing of lottery funds, and shall try to ensure that fairness is re-established over the coming years.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the Secretary of State aware that the recent flooding has caused damage not just to seaside resorts, but has turned many parts of the Vale of York into a seaside lookalike attraction, causing many caravans and mobile homes to be evacuated? What measures do the Government intend to take to ensure that those who are likely to lose their livelihoods over the next year because of the flooding damage will have some tourism industry to look forward to in the next year?
    Mr. Smith: Of course, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who has primary responsibility for the matter, is already taking action with local authorities to ensure that the best possible measures can be taken, as rapidly as possible and at as little cost to local authorities as possible, to ensure that the damage is put right,

    339
    and particularly that economic livelihoods—be they in the tourism industry or any other industry—can be re-secured after the flooding has died away.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: My right hon. Friend will know that many of Britain's seaside resorts are areas of high unemployment. Thanks to the Government, however, many of them—including Lowestoft in my constituency—have assisted area status. Will my right hon. Friend approach the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to seek clarification on tourism businesses' eligibility for assisted area status money? It is very important that we maximise employment in all industries, and in those towns tourism obviously has enormous potential for growth.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right about the enormous potential of the tourism and hospitality industry: already, more than 1.7 million people in this country are employed in tourism and hospitality. They are among the fastest-growing categories of employment in the United Kingdom, and it is important that we ensure that that strength continues. I am particularly pleased that, under round 6 of the single regeneration budget, Lowestoft has received £1.25 million. We hope that it will be able to ensure that some of that funding goes into the generation of new employment opportunities in those sectors.
    Sir Richard Body: Is the Minister aware that there is one east coast seaside town that is proving very successful—much more successful than Lowestoft and Scarborough; is attracting an increasing number of people; and is not bothering him about public funds, subsidies or anything else? That town—which I entirely recommend him to visit to see how all that can be managed—is Skegness.
    Mr. Smith: I certainly commend the hon. Gentleman for his devotion to the bracing atmosphere of Skegness, and I am sure that almost everything he says about it is true. The only quibble that I might have is with the unfair comparison that he made with both Lowestoft and Scarborough, which I am sure are every bit the equal of Skegness in the delights that they have to offer the visitor.

    FA Cup Final
    Mr. Huw Edwards: What discussions he has had with officials of the millennium stadium, Cardiff about the hosting of the FA cup final. [141884]
    The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): I have had no discussions with the officials of the millennium stadium on the issue. The arrangements for the FA cup final are a matter for the Football Association and the stadium authorities.
    Mr. Edwards: Does my hon. Friend agree that the millennium stadium, Cardiff is a world-class venue and a worthy place at which to bring the FA cup back to Wales for the first time since Cardiff City beat Arsenal in the 1927 cup final?
    Kate Hoey: I shall remember that fact. I am very confident that, should the millennium stadium be the venue for the FA cup final, it will be a wonderful venue. As my hon. Friend says, it is a wonderful stadium: indeed, it was a terrific venue for the rugby world cup final just last year.
    Mr. Bob Russell: Does the Minister agree that the best solution is to get the FA cup final back at Wembley?
    Kate Hoey: Clearly the hon. Gentleman is aware that, once the new Wembley stadium is built, the FA cup final will come back. However, at this stage—the FA would have to give us the final version on this—it is not suggested that the FA cup final will be played there again until the new stadium is built.
    Mr. Russell Brown: In view of Murrayfield's outstanding success earlier this year in hosting the rugby league world cup final, it is a great honour for the millennium stadium to be hosting the FA cup final. Keeping it in mind that the Football Association will have to look for alternative venues for the next two or three years, does the Minister not believe that it is a good idea for Murrayfield again to be consulted on the potential for hosting the FA cup final in that time?
    Kate Hoey: I share my hon. Friend's praise for Murrayfield—in particular for its hosting of the rugby league cup final, which I was privileged to attend. However, where FA cup finals are held is a matter for the FA, which will consult various bodies and supporters around the country. I am sure that it will make a decision that is in the best interests of football and football supporters.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: I am not decrying the attractions of either the millennium stadium in Cardiff or Murrayfield as hugely successful rugby venues. However, does the Minister agree that it is now a huge embarrassment for the Government that Wembley's future has once again been thrown into turmoil? We know, as do the public, that there is a huge difference of view on that matter between the Minister for Sport and the Secretary of State. Is not this yet another fiasco, following the shambles of the dome? We want athletics back in the new Wembley stadium. Will the Minister now ensure that her views prevail over those of her boss?
    Kate Hoey: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have read the statement issued by the Football Association on Friday, which the Government welcome. The FA will assume greater day-to-day control over the redevelopment of Wembley, and it will focus more on the core aspects of building a football stadium, which is what football supporters and the country want. The Government are committed to ensuring that a wonderful stadium is built at Wembley. We also want to ensure a long-term future for athletics in this country, and we are keeping in touch with the FA and with UK Athletics. The FA has now decided to scale down the project, and to look at the matter again. It is going to take hands-on control, which I welcome.

    National Lottery Licence
    Mr. David Amess: What the timetable is for awarding the next licence to run the national lottery. [141885]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The award of the next licence to run the national lottery is a matter for the National Lottery Commission. The commission expects to announce the outcome of the bidding process for the new licence later in the month.
    Mr. Amess: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, given that the previous Conservative Government successfully set up the national lottery, it would be a tragedy if this incompetent, rotten Labour Government were to kill it? Will he assure the House that, if the contractor should change, the national lottery would not be suspended, even for a short while?
    Mr. Smith: No, I do not agree with the assumptions on which the hon. Gentleman's question is based. Yes, I can give him the assurance that he seeks.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Does the Secretary of State now regret how warmly he welcomed the original and unlawful decision to kick Camelot out of the competition? If anyone can sort out this mess, I suppose it is Lord Burns. Is not the fact that the award of this important contract is now six months late yet another unsightly scratch on the Secretary of State's increasingly battered Teflon coating? Will he take this opportunity to reflect on a year in which he has messed up the national lottery, messed up Wembley stadium, and wasted hundreds of millions of pounds on the dome? Will he now say, "I'm sorry. It's my fault. I'm just not up to the job."?
    Mr. Smith: No, Mr. Speaker

    Tate Modern
    Joan Ruddock: What his latest estimate is of the number of visitors to Tate Modern. [141886]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): At the close of business on Sunday 10 December, Tate Modern had attracted 3,721,254 visitors.
    Joan Ruddock: As one of the 3 million-plus visitors, may I tell my right hon. Friend what a hugely enjoyable experience a visit to Tate Modern provides? Does he agree that this is a complete vindication of the Government's policy to provide free entry for all to the new gallery—a policy in marked contrast to that pursued by the previous Government?
    Mr. Smith: Yes. The wonderful thing about Tate Modern is not just that it has attracted so many visitors, or even that their experience has been excellent, but that the whole spectrum of society is reflected in the people going through the doors. They are from all parts of the country, all incomes and all backgrounds. That is
    342
    very welcome, and it is thanks to a Labour Government that entry to Tate Modern is free to everyone. We are very proud of that fact.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: In responding to the message of Sir Nicholas Serota in his Dimbleby lecture, to the effect that modern and contemporary art are not only appreciated by millions of people in this country but are not accessible to people in other parts of the country—Sir Nicholas drew particular attention to the inadequacies of our regional museums in this respect—will the Secretary of State indicate what remit he is giving to his newly appointed committee, under the chairmanship of Resource, to encourage it to look at the need to sponsor and promote our contemporary arts in Britain?
    Mr. Smith: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have asked Resource to establish a working party to look particularly at the needs of regional museums. That working party will include Sir Nicholas Serota as one of its members. I have asked it to look widely at the issues involved, but have asked that its first priority should be to consider the deployment of the £10 million a year extra for regional museums and libraries that we are making available under the new spending review. I have also asked the working party to consider how it may be possible for the nationally funded museums and galleries to assist the regional museums through exchanging and sharing personnel, good practice and exhibitions.

    English Heritage
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: If he intends to increase the allocation of resources to English Heritage; and if he will make a statement. [141887]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): English Heritage will receive grant in aid of £112.7 million in 2001–02. In 2002–03 it will receive £119.7 million—an increase of 3.62 per cent. in real terms—and in 2003–04 it will receive £121.7 million, an increase of 2.78 per cent. We have been glad to make this additional funding available.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for the information that English Heritage is now to receive increases in its allocation. My concern was heightened when I was making representations on behalf of St. Peter's church in Horbury in my constituency and learned that, over the past four years, there has been no increase in the allocation to English Heritage. Churches such as St. Peter's miss out because of that restriction on finances. I realise that English Heritage has a difficult task, but I am pleased that we are now ensuring that increased resources are to be made available.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend has championed the need for St. Peter's, Horbury to receive funding so that that magnificent grade 1 listed church can be repaired. He has made it very plain to me how disappointed he has been that, so far, that application has not been successful under the joint places of worship scheme, which has been heavily over-subscribed. It is run jointly by English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund. The Heritage Lottery Fund has chosen to increase the funding that it

    343
    puts into the scheme, and English Heritage has kept its funding constant, as my hon. Friend says. However, we have made additional funding available for the future, and I very much hope that my hon. Friend's wonderful church will, at long last, be able to secure the funds needful for its repair.

    Millennium Dome
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What his latest estimate is of the total building and running costs of the millennium dome. [141890]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The forecast total project costs set out in the New Millennium Experience Company's budget, placed in the Library on 2 October, is £798 million. Of that, the capital build costs are forecast at £505.7 million; the non-capital costs for the project to 31 December 2000—including national programme costs and London new year's eve 1999—are forecast at £265.6 million; and the closure costs are forecast at £30.3 million.
    Mr. Robathan: From my memory of the original estimates of costs, that seems a pretty astonishing admission of inefficiency. Will the hon. Lady now address the question that she failed to address earlier? Given that her Department gave us the Bernie, can she explain how she thinks it appropriate that Mr. Robert Bourne, a well known donor to the Labour party, should be the only appropriate bidder for the dome after the end of this year?
    Janet Anderson: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman was not listening earlier; I repeat that Ministers took the decision to make Legacy the preferred bidder after receiving full and rigorous advice from the competition team, as well as from a wide range of other sources, including English Partnerships and the New Millennium Experience Company.

    Public Libraries
    Mr. Roger Casale: If he will make a statement on his policy on the level of service that public libraries should provide to local communities. [141891]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): Public library authorities have a statutory duty to provide "a comprehensive and efficient" service across their areas. Early next year we intend to introduce national library standards so that library authorities and users understand better what that means in practice, and we shall monitor the performance of authorities through annual library plans.
    Mr. Casale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in deciding on the level of public library service locally, councillors should take account of the views of local residents, user groups and, where they exist, local library forums? Will he join me in encouraging the new leader of Merton council, Councillor Peter Holt, who is meeting the Merton library forum, to listen to the concerns expressed through that forum and to respond positively to them? Perhaps in that way, we can start to make up for
    344
    the council's previous mistake whereby branch libraries were closed—including Wimbledon Park branch library in my constituency—to help pay for modernisation.
    Mr. Howarth: I shall certainly give the encouragement sought by my hon. Friend. I hope that his constituents know how relentless he has been in putting pressure on me to ensure that Merton did not act improperly and unlawfully in that closure. He made absolutely sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I were fully aware of the impact on his constituents of the closure of Wimbledon Park library. I know of the importance he attached to keeping that library open.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Female Bishops
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What assessment he has made of the financial implications of ordaining female bishops. [141903]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): No such assessment has been made.
    Mr. Swayne: If the existing rules, which allow a parish to opt out of the care of its own bishop, are revoked, and/or female bishops are consecrated, and if, as a consequence, incumbents feel that they cannot in conscience remain within the Church, will they be compensated?
    Mr. Bell: In reply, I can only quote Dean Inge, who once said, "I have had a great many problems—most of which never happened". I doubt that the situation described by the hon. Gentleman will arise.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is for the Church of England and the General Synod to decide on theological grounds whether women should be ordained as bishops? If the Church of England so decides, it should be on those grounds, rather than on financial grounds, that women are ordained as bishops in the Church of England.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Last July, the General Synod requested the help of bishops in initiating further theological study on women in the episcopacy, with a report-back in two years. The House of Bishops is setting up a working party, but its membership has not yet been settled.
    Mr. Robert Key: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a large number of members of the Church of England would warmly welcome the consecration of female bishops. Given the need for so many additional

    345
    members of the priesthood, what assessment has he made of the cost of this House's not allowing the consecration of female bishops?
    Mr. Bell: As I said in response to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), no assessment has yet been made of the financial impact of the ordination of female bishops. When the General Synod advances along those lines, no doubt it will take the matter into account.

    Religious Broadcasting
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: What submission the Commissioners have made to the BBC with regard to their policy on religious broadcasting. [141904]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The hon. Gentleman may know that the Church of England's General Synod expressed its concern in February last year at the reduction and rescheduling of certain religious programmes, and that the Church is involved in work to monitor the output of the BBC and ITV in that respect.
    Mr. Fabricant: I wonder how the synod feels about the recent abrupt resignation of Ernie Rea, who is the BBC's head of religious broadcasting, who said that BBC 2 did not appear to want traditional Christianity at all and that it just wanted "new-agey stuff". Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he will join the synod in saying that, in this new digital age of the BBC, we do not want a dumbed-down, happy-clappy, newey-agey, trendy-bendy BBC?
    Mr. Bell: I remind the hon. Gentleman of what was said 2,000 years ago:
    Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's.
    We should leave the BBC's internal organisation to the BBC. However, I fully support the General Synod's expression of concern. I understand that the BBC has given assurances that religious programmes form an important and valued part of the corporation's output.
    Mr. David Drew: I wrote to the BBC to raise that very issue, but the response that I received did not give me much confidence. Does my hon. Friend agree that broadcasting "Panorama" at the time at which it is shown on Sunday nights serves the purpose neither of current affairs documentaries nor of religious broadcasting?
    Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I understand that the Bishop of Wakefield is chairing a monitoring group that is working to devise the appropriate mechanism to monitor the range and nature of all religious programmes. The point that my hon. Friend makes will no doubt be taken fully into account.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Given the care with which the broadcasters must proceed when they govern party political broadcasting, and given the somewhat colourful row about the fact that the leader of the Conservative party
    346
    appeared on "Songs of Praise" yesterday—the Prime Minister will appear on that programme in January, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) is waiting for his invitation—can we have a serious assurance that somebody is regulating the political content of religious broadcasting so that it does not become abused or disrespected and so that such programmes are treated, as they should be, as religious broadcasts rather than party political ones?
    Mr. Bell: I am a little nonplussed by the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The Leader of the Opposition visited Middlesbrough football ground the other day. I am not entirely sure that that was a political appearance, although it was the same day as "Match of the Day" and the right hon. Gentleman appeared on television that evening. I think that in a religious democracy—if I may call it that—we should encourage our political leaders to take every opportunity to link themselves to our Christian faith, even if that involves appearing on television in such programmes as "Songs of Praise".

  The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Resource Accounting
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What assessment the Commission has made of the results of the Government's move to resource accounting. [141905]
    Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The Public Accounts Committee has closely followed the introduction of resource accounting. In general, the Commission and the Committee have endorsed the change as offering the potential to improve departmental management and information for Parliament. However, resource accounting has only just been introduced and its impacts will not be felt fully until 2001–02, when resourced-based supply is introduced. It is therefore too early to assess the impacts.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Can he confirm whether all Departments will produce full resource accounts for the year ending 5 April 2001? If so, what benefits can we expect from those more detailed accounts?
    Mr. Sheldon: The difficulty is that not all Departments will produce their resource accounts in the next year. There will be parallel operation—old cash accounting will operate together with resource accounting. That is required to ensure that there is no slip-up between the two methods. I hope that there will be an acceleration next year and that resource accounting, and the benefits that derive from it, will be available to all Departments.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Hunting
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: If the Church Commissioners will review their policy of allowing tenants of Church Commission land to decide whether to allow access to hunts. [141906]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners have no plans to review their policy on hunting on their land and will continue to allow tenants to decide for themselves whether to allow hunts on the land they rent from them.
    Mr. Prentice: That is a very disappointing reply from my hon. Friend. We shall debate the Hunting Bill next Monday and some hon. Members may look to the Church for guidance on the issue, but, yet again, there is just a
    348
    deafening silence. When will the Church of England get off the fence on an issue that is so crucially important for many of its communicants and many of our constituents?
    Mr. Bell: I am not entirely sure that there is a deafening silence, given that I have just responded to my hon. Friend. As I told him on 8 May, there is not a single viewpoint on hunting within the Church and the commissioners feel that it is right that tenants should be able to make their own decisions. The Church has noticed that, coming up fast on the starboard side, there is a vote next Monday. The commissioners will monitor the progress of any proposed legislation and will decide how best to deal with the ban on hunting, when and if it becomes law.
    Mr. John Bercow: May I warmly thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for his robust reply and urge him to continue to resist the siren voice of intolerance that is represented by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)? As long as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough takes such a robust and principled stance, he will enjoy the support not only of Conservative Members but of millions of decent, right-thinking, tolerant folk the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Bell: I am not entirely sure that that was a question—it was more like a statement. I am sure that the whole House has heard the hon. Gentleman's views.

Nice European Council
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): After five gruelling days, victory was secured—I am sure the whole House would like to send our congratulations to the English cricket team on its triumph.
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the European Council which took place from 7 to 10 December. A copy of the conclusions has been placed in the Library of the House, and a copy of the Nice treaty will be deposited as soon as the final version is available from the Council secretariat.
This summit was the culmination of a year-long conference called to deal with issues on which agreement could not be reached at Amsterdam three and a half years ago. Agreement was essential to open the door to the enlargement of the European Union, the goal of successive British Governments. An agreement was reached in the early hours of this morning which removes all remaining institutional obstacles to enlargement.
It is extraordinary to think that, a few years ago, those countries in central and eastern Europe were still under the communist yoke of the old Soviet bloc. Today, there is the real prospect of uniting western and eastern Europe for the first time in generations.
The primary objective in the negotiation has therefore been successfully accomplished. But there were also key British interests. Our first priority was to get more voting strength for the United Kingdom.
The agreement reached increases the weight of Britain's vote. It raises the threshold for qualified majority voting up, when the EU comprises 27 members, to more than 74 per cent. of votes. It adds two further tests. Any proposal must have at least a majority of states on-side, as well as crossing the 74 per cent. threshold. And a new population threshold at 62 per cent. of the EU is also introduced. So the three biggest countries will continue, even as the EU enlarges, to be able to block together.
This now can be placed alongside the changes in Britain's financial contributions. Ever since we joined the EU, Britain has made a far greater proportionate contribution to Europe's finances than France or Italy despite, until recently, being a slightly smaller economy. By 2006, on the assumption of only six new member states, we shall be making a net contribution roughly equivalent to France and Italy's, for the first time in our membership.
Secondly, on defence, the European Council agreed the arrangements for European security that we have been negotiating over the past two years. It was made plain, first, that European defence would operate only when NATO chooses not to be engaged; secondly, that it be limited to peacekeeping, humanitarian and crisis management tasks; and, thirdly, as the text puts it, that the commitment of national assets to any EU-led operation will be based on "sovereign national decisions." Collective defence will remain the responsibility of NATO.
The next step is for the two organisations, the EU and NATO, to agree on the necessary arrangements. Any significant operation will require NATO assets and any such operation will be planned at NATO by the planning staff at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe—
350
SHAPE. This underlines the EU's aim to develop a strategic partnership with NATO. So here, too, Britain's essential national interest has been protected.
Thirdly, we have retained unanimity where necessary and extended qualified majority voting where necessary. Of the articles that move to QMV, 11 deal with appointments or changes in rules of procedure. One of these is important—the nomination of the Commission President, where it is essential that, in an EU of 27 or 30, one small state cannot block the right appointment. Nine of the changes deal with freedom of movement where we—that is, Britain—have an absolute right to decide whether to take part or not, thanks to the protocol that we secured at Amsterdam. The remaining changes are primarily about the efficiency of economic management and the single market, where majority voting is in this country's national interest: financial management of the EU budget, industrial policy, trade in services. All that means new markets for Britain's financial services and the jobs and prosperity that go with them. And within even these articles, we have kept unanimity where we need it: unanimity in respect of harmonisation and anti-discrimination measures, unanimity for passports, unanimity for anything to do with taxation and social security.
There were areas where it would not have been in our interests to agree to any QMV, in particular for taxation and social security. As we undertook to the House, those matters will remain subject to unanimity. In the field of justice and home affairs, the special protocol that we agreed at Amsterdam continues to mean that we—Britain—decide where to join in co-operation in our national interest, for example, in dealing with problems of asylum. On all these issues, we said that we would protect the national interest and, contrary to the dire warnings of the Conservative party, that is exactly what we did. The House will note with some amusement the Tories claims now that those issues were never under threat.
In an enlarged European Union, there will inevitably be issues on which member states can move ahead faster than others. It is in Britain's interests, as one of the leading partners of the EU, for that to be possible. We have secured conditions for this co-operation which fully safeguard the single market, prevent discrimination in trade between member states, cannot conflict with existing agreements, and are open to all. In the field of foreign policy, the common strategies of the Union, however, will continue to be set by unanimity. Any co-operation between groups of member states has to be consistent with a prior agreement reached by all, and is therefore subject to the national veto if necessary. These enhanced co-operation agreements, incidentally, will not apply to defence—another key British objective.
On numbers of Commissioners, those are unchanged up to 2005, except for one for any applicant country. Then, from 2006, there will be one Commissioner per country, up to a maximum of 27—at present there are 20—with an agreement to reduce numbers in 2010, following a review.
Since the Amsterdam summit of three and a half years ago, we have tried to rebuild British policy in Europe to get the best out of Europe for Britain while shaping Europe's future. On each occasion, we were told that it was impossible: that Britain v. Europe was the only game in town. At Amsterdam, we were told we could not protect our borders. We did. Two years ago, in Berlin, we

351
were told we could not protect the British rebate. We did better; we put Britain's contributions on a more equitable footing for the first time. At Lisbon, we were told Europe could not accept the agenda for economic reforms. It did.
Earlier this year, at the June summit, we were told we could not win the argument on the withholding tax. It is won. The rest of Europe is now going to adopt exchange of information, not a new tax, as the way forward.
Finally, on defence, we were told that we could not improve Europe's defence capability—a vital NATO as well as EU interest—without undermining NATO, and that we would be isolated on tax and social security. We secured those objectives without its even being suggested that we were an obstacle in the way of enlargement.
It is possible, in our judgment, to fight Britain's corner, get the best out of Europe for Britain and exercise real authority and influence in Europe. That is as it should be. Britain is a world power. To stand aside from the key alliance—the European Union—right on our doorstep, is not advancing Britain's interests; it is betraying British interests.
Enlargement will now happen. British interests were advanced, but we cannot continue to take decisions as important as this in this way. That is not a criticism of the French presidency, which did well in immensely difficult circumstances, but the ideas for future reform in the European Union which Britain put forward a few weeks ago are now essential so that a more rational way of decision making is achieved. This, too, is a debate in which we should be thoroughly and constructively engaged; and we will be.
The Europe that this Government are striving for is one of nation states with their own traditions, cultures and special interests which work together in their own interests and in those of Europe as a whole. That means, on the one hand, making common decisions at a European level where that makes sense and, on the other hand, making decisions at a national or, indeed, regional level where that makes sense. It means embracing all the countries of Europe—east and west—in a way that would have been unimaginable throughout most of the troubled history of our continent. That is a goal that moved significantly forward at the Nice summit. I commend its conclusions to the House.
Mr. William Hague: Is not the truth, when we cut through the spin, that the agreement represents three more major steps to a European superstate? First, the Prime Minister has signed away the veto in 23 new areas—in fact, one Government official put the number of new areas that could now be decided by majority vote as high as 39. By doing that, has the Prime Minister not granted European institutions the opportunity to impose further integration in future?
Will not a court that reinterpreted the working time directive as a health and safety measure now use the further loss of the veto to impose precisely the sort of regulation that could cost jobs in this country in future? Will not the loss of the veto on structural funds mean that future Governments will not be able to stop British regions losing money? Will not the weakening of the veto on the environment mean further interference in town and country planning? However much it is hemmed about by
352
ambiguous language, how does the Prime Minister think the European Court will interpret the clause allowing Europe to fund states in severe difficulties because of so-called "exceptional occurrences" now that he has signed away our veto on that?
Could it not be seriously against this country's interests no longer to have a veto over the appointment of the Commission President? Will the Prime Minister confirm that he has abandoned the veto on groups of countries integrating more closely—so-called "enhanced co-operation"—and that we cannot stop them, even when our national interest is being harmed? Can he confirm that the EU will now be able to fund European political parties directly, without a national veto?
Does not all that represent a major step toward European integration and does not the charter of fundamental rights represent the second major step toward that superstate? Everyone but the Prime Minister has been open about what the charter will lead to, irrespective of whether it is in the treaties. The European Commission says:
It can reasonably be expected that the Charter will become mandatory through the Court's interpretation of it as belonging to the general principles of Community law.
The Commission's website asks:
Will the Charter lead to a large rise in the number of law suits … ?
and answers:
This cannot be excluded …,
adding that the charter of fundamental rights means that
the European Union has entered a new, more resolutely political stage of integration. The Charter will be a very important milestone on the road towards this political Europe.
Does not the move to a Euro-army represent the third step to such a superstate? Has not the Prime Minister signed up at Nice to an independent and autonomous European identity, with only ad hoc arrangements linking it to NATO? Is it not the case that duplicate and conflicting structures are being set up? Does not annexe 7 of the draft presidency report, which has just been released, refer on defence matters to
the autonomy of EU decision making,
to the EU and NATO
dealing with each other on an equal footing,
and to the EU Council adopting strategic options with
NATO … informed of developments in the situation … ?
As currently constituted, the EU defence force will progressively move away from NATO. Is that not why President Chirac said that the force would be independent of the alliance's headquarters, why British Government officials said that his remarks were
a statement of the obvious,
and why former United States Assistant Defence Secretary Richard Perle describes the Nice agreement as "a catastrophe for NATO" and "a British defeat"?
If this is a European army—and it is—what is the point of inserting sentences in the communiqué saying otherwise? Is not the real reason revealed this morning in a German newspaper? It states that
Because the advance election campaign has begun in Great Britain, the chiefs decided to insert the army secretly … to play down its establishment as much as possible … Blair and Chirac … saw to it that a real step by the Europeans towards more integration was concealed.

353
So Nice represents three major steps towards a more deeply integrated Europe. It has ended up being about integration rather than enlargement. Reweighting the votes and limiting the size of the Commission are important for enlargement, but they are not enough. Surely a summit genuinely about enlargement would have tried to reform the greatest obstacle of all to enlargement, which is the common agricultural policy. Surely a summit genuinely about enlargement would have introduced real flexibility, returning more decision making over new laws to the nation states of the EU. Surely a treaty genuinely about enlargement would have meant less integration, not more.
If the Prime Minister is worried that Europe will not be able to force through as much legislation in future, why is the answer not less legislation in future? Continuing the relentless ratchet of integration makes successful enlargement less likely, not more likely. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is no clear commitment in the communiqué to entry dates for the applicant countries, as President Chirac has made clear. It is not surprising either that, with Europe moving in this direction, the Prime Minister has agreed to yet another summit, whose purpose will be to start drafting a Euro-constitution, which in the words of the German-Italian paper on this subject, will be
with a view to the further development of European integration … ?
The Prime Minister emerged with a treaty that takes Europe in the wrong direction, and a Conservative Government will not ratify it as it stands. If the Government wish to sign up to the three major steps, including the charter of rights and the European army, they should first consult the people of this country in a referendum.
The Prime Minister has missed the best opportunity of his premiership to put the case for the sort of Europe that is supported by the majority of people in the United Kingdom. He has missed that opportunity because that is not the sort of Europe in which he believes. Instead, the summit has represented three more major steps on the road to a superstate. It will be up to us, the Opposition, to put the case for a different direction, for a modern, reformed and flexible Europe. It will be for us to put the case for a European Union that is right for Britain and for Europe as a whole; and to put the case for being in Europe, not run by Europe.
The Prime Minister: I preferred the right hon. Gentleman with the jokes. What he is saying about qualified majority voting is extraordinary. Nine of the measures relating to justice and home affairs come within our protocol protection. As for 11 of the other articles, we have, for example, the appointment of the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council, the pension arrangements for the registrar of the court and the approval of the rules of procedure of the Court of Auditors. Should we have blocked the enlargement treaty for these things? It is ridiculous.
As for what the right hon. Gentleman says about the Commission President, it is vital for our interests that we do not end up in a situation where, as the EU enlarges, that appointment can be blocked by one small member state. Did we not learn that when the Conservative party was in power and the Commission President before last was appointed? Let us just say that, as a result of the rules,
354
there were many candidates at the time whom it would have been a good idea to have had forward in the frame, but we were not able to do that.
That is a classic example of what I am saying. There are certain areas—for example, trade in services—where Britain has to take on other countries and secure unanimity. It finds that it cannot do so because another country blocks the approach, for various protectionist reasons. Qualified majority voting allows us to proceed in that way. It cannot be that QMV is always in other countries' interests but not in ours.
The shadow Foreign Secretary said a couple of days ago, which I know is quite a long time in policy-making terms:
I don't have a doctrinal view that any qualified majority voting is wrong, we signed up for it to complete the single market.
Presumably, the difference is simply which areas he would block—the rules of procedure of the Court of Auditors? It is absurd.
I shall deal with some of the factual points. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was opposed to moving to QMV, although the move to QMV for the social and cohesion funds—the structural funds—is not for some years to come. It is hugely in this country's interest to have QMV there. At present we cannot get a proper deal on structural and cohesion funds because there are certain interests, mainly in the south of Europe, that block it via unanimity. If we were able to move to QMV, we would get a better deal for this country. In the course of the negotiation, I was arguing that we should move to QMV quicker, because it was in our interest to move there more quickly.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned countries in financial difficulties. That is subject to the budget ceilings that exist, and there is no bale-out in respect of the euro, because that is secured in another article under the Chancellor's negotiation.
Incidentally, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the support for European political parties. I point out to him that that was requested by the European People's Party, which is the association of European political parties and of which his party is a member—but let us leave that to one side.
In relation to enhanced co-operation, the right hon. Gentleman says that he is in favour of a more flexible Europe, but he opposes the idea of enhanced co-operation, which means that if countries want to, they can go ahead, and other countries have a choice whether to join. Surely that is the very flexibility that he is talking about.
The right hon. Gentleman goes on about the charter of fundamental rights. The reason the Commission is asking for it to have legal status is that it does not have legal status. Our case is that it should not have legal status, and we do not intend it to. We will have to fight that case.
When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the word "integration" being wrong in respect of any European treaty, does he not remember the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act? One can go back to any European treaty and find the word mentioned there.
On the Euro-army, we reach the realms of the right hon. Gentleman's fantasies. As I made clear, it applies, first, where NATO as a whole chooses not to be engaged; secondly—
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: No.
The Prime Minister: Let me read to the hon. Gentleman from the presidency report. Is he listening? The document states:
This applies where NATO as a whole is not engaged.
Shall I go on? The report continues:
This does not involve the establishment of a European army. The commitment of national resources by member states to such operations will be based on their sovereign decisions. As regards the member states, NATO remains the basis of our collective defence.
I have an even better supporter on my side. Here is what the shadow Foreign Secretary said two days ago:
If NATO decides it doesn't want to do it, then obviously this can go ahead.
That is precisely what the proposal is, but the Opposition still say that they do not support it.
The Leader of the Opposition commented on the common agricultural policy, and it is right that far more reform of the CAP is needed. The difficulty is that that must be done by unanimity, so that is a problem, but none the less we did our very best, and we did get significant changes. That was the topic at the previous negotiation, in Berlin. We have achieved more in the reform of the common agricultural policy than the right hon. Gentleman ever did when he was in office.
As for the idea of a future intergovernmental conference, it will deal primarily with the issue of subsidiarity. Again, that is a major British interest, which we should support.
We have set out why we believe the treaty to be in the interests of this country and in the interests of Europe. The right hon. Gentleman has again stated firmly from the Dispatch Box today that he would block the treaty. Let me explain the full rounded idiocy of the position that the right hon. Gentleman has got himself into. He is saying that he would not have agreed any treaty unless everyone agreed to what he calls his pick-and-choose policy on future legislation. Is it not right that that is Conservative policy? I have asked the right hon. Gentleman this question before, and perhaps I can get an answer now that the European summit is over. Will he name one country that supports the proposal, when all 15 have to support it? Let us have silence, so that he can shout out the answer. The right hon. Gentleman would need the other 14 to agree, but he cannot name one. Let us try this. Will the right hon. Gentleman name one other Conservative party in Europe that supports his proposal?
The right hon. Gentleman is saying that he would go to the Council and say that, unless Britain has a pick-and-choose policy, he would block the treaty. However, he is also saying that he would block flexibility for everyone else. That would be a pretty intelligent policy, would it not? The right hon. Gentleman says that he would have no QMV at all but that, it there were any QMV, he would have a referendum in the UK. By the end of that process, he would have alienated every country in the European Union and every country waiting to come into it. If he had been negotiating, he would have come back today saying either that he had blocked enlargement—which would be a great thing for Britain to have in its history and tradition—or that he had agreed QMV on the court registrar's' pension and was going to hold a referendum on it. I am sorry, but that is the right hon. Gentleman's policy.
We did not have a referendum on the Single European Act or Maastricht. The right hon. Gentleman is not even offering the British people a referendum on the single
356
currency. However, on the question of the vital strategic interest of the pension of the court officials, we would all be trooping off to the polling stations.
Does the right hon. Gentleman want to be taken seriously by anyone in Britain, Europe or elsewhere? The true agenda of a large part of his party—and the Conservative party will stay in this position until the right hon. Gentleman confronts this—is to have this country next door to the exit sign in Europe. That would be a disaster for Britain and Europe. It is wrong, and we shall not do it. We shall win the argument, because that is in the true national interest of Britain.
Mr. Giles Radice: We have heard ludicrous hype about the slippery slope to the European superstate, and heard it again this afternoon from the Opposition Front Bench in the most extraordinary statement that I have ever heard in debate on any European statement during my time in the House of Commons. After all that, is it not the case that the Nice summit has produced important, but limited, changes that will prepare the European Union for enlargement, which is both a vital national interest and vital for the future of Europe? Is it not also the case that, once again, we have demonstrated clearly that it is possible to achieve British national objectives while at the same time making a positive contribution to Europe and its future? Does that not show that British membership of the European Union pays if it is exercised in a constructive way?
The Prime Minister: It is true that we have secured our interests in a way that has not left Britain isolated or marginalised, which would not be in our interest. We have to return to negotiations with other countries to get things that advance our own interests—[Interruption.] I shall make one point to those Opposition Members who are shouting at me. There was a time when the Conservative party played a constructive part in Europe. During the Single European Act preparations, it did an immense amount to improve Europe and the way that Europe worked. It is therefore important that we have enough confidence in our own ability to win those arguments, to go into Europe, and to advance British national interests.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: For Opposition Members who wanted the Nice summit to succeed, it is with a sense of relief, but not rapture, that we look at the outcome. It is good that an outcome was achieved; the alternative would have been a disentanglement of Europe. The Government should be complimented on maintaining the British veto in areas on which Labour and the Liberal Democrats agreed previously.
With regard to Conservative Members' responses, does the Prime Minister agree that there is a distinct sense in the Chamber that the Tory fox on Europe has been well and truly shot as a result of the agreement? Does he concur with Chris Patten that, to use his word, it would be "barking" to deny the people of Britain a referendum on a single currency while imposing one in respect of the treaty of Nice? That position is completely illogical.

357
Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge—he publicly commented on this point when he left the summit—that, 14 years after the collapse of the Berlin wall—
Mr. Denis MacShane: It is 11 years.
Mr. Kennedy: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, the accessor countries will gain admission to the European Union 14 years after the collapse of the Berlin wall . That is an intolerable time to take to enable the developed, integrated countries of Europe to open their doors to the supplicant accessor countries. Does the Prime Minister agree that more needs to be done to speed up the process of European decision making?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman says that the changes were modest. That is true in some senses, but this was an historic summit in the sense that it cleared the obstacles to enlargement. Fifteen countries were arguing their own national interests. For anyone sitting through the negotiations, the idea that national interest is not alive and well in Europe would have been a strange thought.
It is important to realise what has been achieved. All those obstacles to enlargement have been cleared, and, as for the time at which the countries enter the European Union, the reason why no specific date is given to each country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am about to explain why. There is an accession process, whereby the countries must meet particular economic objectives in order to enter. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are shouting that such countries have to meet too many objectives, but I remind them that their leader has just committed himself to blocking the treaty. It is necessary to recognise that those countries will have to meet certain requirements. That is why we cannot give them a precise date, but we hope that they will be there by 2004. Partly at our insistence, they will take part in the next intergovernmental conference in 2004.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The leader of the Liberal party has honestly recognised a national success that was achieved because we are no longer on the margins, but are seen by our European partners as a full team player. Is it not sad that the Leader of the Opposition cannot recognise such a success and cannot bring himself to say anything positive about the European Union?
Now that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has had a change of shirt and is less exhausted, will he tell us how the applicant countries have responded to the Nice treaty? What would be their response if the ratification process in this Parliament were blocked?
The Prime Minister: Essentially, those countries were delighted that the obstacles in the way of enlargement, institutionally, have been cleared. They obviously strongly support that—it is hugely important for those countries, often in terms of their own democracy. For them, the idea that they can see a future in the European Union is a spur to economic reform and to making the necessary changes. They would be absolutely horrified—as, indeed, several of them said at the press conference that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary held in
358
Nice—at the prospect of any country, particularly a country with a history, as Britain has, as a friend of enlargement, saying that it would not ratify the treaty.
Mr. David Curry: The Prime Minister was quite right to agree to the extension of qualified majority voting. That has long been the principal motive of the achievement of British objectives in the European Union. Does he agree that Britain and Germany have increasing common interests—devolved Administrations and, in our case at least, a semi-federal state—in seeking to define what is done by national Government; what is done locally; and what must, but no more than what must, be done internationally? People ask, "Where does it end?" The forthcoming intergovernmental conference gives them a chance to answer that. Will the right hon. Gentleman start work now to ensure that the answer is a convincing one?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with that. The important thing about this new debate is that it is about the issue of subsidiarity and the definition of the competencies as between the European Union and the nation state. There was a very broad acceptance around the table of the fact that there are areas in which Europe has to co-operate—indeed, co-operate more closely—but that there are also areas in which the European Union does not need to be present. There are indeed areas in which some of its powers could be returned to the nation state. Therefore, that argument is of crucial national importance for the future of this country and of Britain in Europe. As a result of what we have agreed, we should be able to participate in that process. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right to say that Britain and Germany in particular have many interests in common there.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What was said about the possible role of the rapid reaction force in dealing with the chaos and murder that is taking place on the Kosovo-Serbia border, the Kosovo-Macedonia border and the Kosovo-Albania border?
The Prime Minister: There was a discussion not specifically on that issue but, obviously, on the Balkans and the situation in Kosovo. It is very important for us to make sure that, having fought that war against ethnic cleansing, we do not see ethnic cleansing being visited on Serbs by the other side. We are acutely conscious of that. Of course, Kosovo is not such an example—it is important to say that. The rapid reaction force is not, I repeat, a standing army; it is merely a capability that we should have. It is limited to the so-called Petersberg tasks, which are peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. It would not be used to fight, for example, the Kosovo conflict or the Gulf war. However, it could, for example, be used for peacekeeping operations in circumstances in which NATO decided that it did not wish to be involved.
Mr. Tom King: May I join the Prime Minister in expressing satisfaction at the opportunity that a number of former Warsaw pact countries have to join the EU, and thank him for the implicit tribute to the Governments of Baroness Thatcher and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) for the considerable contribution that they made to bringing freedom to those countries?

359
Was anyone surprised by President Chirac's statement that he looked for an independent force? There was nothing improper about that remark. It is consistent with French policy since President de Gaulle took France out of the military structure, since President Mitterrand failed to rejoin it and since President Mitterrand refused at the beginning of the Gulf war to allow French troops to come under American command. Is it any surprise, therefore, that the French have a different objective and that, whatever might have been in the communiquéthere remain very real difficulties ahead?
The Prime Minister: It is right—I choose my words carefully—that France comes from a different tradition in respect of such things, especially in respect of attitudes to NATO, but that is precisely why we have made sure that the matter is absolutely bolted down with the conditions that we have stated. Let me explain why it is important that we take part, because sometimes I read that it is simply a matter of politics in the EU. The truth is—this came home to me graphically during the Kosovo conflict—that European defence capability is not nearly as good as it needs to be. It has been a constant plea from the other side of the water—from the Americans themselves—that Europe has to develop better defence capability. I believe that it is important that we develop that in a way that is wholly consistent with NATO. If we had opted out of that debate altogether, that would still have happened. After all, a common defence policy was one of the matters agreed at Maastricht. That would still have happened, but not in a way that was consistent with our proper national interests. As a result of that, it is interesting—I say no more than that, and I am not suggesting that these policies are directly connected—that 11 out of 15 EU countries will this year increase their defence budgets for the first time in many years.
If the proposal is implemented sensibly, it will work in this country's interests. Of course, there are risks, but it is precisely for that reason that we have spent the past two and a half years making sure that those risks do not materialise.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Does the Prime Minister agree that the extension of QMV to trade is in the UK's interest? Does he also agree that the cultural exception won for the French film industry is a helpful and imaginative way of improving decision making overall while preserving cultural diversity for the benefit of everyone throughout Europe?
Mr. John Bercow: The people of Buckingham do not write to me about that.
The Prime Minister: If hon. Members think that this issue is not an important national interest for France, they are wrong. My hon. Friend is right. Qualified majority voting in trade and services is very important. Obviously, we would have liked that measure to have gone further. We would have preferred even greater qualified majority voting in trade and services, because that would be in our interests, but we have none the less made considerable progress.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: As the Nice summit confirmed that both taxation and social security were
360
matters for member states, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that operating aids, such as the variation of corporation tax or national insurance, within objective 1 areas are a matter for London and the Treasury and not for Brussels, and that he will consider positively the requests made by the Lib-Lab Government in Cardiff in this respect?
The Prime Minister: Yes, that is right, although we must always be careful that other countries do not try to use these measures as a means of unfair competitive practice. Subject to that, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: From listening to today's exchanges in the House of Commons, is it not clear that my right hon. Friend and his Foreign Secretary played a blinder in the negotiations? Indeed, they have secured everything for which the Tories asked before Nice. The Tories are now changing their agenda.
The Prime Minister: As we have noted before, the bandwagon is a flexible vehicle.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Having had the pleasure of listening to several Prime Ministers over the years reporting great victories that sadly have proved to be disappointments, to say the least, I urge the Prime Minister to consider the danger of over-confidence. Is it not the case that we cannot have enlargement of the European Union without fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy, of which there is no prospect? Does he recall previous Prime Ministers and Ministers saying that there will be reductions in our contributions? To allow us to check up on that, will he tell us what he anticipates our gross net contribution will be in 2001 and what it was the year he came to power?
The Prime Minister: I do not have those precise figures at my fingertips.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Send them to me.
The Prime Minister: I will certainly send them to the hon. Gentleman. He says that we have made absolutely no progress on the common agricultural policy, but that is not true. As a result of what was agreed at Berlin, the saving is about £64 a year for the average British family. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that we would have preferred to go much further. He should have the honesty to admit—in a sense he does—that he does not believe that Britain should be in the European Union. He believes that Britain should come out. That is a perfectly honourable position—it is not one that I agree with, but it is an honourable position. I am afraid that it is now obvious that the hon. Gentleman's view is shared by increasing numbers of Conservative Members. That is the real argument that we shall be having over the next few months.
Mr. Denzil Davies: As my right hon. Friend has said, a number of national vetoes, many of which are not very important, have gone as a result of the Nice agreement, and a number of national vetoes, many of which are fundamental, have been retained. Does he agree that the time has now come to draw a line under any

361
further erosion of national vetoes? Will he give an assurance that the national veto will not be on the agenda at the next constitutional conference?
The Prime Minister: No, I will not, for a simple reason. The implication of my right hon. Friend's question is that we have suddenly reached a point at which we should have no more qualified majority voting. In my view, that is not the right way to approach the issue. The way in which we should approach it is to say, "There are certain areas in which it is in our national interest to retain the veto, and there are certain areas, which we should judge on a case-by-case basis, in which it is in our interest to move to qualified majority voting."
For example, suppose that we were in the situation at the moment where we had unanimity rather than QMV for agricultural policy—in fact, because of what the Conservative party, which agreed to many, many items of QMV when it was in power, agreed, it is QMV for agricultural policy—that would be an area in which I would be saying that we need to move forward. We mentioned another a moment ago, in relation to the structural fund. Where is in this country's interest to unblock the veto of others.
When people use the word "veto", one would think that only Britain had the ability to veto something. What the veto means is that something is decided by unanimity. If the European Union is extended from 15 to 20, 25, 27 or 30, it means that a country the size of, say, Estonia, Lithuania or Slovakia could block essential British national interests using the unanimity rule. It is not our veto; it is simply a consequence of the unanimity rule enjoyed by everyone.
I think that the most sensible approach is to say, as the Conservative party used to when it was in office—or at least for several years of its time in office—that we judge it on a case-by-case basis. Such matters as defence, our border controls, tax, social security and treaty change must be agreed by unanimity.
One of the statements that I made during our Council meeting was an explanation of why issues of taxation—the levels at which taxes are set—are, in my view, matters of fundamental national sovereignty, which must be dealt with by national Governments and national Parliaments. But there are other areas in which that is not the case. I think that we judge it on a case-by-case basis.
Sir Peter Tapsell: When our Prime Minister comes back from an important international conference and clowns about at the Dispatch Box in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, as he did today, is it not a clear sign that he has a guilty conscience about the small print that is to follow in due course?
May I pursue the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), a former Secretary of State for Defence? Why did the Prime Minister and his Defence Secretary repeatedly tell the House, and me personally, that France had no aim of creating a rapid reaction force separate from NATO in operational and planning matters, given that in the past two days President Chirac used exactly those words to describe the continuing aim of the French? Is it because the right hon. Gentleman was trying to conceal the reality from the House of Commons, or was he misled by President Chirac in his constituency pub?
The Prime Minister: As I just indicated in my reply to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King),
362
I understand that the French come from a different perspective. The difference between us, on this issue and on many others, is that I believe that we should argue our case and make sure that we secure our objectives, which we have done. The hon. Gentleman cannot really argue against that when it is so clear in the presidency report that the red lines that we have put around this should be maintained.
If we do not engage at all in this debate on European defence, it will not stop the debate happening. The debate will happen; Britain will not participate. That, during the last and worst years of the Conservative Government, was their habitual way of conducting diplomacy. The result was that three and a half years ago this country was marginalised and without influence—and that is not in Britain's interest.
Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Prime Minister not find it rather sad that the Leader of the Opposition clearly still prefers the handbag and the megaphone to constructive dialogue in Europe?
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the outcome of the Nice summit. What discussions did he have with Gerhard Schröder on the preservation of the football transfer system, and what was their outcome?
The Prime Minister: The German Chancellor and I—and many others, certainly the main footballing nations—are wholly opposed to the Commission's proposals. I think that they are misguided and wrong, and we shall continue to make sure that we get them changed. The transfer fee system is central to the future of many clubs. We do not want smaller clubs, in particular, to go to the wall as a result of a misguided intervention.
Mr. John Redwood: Given that the common fisheries policy has decimated our fishing fleet and the Government do nothing about it, and given that the common agricultural policy has done so much damage to our farmers under the Government and they can do nothing about it, why has the Prime Minister given away our right to our own industry policy? Does he not fear that a common industry policy with our partners, with no veto for Britain, could do to British industry what his Government and their agricultural and fishing policies are doing to our fishing fleet and our farmers?
The Prime Minister: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman's opportunism is extraordinary. The fishing industry is in trouble because, as he well knows, there are problems with the amount of stocks in the sea. Everyone knows that that is true. That is why not merely our fishing industry but every fishing industry throughout Europe is in trouble.
Our farming industry faces two problems, which are not to do with the operation of CAP. They are, first, the strength of the pound vis-a-vis the euro. [Interruption.] There is a Pavlovian reaction to the mention of the word "euro." The second problem is that, in the aftermath of BSE, British farmers face very high regulatory burdens. The combination of those two things, plus a collapse in world commodity prices, has meant considerable difficulties for them. That is why their position has changed.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that. I know that. It is absurd to say that the difficulties should be blamed on Europe. They are caused by a combination of the

363
circumstances that I have outlined. The answer is to do the things that we can do at a European level to help: for example, to ensure that the rules on BSE that affect our farmers are introduced throughout Europe. Again, that can be done only if other countries agree. Again, that is an argument for constructive negotiation in Europe, not withdrawal from Europe, which is his position.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the concept of ever-closer union began with the treaty of Rome in 1957; was enhanced when we joined the single market, or the common market, under the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath); was enhanced further when Baroness Thatcher took us through the Single European Act in 1985; and was enhanced still further, under the treaty of Maastricht, by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)? Has not the Prime Minister done well at Nice on taxation, social security and the rapid reaction force through articulation and persuasion? Has he not impressed our partners in Europe with those tactics, rather than the obduracy or recalcitrance that we might have seen from the Opposition?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to say that words about closer union were in virtually every European treaty that was signed by the Conservative party in all those years, but his other important point is that there is an argument about the nature of Europe. There are people who see the future of Europe as a federal superstate. I do not believe that they are in the majority; I think that they are in the minority. In either event, it is important for us to participate in that argument. We shall participate in it, advance and win our arguments. I am confident that we can.
Mr. John D. Taylor: We on the Unionist Benches want enlargement of the European Union and greater co-operation, but we definitely do not want a federal Europe, or a movement towards a more integrated Europe. To that extent, I can welcome the Prime Minister's statement, but the detail will be in the Nice agreement.
Was the common agricultural policy discussed at all? It is fundamental to enlargement of the European Union. Was there any discussion of the size of the European Parliament—the number of Members of the European Parliament—and, if so, what was the outcome? It is not mentioned in the statement. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Commission will be far too large and that the issue of the number of commissioners has been fudged in his statement?
The question of security causes anxiety to many of us in Europe. Will the Prime Minister explain why he prefers the United Kingdom to co-operate with neutral countries in a European force, rather than with European members of NATO?
The Prime Minister: The simple answer to the last point is that I do not. It is perfectly right that we co-operate with European partners that are members of NATO, as indeed we do. We are doing it now in Kosovo, in Bosnia and in many other parts of the world. All European defence does is give an additional string to our bow for limited operations—peacekeeping and
364
humanitarian tasks—in which NATO does not want to become involved. Anyone who studies the history of Bosnia, particularly in the early 1990s, when the United States did not want to become involved, will find that Britain and France struggled in ad hoc co-operation to try to maintain the situation. Thousands of people died as a result. European defence is important as an additional string to our bow.
I emphasise again that—whatever the French position on these issues may be—it is not a standing army and every decision on every mission will be the subject of a national, sovereign decision. Therefore, if we did not wish to participate—even if we were part of European defence—we would not have to participate.
Although the decision on the Commission is a compromise, it is not quite as great a compromise as some people are implying in their comments. Eventually, the decision will be reviewed and the number will be brought back down.
The cap on the number of Members of the European Parliament has been extended by around 40, but that number will apply when the European Union comprises 27 members. I think that, in terms of the ratio of Members to population, the proportion is still relatively good. Therefore, although the cap has been extended, it has not been extended unduly.
The common agricultural policy was discussed at Nice. However, that is a policy matter, and changing policy is the way in which it will be reformed. At Nice, we were primarily discussing treaty change.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on his first point—that we want a Europe of nation states and not a federal superstate. I am wholly confident that that argument can be won. However, to win it, we have to engage in it.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I congratulate the Prime Minister on the negotiations. Using his Warsaw speech as a backdrop and checklist, what progress has been made on the other issues that he raised in that speech, such as the possibility of allowing applicant countries to participate in the next European elections?
The Prime Minster has mentioned the important opportunities for British trade and the banking and financial sector, which has been extremely tardy in becoming involved in central Europe. Why have not any of the three Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry since 1997 visited Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia or Estonia? [Interruption.] It is time that they did so, bearing in mind that one of them went to Australasia, one to South America and one to India.
The Prime Minister: In respect of the last point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs tells me that he has been to all those countries. As my hon. Friend will know, I have recently been to Poland. However, we shall certainly pass on his point.
What has been called the post-Nice agenda is important for us, because it allows us to mount the arguments on subsidiarity and how to involve national institutions more in the European institutions, which is very important. We also secured agreement—although it was the consensus—

365
that the applicant countries should participate in that process. The text specifically stated that it would not be right for that to be an additional hurdle to enlargement.
Mr. Michael Howard: Almost everyone agrees that European defence capability needs to be enhanced; the question is whether it should be done inside or outside NATO. Does not the Prime Minister understand the difference between a situation in which NATO chooses not to be engaged—which are the words that he used today at the Dispatch Box—and a situation in which NATO is not engaged, possibly as a result of the decisions of others, which were the words that he read from the presidency report? Might his failure to understand that difference be one of the reasons why he has led the country into such dangerous territory on the issue?
The Prime Minister: I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman received a very good response on that from other Conservative Members, which augurs well for the future. However, I hope that he and other right. hon. and hon. Members who have doubts about the matter will talk to those who are engaged in working it out. There is no way in which the force will be a rival to NATO or act in circumstances other than those in which NATO chooses not to be involved. The reason for that is simple: many European Union countries are, like the United Kingdom, NATO members. As I said, in each individual decision, we will all have to choose to be involved. The force will operate only in the circumstances that I have just outlined. The idea that this will be an independent standing force set aside from NATO is nonsense.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether it was better to develop our defence capability inside NATO. The whole purpose of the proposal is that it will allow us to do that inside NATO as well. That point has been made by our American allies, apart from people such as Richard Perle, who take a different point of view. [HON. MEMBERS: "Bill Cohen."] Bill Cohen did not take the opposite point of view. He said exactly what we have been saying, which is that, provided that the force is not an independent military planning capability and a rival to NATO, its establishment is in America's interest. Countries in the European Union may believe that it should be such a force; we do not. With our American allies and others in Europe who do not share that view, we shall ensure that we succeed. Over the next few months, the final arrangements will be made between NATO and the European Union. Let us debate them again then.
Mr. Bill Rammell: Given that the Conservative party has been claiming for months that the Government would be forced to concede qualified majority voting on social security and tax, is it not astonishing that we have not heard a word about that today? Does not the manner in which individual nation states defended what they perceived to be their national interests through the veto this weekend show that we are light years away from the prospect of the European superstate with which the Conservative party is trying to frighten the people of this country?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We protected our national interests in a way that
366
allowed the matter not to become the sole issue of the summit and which prevented us from being painted into a corner. That would not have been in Britain's interests either. We needed to discuss a series of issues, as well as simply to defend our own capability. It is important that we recognise that success.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Why does the Prime Minister continue to say that the British rebate under the European Union budget was under threat, when it can be changed only by a free-will decision by the British Government?
The Prime Minister: That can be said about all treaty change. The rebate was certainly under threat, because we had to argue for it fiercely at Berlin. The securing of the rebate was done on precisely the same basis, because the Council could not agree the original rebate unless all the member states agreed. I am sorry to have to remind the right hon. Gentleman, but the constant complaint of Conservative Front Benchers—although not the right hon. Gentleman—was that we would sell out on the rebate. However, a couple of days before the conference, they got worried that that might not happen, and changed their tune. They have done precisely the same on tax and social security this time.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Mr. Speaker, before your elevation, you heard many statements from Prime Ministers on treaties and summits. There would always be one or two Labour Members—on the Opposition Benches at the time—who would welcome them. I hope that, before the statement is over, we shall hear one Conservative Member welcoming this historic accomplishment.
Has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister seen the reports in today's newspapers that the shadow Foreign Secretary's spin doctor was sent to act as a bluebottle in Nice, spreading the unilateral disengagement from European politics philosophy of the Conservative party? Is it right to spend Short money on that?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should put a question on the statement. I think that the Prime Minister has got the point.
The Prime Minister: I do not think that I need to comment on that, Mr. Speaker, except to say that I gather that the exchanges between my press secretary and that of the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), were one of the more amusing aspects of the Nice summit.
Sir Michael Spicer: Why did the Prime Minister sign up to a new tax which compensates countries suffering from being in the euro?
The Prime Minister: I have already explained that we did not. The articles that have been secured make it clear that the so-called bale-out provision cannot be used in respect of the euro.
Mr. Roger Casale: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the agreements reached in Nice in respect of the rapid reaction force, and on making it clear that the new capability will be

367
consistent with our existing defence alliances and complementary with NATO. Is it not further proof of the fundamental lack of judgment of the Conservative party—if further proof were needed—that it chooses to attack the rapid reaction force simply on the grounds that it has something to do with Europe? It has primarily to do with Britain's national defence interests. The Conservative party has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted with our nation's economy, but it will never be forgiven for this demonstration that it cannot be trusted with our nation's defence.
The Prime Minister: It might be helpful to read out the words of Senator Hagel, who is the leading Republican senator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
America supports a strong and capable Europe. Greater European military capabilities will make the Alliance stronger, lift some of the burden the United States now carries in having to act in every crisis, and make the US-European relationship a more equal partnership.
I could not have put it better myself.
Mr. William Cash: Will the Prime Minister explain why the annexes to the French presidency report, on which most of the questions relating to defence and European security depend, are not yet available in their current form? In relation to the contentious issue of the planning and military intelligence capability of the European Union, as compared with NATO, will he also explain why it says that in developing this autonomous capacity, there must be due regard for the decision-making autonomy of the two organisations? Does that not make it clear that there is in fact a distinct operational planning and military intelligence system? What is the Prime Minister going to do about it—will we have to wait another three months?
The Prime Minister: No. The report does not mean that at all. It draws the clearest distinction between decision-making capacity, which is the decision of the European Union—which is a separate body from NATO—and the military planning capability that is to be exercised in NATO. That will become clearer as the eventual terms of agreement between the EU and NATO are worked on over the next few months. In most circumstances, NATO assets will be used, even though NATO as a whole will not be engaged. All of this is being bolted down in the most careful way. It is extraordinary that Conservative Members believe that good members of NATO such as Germany, Holland and Spain, which are utterly and passionately committed to NATO and would not conceivably agree to something that undermined it, would go along with any country, whether France or any other, that wanted to achieve that objective.
Mr. Harry Barnes: As an enlarged European Union will include a number of ex-communist nations which have been through terrible periods of bureaucratic centralism, it is important that they do not become part of creeping, bureaucratic centralist arrangements in the European Union. Is not the answer to that a healthy dose of European democracy, which goes beyond qualified majority voting?
The Prime Minister: I think that issues of democracy are very important to the European Union. Democratic
368
legitimacy will be an important issue for the intergovernmental conference in 2004 to consider. However, I also believe that it is time we recognised that national Governments and national Parliaments are as good demonstrations of our own democratic legitimacy, within the European Union as well as here at home, as anything else.
Mr. David Chidgey: On the rapid reaction force and defence budgets, the Prime Minister will be aware that the European Union already spends two thirds the total budget of the United States and yet, as Kosovo and other theatres have shown, it has only a fraction of America's capability. The Prime Minister mentioned that 11 out of 15 of the nation states have agreed to increase their budget. Britain is already a major contributor to defence spending in terms of its gross domestic product. Have those 11 nations agreed significantly to increase their budget in line with ours, and is Great Britain to increase its budget as part of the agreement?
The Prime Minister: As part of the comprehensive spending review we did, in real terms, increase the defence budget for the first time in many years. I do not have a list, but 11 European Union countries, including ourselves, are increasing their defence budgets this year. That is a big change, because for years they have been cutting them. However, I do not think that it is simply a matter of the amount of money that is spent: it is a matter of spending that money far better and deciding what strategic capabilities the European Union uses.
Mr. John Maples: The Prime Minister prayed in aid a statement by Senator Hagel. However, he has misinterpreted Chuck Hagel, with whom I had a meeting last summer. Senator Hagel said that he has considerable misgivings about the development of capability outside the NATO framework, which is what we are talking about here. The St. Malo agreement, which the Prime Minister presumably looked at very carefully before it was signed, talks about autonomous capability. Article 3 says:
the European Union will … need to have recourse to … military means … within NATO's European pillar or … outside the NATO framework …
Is it not absolutely clear that what has always been intended is that there will be military means available to the European Union on an autonomous basis outside the NATO framework?
The Prime Minister: No. Let me try to explain again. In circumstances where NATO decides that it does not want to be involved—perhaps an operation limited to the Petersberg tasks, where America decides that it does not want to be involved, for example, Bosnia in the early 1990s—then the European Union acts, but not with a military strategic capability outside NATO. That is absolutely clear from the documents that we have negotiated. For example, it was not an Under-Secretary from the 1980s, but the American Secretary of State who, just a few weeks ago, said:
This EU force will be available to both NATO and the EU, in those cases where the Alliance as a whole is not militarily engaged. It offers a valuable complement to the efforts and capabilities of NATO.

369
The only people who see that as a great threat to the NATO alliance are either those in the Conservative party or—in part as a result of things that those Conservatives have said and that others have written—those who are told that the force is a rival organisation to NATO. Anyone who has studied the matter realises that that is not the case.
The point made by Chuck Nagel and others—as Bill Cohen was saying about a week ago—is that if there is the development of a rival, strategic military planning capability to NATO, then, yes, that would be a threat to NATO. But that is not what has been agreed and, as far as we are concerned, it will not be agreed.
Mr. Edward Leigh: We are told constantly that we should not be concerned about the European charter of fundamental rights—because it is not subject to the treaties and will not be enforceable by law—but is there not a smidgen of concern in the Prime Minister's mind that the European Court will base its future decisions on that charter? After these summits, we always hear soothing words from the Dispatch Box. Prime Ministers come and go, but the European Court stays and, remorselessly, year by year, our rule of law based on common law and parliamentary democracy is replaced by a rule of law based on a European supreme court.
The Prime Minister: The extraordinary thing is that the hon. Gentleman receives so much support from his own side. Presumably he is saying that we should—[Interruption.] If we withdraw from the European Court, we are withdrawing from the European Union. The European Court is there because, in order to police the rules of the EU, we need an independent European Court. That is an advantage for the EU, not a problem.
If the hon. Gentleman reads the charter, he will see that it is specifically declared to be a political declaration and not legally binding. That is why the argument—not in this place, but in the entirety of the rest of Europe—is made by some people who claim that they want it to become legally binding. They make that claim only because they accept that at present the charter is not legally binding.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The statement has run for an hour and 12 minutes, so we must move on.

Points of Order
4.43 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) is making a point of order; the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) must wait his turn.
Mr. Streeter: At 10.30 this morning the Government launched a White Paper on globalisation at a press conference. Copies were made available to non-governmental organisations and the press this morning, but not to Members of Parliament—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a point of order to the Chair; the Whip should not open his mouth while that is going on.
Mr. Streeter: Copies of the White Paper were made available to NGOs and the press this morning, but were not available to Members of Parliament until this afternoon. Given that the White Paper was billed as the Government's strategy to shape the forces of globalisation and was important enough to appear in the Queen's Speech, I ask you to rule, Mr. Speaker, whether the Government were right to launch it at a press conference, rather than making a statement to the House so that Ministers could be questioned by hon. Members—not least on many of the shortcomings in the White Paper, especially the fact that, although it refers to cracking down on corruption, the Government have passed up the opportunity to introduce a measure on corruption in the Queen's Speech. Is that not yet another contempt of the House?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the matter to my attention. I will look into the circumstances that he describes.
Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During our recent exchanges with the Prime Minister, I referred to the annexes attached to the French presidency report, with particular reference to European defence and security policy. It is outrageous that the Prime Minister should refer to documents intrinsic to the discussion and the statement that are not available in the Library so that Members can comment and question the Prime Minister on those issues. Will you be good enough to look into the matter?
Mr. Speaker: I hope that all Ministers will make relevant documents available to the House in a timely manner.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the imminence of the Falkirk, West by-election next week, have you received any notification that any Minister will make a statement to the House on the tearing up of the Independent Television

371
Commission code of conduct on the balance of political coverage, given that the Prime Minister will be allowed a one-hour propaganda slot tomorrow evening that is not being afforded to the leaders of any other political parties?
Mr. Speaker: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no.

BILLS PRESENTED
  ARMED FORCES
  Mr. Secretary Hoon, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cook, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. John Spellar and Dr. Lewis Moonie, presented a Bill to continue the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957; to make further provision in relation to the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence Police; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 4].
  CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONER FOR WALES
  Mr. Secretary Murphy, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Paul Boateng, Mr. David Lock and Mr. David Hanson, presented a Bill to make further provision about the Children's Commissioner for Wales: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 3].
Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [FOURTH DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [6 December],
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament—[Sir John Morris.]
  Question again proposed.

  Foreign Affairs and Defence
  4.46 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The foreign affairs and defence debate on the Queen's Speech provides an opportunity for the House to review the totality of our foreign policy. I will turn to wider matters shortly, but the House would expect me to begin my speech with the summit at Nice which we concluded at 5 o'clock this morning, so it is still fresh in my mind.
  Judging from the questions put to the Prime Minister, I anticipate that Opposition Members will want me to discuss what has happened with majority voting, but, before I do so, I shall deal with an issue that they sadly neglected in asking questions of the Prime Minister. Indeed, I did not hear a single Opposition Member congratulate the Prime Minister on the fact that we have returned from the European Council with more votes for Britain in the Council of Ministers. That was never achieved in the handbag-swinging era of European diplomacy that they pursued.
  Before the European Council, Britain had double the votes of Belgium; we now have two-and-a-half times its votes. We had two-and-a-half times the votes of Sweden; we now have three times its votes. We had three times the votes of Denmark; we now have four times its votes—and we have done all that while keeping parity with the four larger countries.
  I do not honestly know why Opposition Members do not welcome the fact that Britain is now stronger in Europe. I thought that they always complained that we were pushed around in Europe. Surely they would welcome above all else the fact that we now have more strength in Europe than we had before. It may be that during their period in office, with every successive enlargement, Britain's share of the vote shrank. This will be the first time that Britain has been able to look forward to enlargement knowing that its share of the vote has gone up and will remain constant when 27 countries have become members.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: The right hon. Gentleman says that the share of the vote has gone up, but it has gone down as a percentage.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is flatly wrong. It is impossible for us to have got greater multiple of other

  373
  people's votes and for our percentage to have declined. On the ratio of our share of votes to our share of population, at the end of 27 countries' becoming members of the European Union, that ratio will be identical to what it is now, despite the addition of 12 countries. For every year between now and then our share of that ratio will be higher than it is now. This is the first time since Britain joined the European Community that our vote has gone up. Of course, that will mean that when we take majority votes, our votes will count for a lot. Even so, we set out in advance—[Interruption.] I really do not know why the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) has difficulty following that proposition; it is an elementary piece of arithmetic that should be within the grasp of those on the Opposition Front Bench. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we set out in advance the red lines where we would not accept majority voting because the issues are so central to the characteristic of a member state.
  We would not accept majority voting on tax or social security matters. For weeks, the media have promised that we were bound to be turned over on tax and social security because we were isolated, and the Opposition were praying that we would be turned over. When I arrived at the airport this morning, I was given a transcript of the interview of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on "Today" this morning. In it, he dismissed the fact that we had retained unanimity on taxation and social security on the ground that it was never under threat. Jim Naughtie asked:
  So all the sceptics who … jumped up and down and said our veto on tax and Social Security are at risk
  were wrong? The right hon. Gentleman replied:
  I don't know who you're talking about.
  The right hon. Gentleman could wander into the Library to look up all the speeches listed under the heading "Maude, F." He will find a speech that he made on 8 July in which he warned of old-fashioned ideological battles in front of us, including those on the
  plans for more tax harmonisation by abolishing the veto at Nice.
  He should not now pretend that Conservative Members did not warn that the veto was at risk or that we would give it away. I fully understand why, when they discovered that the Government had done what they warned we would not do, they gave up their line of attack. There was no point continuing with it. However, the right hon. Gentleman should not pretend that he did not say what he did, or claim that he did not warn that the Government would do something that we have not done.
  Mr. Francis Maude rose—
  Mr. Cook: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is about to congratulate us on keeping the veto on tax and social security.
  Mr. Maude: Does the Foreign Secretary remember saying that the veto was non-negotiable? Is it not a bit rich for him to come back and claim a great negotiating triumph for something that was not a matter of negotiation, but simply a matter of decision?
  Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in that we have been clear, consistent and firm on this issue ever since we published our White Paper in February.
  374
  However, if he really imagines that everyone else at Nice sat down and looked at the words of Robin Cook and decided, "Well, we had better not talk about that," he does not understand how the European Union works. For the record, let me tell him and the House that when we went to see President Chirac and Lionel Jospin at the famous bilaterals in the course of Friday night, the only issue on which President Chirac wanted to press us was giving up our veto on tax.
  If there is any more doubt about the fact that the veto was negotiated and discussed at the Nice meeting, the right hon. Gentleman should examine the words of the Swedish Prime Minister who said that the Prime Minister of Britain had put up—I use the Swedish Prime Minister's word—a "brilliant" case for retaining unanimity on tax matters.
  I confess to the House that we were isolated on the issue of social security. All other 14 nation states were willing to move to majority voting at least on aspects of social security. We stood alone, but we held our line and we have come back with no majority voting on those issues on which we set out our red lines.
  Perhaps I was unusually hopeful, but I was encouraged to read the editorial in The Sun on Saturday after our success on defence. The Sun said that if we retained our veto on tax and social security, the Prime Minister was on course for a hugely successful summit. I should perhaps not have been surprised to find this morning that The Sun did not measure the summit's outcome by its own benchmark, but, once it has had time to reflect on the fact that our red lines remain intact, I look forward to a more glowing editorial in tomorrow's newspaper, congratulating us on a hugely successful summit. I do not expect the right hon. Member for Horsham to say that when he speaks.
  Mr. John Bercow: That is very wise.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I would not expect the right hon. Member for Horsham to give us such a glowing tribute as The Sun gave us the other day. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is an intelligent man and that he is mildly embarrassed by the fact that he has to speak for a Conservative party that will not say anything good about Europe. However, I hope that he will not try to repeat the words of the Leader of the Opposition, who said an hour ago that the steps to majority voting in the Nice treaty represent a major step towards a superstate.
  Let us put this into perspective. As a result of the Nice summit, majority voting has been introduced on more than 20 articles. Seven of them do not apply to Britain because they are matters for the Schengen countries, to which we do not belong. Five of them concern appointments to the Court of Auditors and the Committee of the Regions and appointments of other officials. Frankly, I think there is enormous merit in having majority voting on the appointment of officials. Unanimity on every appointment means that we end up with the lowest common denominator—the person who does not offend any of the 27 countries in the room. We would prefer appointments to be made on merit even if one or two countries in the room wanted someone with their own particular view.
  In addition, a paragraph provides majority voting on the pensions of court officials and the Secretary-General. That will not bring the white cliffs of Dover crumbling

  375
  down. If the right hon. Member for Horsham proposes to roam the country during the general election campaign warning that majority voting on the pensions of officials of the European Union is a major step towards a superstate, the electorate will regard him as having lost his marbles. That is not a matter on which we need to fear the introduction of the trappings of a superstate. After all, why should we not have majority voting on appointment of the list of members of the Committee of the Regions? We still have our national prerogative of nominating people to it and we do not necessarily want other countries to block our appointments by introducing their veto.
  There are some issues of substance on which we have moved to majority voting. We sought to do that because it is in Britain's national interest to get rid of other countries' vetoes. I mentioned some of those in the debate that we had on the Floor of the House in preparation for Nice. I said that we wanted majority voting on the financial management of the budget so that we could get rid of the Spanish and Portuguese veto on tougher management. We secured that at Nice. I said that we wanted majority voting on external trade policy so that we could get rid of the French veto on protection. We secured that at Nice. I also said that we wanted to get majority voting on the rules and procedures of the European Court of Justice so that we could get faster, firmer decisions. We secured that at Nice, and reformed the rules of procedure of the other courts of the European Union as well.
  It is true that we introduced majority voting on a new statute relating to the funding of European political parties. I note that the Conservative party is going to declare itself against that measure, but, before it does, it should be aware that the EU has introduced a separate legal base for such funding because the Court of Auditors recommended it as a way of achieving greater transparency in the use of Community resources in the European Parliament. I would hope that the Opposition would also welcome a recommendation by the Court of the Auditors.
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the proposal was fully supported—indeed, requested—by the European People's Party group, which includes every European sister party of the Conservative party. I was rather taken aback by the reaction of the Conservatives to a reference to the EPP. As I understand it, they are not too keen to be associated with their sister parties in the EPP—no wonder they have difficulty with the EU when they cannot even integrate with their own sister political parties in Europe.
  We have made major gains in those matters on which we wanted to achieve reform and progress by getting rid of other countries' vetoes that stand in the way. The biggest gain of all is that we have cleared the way for enlargement. We have reformed decision making in the Council of Ministers and reformed the size of the Commission. It will not increase when the first half dozen new members join, but will remain at broadly its present size for most of the decade. In addition, we have set a cap on the size of the European Parliament. We have taken the essential institutional steps that will enable Europe to function with nearly double the current membership.
  376
  The Opposition have expressed some doubt about whether that is necessary for enlargement. It is vital for enlargement, because at Amsterdam we agreed to the protocol which set out that enlargement cannot take place until the institutional reforms are put in place. The treaty to which we agreed in the small hours of this morning is one that specifically states that the conditions for enlargement have now been met. That is important to Britain because, otherwise, other countries might have delayed enlargement.
  We stand to gain from enlargement. It is in our national interest that the EU should become bigger, that the single market should become larger, that, together, we should have more strength in trade negotiations and that there should be greater stability in central Europe, which will accompany enlargement. Enlargement is also important to the candidate countries, which regard it as the best way to guarantee that they will share our freedoms, and the only way to increase their trade and investment. EU enlargement is the reunion of Europe: when the Berlin wall came down, it was the end of the division of Europe into two systems of politics, but only through membership of the EU can we end the division of Europe by two standards of prosperity.
  Mr. Michael Trend: Has the Foreign Secretary not considered that the applicant countries are far less interested in the internal deepening of the Brussels structure than in what is to happen to the common agricultural policy? How can he claim that we are seriously looking forward to enlargement unless that problem has at least begun to be tackled?
  Mr. Cook: The Opposition have dragged that red herring through our every discussion on the Nice treaty. I do not know whether they persist in doing so because they cannot quite grasp the point, or because they have a deliberate desire to mislead, but let me try to reason with the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) who was once a Front-Bench spokesman on foreign affairs and should therefore have some knowledge of the subject.
  The agriculture policy changes that are needed are not treaty amendments; they are not something that can be pursued through amendment to a treaty—they are policy reforms. We achieved policy reforms in Berlin—granted, it was not as much as we wanted to achieve—but I hope that the Opposition will reflect on the reason for that: when the Agriculture Council met and proposed policy changes, it went further than we went at Berlin because the Agriculture Council makes its decision by majority voting, whereas the European Council makes its decision by unanimity, and France therefore had a veto on some of the policy reforms that we wanted. I hope that the Opposition will reflect on that point before they oppose more majority voting.
  None the less, we made some progress at Berlin. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the effect of the package drawn up there is to reduce the average British food bill by £64 a year. It is important that the Opposition understand that, at Berlin, we agreed that we had created sufficient room in the current financial perspective for enlargement to go ahead. Every time the Opposition question whether there has been enough change in the common agricultural policy to provide that financial room, they feed ammunition to those in Europe who want to delay, oppose and obstruct enlargement, so I hope that they will now stop doing so.

  377
  The hon. Member for Windsor claims to speak for the candidate countries. All those countries were represented in Nice. They all came to a meeting of the European conference on Thursday morning, at which they all spoke, and every single one urged us to proceed with the treaty of Nice and to reach agreement on it. I did a press conference at lunch time that day with three of my colleagues from central Europe: the Foreign Ministers of Hungary and for Estonia and the deputy Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic. All three had two clear messages: first, they wanted the Nice meeting to reach agreement on the treaty; and secondly, they wanted national Parliaments to ratify that treaty.
  An hour ago, we heard the Leader of the Opposition say that the Conservatives will not ratify the treaty if they are elected—although I am bound to say that I believe neither the commitment nor the eventuality. However, it is clear that the Conservative party is moving out of contact with any of the parties that describe themselves as Conservative either in Europe or in the candidate countries, and with any of the Governments of the candidate countries of central and eastern Europe. The Tories appear to demonstrate more and more the truth of the view that was expressed by Chris Patten, who once was a member of the Conservative Government, that their anti-European case is increasingly about the little green men who live under the bed. Even given that eccentricity, I cannot believe that Conservatives are setting themselves up to be the only political force in Europe that wants to delay enlargement. If that is their position, I warn them that it will not be the electoral jackpot that they claim it will. On the contrary, it will become an albatross around their neck.
  I thought that the Conservatives might have learned something from their wild and extravagant attack three weeks ago on European security arrangements. After all the publicity that they had given to European security arrangements, they discovered that they had convinced the public that they rather liked the idea of greater security in Europe. In three successive opinion polls, the public gave the European security initiative an average majority of 15 per cent. over the views expressed by Conservative Members. If they want to fight the next general election on saying no to the treaty of enlargement, I predict that they will suffer the same rejection by the public.
  Mr. William Cash: Will the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that the Danish people, despite their Government being fully in favour of all the arrangements at Nice, decisively rejected movement towards a single currency, and with it, therefore, the concept of European integration? Will he accept also that under the surface in many applicant countries—I acknowledge that their leadership, their elite and their establishment have changed their laws to comply with the acquis communautaire, sometimes against a great deal of resistance—there is a serious degree of uncertainty, as in Poland and the Czech Republic, about where they are going, based largely on a lack of information but also on the apprehension that they are being taken into the sort of Europe that they do not want?
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: When was the hon. Gentleman last in those countries?
  Mr. Cash: I have been there six times in the past year with the Select Committee on European Scrutiny.
  Mr. Cook: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having pointed out that the Danish Government gave their
  378
  people a referendum on the single currency. That is something that the Conservatives do not propose to do if they ever get into government. I warn the hon. Gentleman against tempting to speak more authoritatively for the peoples of Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia than the Governments of those countries.
  Yes, those countries have carried out difficult and challenging reforms. The changes were often painful and politically difficult, but they made the effort to get themselves ready for membership of the European Union. They will not comprehend it if Conservative Members refuse to go along with reforms of the EU that are necessary for that membership. If Conservative Members intend to persist with an approach that can only delay enlargement, I believe that they will find that what Lord Brittan has said today is absolutely right. They will score a major own goal both for the Conservative party in Britain and for Britain in Europe.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Suppose that the Foreign Secretary were wrong both about the commitment and the eventuality and, as a result, the treaty of Nice was not ratified. What does the right hon. Gentleman think the consequences would be for the market economies and the democratic values that the applicant countries have espoused?
  Mr. Cook: During Thursday, two separate leaders from central Europe warned that if they did not receive the encouragement that they need from adoption of an agreement at Nice, they saw within their own countries the rise of extremist nationalist forces. We should remember that those forces within applicant countries that are looking outwards and stand for freedom, democracy and market liberalisation are those that have committed themselves to making a success of their application to Europe. If Europe were to delay negotiations, that would be a major victory for the forces of nationalism and chauvinism.
  To conclude on Europe—
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Cook: I could not possibly conclude on Europe without giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bercow: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Earlier the Prime Minister mentioned the importance of subsidiarity, although as we know, it was not even on the agenda at Nice. Why does the Foreign Secretary not have the guts to admit that the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol of the treaty of Amsterdam, which he championed at the time, has been utterly unsuccessful in stemming the tide of European directives and regulations impacting on this country, such that 3,000 further regulations have been introduced since its passage? If the right hon. Gentleman disagrees, would he care to name three regulations adversely affecting this country's interest that have since been repealed?
  Mr. Cook: None immediately springs to mind, which proves the success of the protocol in preventing them from being introduced.
  I believe that I can make the hon. Gentleman happy. It is a challenging task, but I shall try. He will be delighted to hear that in the declaration that we adopted yesterday

  379
  in Nice, looking forward to the future debate on the evolution of the European Union, there is a specific commitment—indeed, it is the first commitment—that that debate will consider limiting the competencies of the European Union and respecting the principle of subsidiarity. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman is unhappy about how far we have gone—[Interruption]—I assume that he will welcome the chance that we can make further progress as a result of what we agreed at Nice.
  Mr. Bercow: Utterly meaningless.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We cannot have incessant interventions from a sedentary position. Mr. Secretary Cook.
  Mr. Cook: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  To conclude the passage on Europe, we have come back from Nice with more votes than Britain has ever secured before. That follows on from our previous record: we came back from Amsterdam with the legal basis for border controls, which Opposition Members never secured when they were in office. It follows on from Berlin, when we came back with a better deal on structural funds than Opposition Members ever secured.
  If, at the next election, the Opposition want to fight on the contrast between our performance at European summits, we will be delighted to take them on. If Europe is the greatest contrast between their record and our achievements, there are many other contrasts too—for example, the Balkans.
  British foreign policy on the former Yugoslavia throughout the early 1990s was a failure. It was a national humiliation in Bosnia, where we sent British troops as part of an inadequate protection force which could protect neither itself nor the victims of the ethnic cleansing that it was meant to prevent. The 8,000 victims of Srebrenica lie heavily on the conscience of all countries in the protection force that failed to prevent their massacre.
  Some hon. Members argued that our action in Kosovo would make Milosevic and his policies stronger within Serbia. In the past three months, Milosevic has gone out of office. Although he still struts as leader of a party, in the last poll that party was down to a diminishing 5 per cent. of public support. What would have strengthened Milosevic would have been for us to allow him to empty Kosovo of its people and claim victory for the Serbs. If we had permitted that, Milosevic would still be in office in Belgrade, and almost a million Kosovo refugees would still be in refugee camps in Macedonia and Albania.
  My only regret is that the previous Government wasted those years in Bosnia by failing to stop ethnic cleansing then. If they had shown the same resolve then, Milosevic might have gone long ago, before this year.
  After our debate two weeks ago, I went to Zagreb to attend a conference with the countries of the western Balkans. For the first time, the democratic representatives of a modern Serbia sat round the same table with us as the representatives of Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia. For the first time, Serbia announced that it would establish diplomatic relations with Bosnia as a separate, single, sovereign state.
  380
  I particularly welcomed the commitment by the new Yugoslav Foreign Minister to open an office in Belgrade for the war crimes tribunal. Since we came to office, we have stepped up our support for the war crimes tribunal. We have built it an extra courtroom and, uniquely, supplied it with our intelligence support. We helped it with a witness protection scheme and, in the past three years, Britain has been involved in most of the arrests carried out for the tribunal. One of the officials whom I met at The Hague last year said that it was possible to date the change of Government in Britain by the change in support for the tribunal. We have followed through our commitment to making sure that war criminals are pursued, with a commitment in the Queen's Speech to introduce a Bill to give effect to the treaty on the International Criminal Court.
  That has been one of the Government's priorities. The British delegation to the Rome conference played a leading part in the negotiations on the treaty that set up the court. The British delegation insisted that the definition of war crimes should embrace both wars between states and internal conflicts, such as that in Bosnia. The British delegation pressed for the inclusion of crimes of sexual violence, such as the use of mass rape as an instrument of ethnic cleansing. The British delegation proposed that the court should have the power to order those who are found guilty to pay reparation to their victims.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the International Criminal Court, I was greatly impressed by the logistics set up by the Scottish Crown service when I visited Camp Zeist. It would be a great pity if, once the Lockerbie trial is over, that place were destroyed, as it is a facility for an International Criminal Court. Will my right hon. Friend make urgent inquiries into whether it can be kept in place?
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has already been good enough to tell me of his favourable impression of arrangements for the staff there, and I shall convey that to those involved in Camp Zeist. The International Criminal Court could be sited in the Netherlands. Certainly, the Netherlands' co-operation with us in arranging for a Scottish court to meet under Scottish jurisdiction in the territory of the Netherlands to carry out the Lockerbie trial has immensely enhanced the status of the Netherlands as a natural seat of international justice.
  Obviously, I can reflect on what my hon. Friend has said and discuss it with my opposite number, the Netherlands Foreign Minister. However, that particular site was created under a specific, narrow agreement. We will need to look carefully at whether the local authorities and the national Government are willing to consider its remaining in permanent use.
  Mr. Mackinlay rose—
  Mr. Donald Anderson rose—
  Mr. Cook: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and then to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).
  Mr. Mackinlay: When will the definitive Bill be published, bearing in mind the fact that we have had a draft Bill for four or five months? Will the published Bill

  381
  take into account the representations that have been made by Amnesty International, especially in relation to the silence of the draft UK Bill on the subject of Heads of Government and heads of state? By contrast, the Rome statute explicitly gives no hiding place, sanctuary or amnesty for Heads of Government or state. What will be the arrangements in the Bill, and will we be able to get it on the statute book before a major election?
  Mr. Cook: On the question of immunity, we published the Bill in draft so that Members of Parliament and non-governmental organisations could comment on it before we commenced debate in the House. I am aware of those anxieties and I hope that we will be able to satisfy them when we debate the Bill. However, I am pleased to say that the Bill will be published on Friday and will shortly be introduced in another place.
  Mr. Mackinlay: In another place?
  Mr. Cook: The other place has to have something to debate while we continue with other Bills. It is important that we make as good speed as we can, and this is a good way of getting on with the matter, so that we can meet the wish of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock to see the measure on the statute book as soon as possible.
  Mr. Anderson: Time may well be short in this Session, and it is a key interest that we should be among the first 60 to ratify. Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether there has been any indication from the Opposition that, albeit with proper scrutiny, they will seek to facilitate the passage of the Bill?
  Mr. Mackinlay: Well, are the Opposition going to support it?
  Mr. Cook: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock allow me to reply? My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East drew attention to an important reason why we are keen to get on and ratify the treaty. After the Rome conference, I said that, having played a leading part in negotiating that treaty, we wished to be among the first to ratify. We wanted especially to be among the first 60 to do so. That number is significant because the treaty comes into legal force when 60 have ratified it, and I am pleased to say that we are now well on course to being among that first 60. That is important for us because of our commitment to human rights and humanitarian law, but also for our national interest, as it gives us an opportunity to shape the court, to choose the bench and to ensure that it gets off to a credible, realistic and well-founded start. I have heard a question asked of Opposition Members in that respect; they, too, will have heard it—I am sure that when the right hon. Member for Horsham rises, he will confirm that the Opposition will co-operate in ensuring that the Bill receives a swift passage.
  It is better to promote the observance of humanitarian law in the first place through dialogue and diplomatic pressure. That is why the Government have pursued a policy of constructive engagement by seeking dialogue wherever we can, even with difficult countries. The latest example is the decision that I announced during the Recess to open diplomatic relations with North Korea. We believe that that is a valuable way in which Britain can
  382
  support the courageous steps towards rapprochement between South Korea and North Korea. The more windows to the world that we open up in the wall of isolation around North Korea, the better our chance of getting it to accept its obligations to its neighbours and the world.
  That follows from previous cases in which progress through dialogue has enabled us to restore ambassadors. In Iran, we were able to appoint an ambassador after securing a commitment by its Government not to take action on carrying out the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. In Libya, we were able to appoint an ambassador after securing the surrender of the two suspects now on trial for the Lockerbie bombing and a response to the killing of WPC Fletcher. As a result, Britain will have ambassadors to 80 million people in three countries where it had none when the Government came to office. I do not underrate our serious and continuing concerns about the conduct of some of those Governments, but we are better able to express them where we have an embassy to pursue them.
  Neither should contact be left only to ambassadors or Foreign Ministers.
  Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend is speaking of difficult countries. As he knows, the International Criminal Court will not take retrospective action. What progress is the United Kingdom making at the United Nations in establishing an international tribunal on Iraq, to ensure that Iraqi war criminals can be tried—something that will never happen at the International Criminal Court?
  Mr. Cook: I am aware of the vigour with which my hon. Friend has pursued the appalling humanitarian record of Saddam Hussein, and I commend her for it. I assure her that we want him to stand trial for his crimes, but we currently have no consensus at the United Nations for proceeding with the necessary resolution. However, the case that she raises is a powerful reason for proceeding to set up an International Criminal Court, so that such matters are decided not merely by ad hoc decision of the Security Council, but by an independent prosecutor working to a permanent court.
  I was saying that contact should not be left only to ambassadors and Foreign Ministers. Public diplomacy also has a vital role. There is no better vehicle for public diplomacy than the BBC World Service, which reaches a bigger audience than any other nation's foreign broadcasting. It provides unique access to the truth for people who are denied it by their own Governments. During Milosevic's last desperate attempts to suppress an independent media, the BBC World Service defied the ban by re-broadcasting from neighbouring countries.
  I am glad that Opposition Members supported me on that, because there is a stark contrast between this Government and our predecessors. In office, the Conservatives cut the budget of the World Service, while we have invested in it. The two spending rounds under the current Government have provided substantially more resources to the World Service. The first spending round enabled it to increase its audience to reach more than 150 million listeners. This year's spending round will enable it to expand access through modern technology. It will develop its online service and expand its FM transmission to 135 capital cities.

  383
  The BBC World Service is an immense asset to Britain. It gets us respect around the world for our values of freedom and of expression. It gets us gratitude from victims of oppression, who often go on to be leaders of their country—for example, Nelson Mandela, for whom the BBC World Service was the only link with the outside world during years of imprisonment. The Conservatives were prepared to run down that tremendous national asset, in which we are now investing. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham says, "Rubbish." When her party was in office, it carried through swingeing cuts to the BBC World Service. Indeed, it has taken the past three years for it to get back to where it was before the Conservatives cut it in the first place.
  Public diplomacy also means that we must provide an efficient and polite service to the millions of people who come into contact with our posts abroad. I want to comment on the staff of the Foreign Office and the people whom they serve, such as the millions from the Indian subcontinent who every year apply for visas to visit relatives or friends in Britain.
  The visa service, which we inherited, to foreigners in parts of the subcontinent fell well below any service that would be acceptable from a domestic Department dealing with British citizens. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), has addressed that problem with energy over the past year. We have still not achieved the standard that we want and that the public deserve, but I congratulate my hon. Friend on the substantial progress we have made. For instance, in Islamabad, we have cut the waiting list for a settlement visa for elderly relatives from 10 weeks to three, and, for spouses, from 30 weeks to 18.
  We also want to respond to the concern of many people in Britain that their relatives in the subcontinent have to make long and expensive overland journeys to the nearest visa office. I am delighted to announce to the House that, during this Session, we hope to reach agreement with the host Governments to open new visa offices in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. That will be welcome both to those Governments and to the many hon. Members who represent communities from those areas. Those communities are an important part of the diversity of Britain, which is an asset to our foreign relations. In a multi-polar world, it can be a strength for Britain to show the rest of the world the modern character of a multi-ethnic Britain. I am therefore pleased to tell the House that we now have in the Foreign Office 50 per cent. more staff from ethnic communities than at the time of the previous election. The more staff we have from our ethnic communities, the better able we will be to serve those communities.
  This year, Britain was the first western country to send a consular delegation to the Haj in Mecca. [Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham finds that funny. That service was much appreciated by the many pilgrims from Britain who went on the Haj and it fulfils the Foreign Office's commitment that we are there to serve people from all the communities of Britain. One such community, which is thriving here in London, is the Sierra Leonean community. I know how much Sierra Leoneans support the action that we have
  384
  taken to provide for the safety of their relatives and friends in Freetown, just as I know how much that has been welcomed by those residents of Freetown.
  For the past 30 days, Sierra Leone has enjoyed an agreed ceasefire. I shall be frank with the House: we remain to be convinced of the rebels' commitment to the terms of the agreement signed last month. In any extension of the ceasefire, we will look for evidence of the handing over of weapons and of the surrender of the territory that they promised. Nevertheless, there have been no attacks by the rebels during the past 30 days, which have been free of the rebel violence that has marred the dry seasons for the past decade.
  There would have been no ceasefire if it had not been for the commitment that Britain has shown in Sierra Leone. The other week, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who is a member of the Conservative defence team, demanded a deadline for British withdrawal from Sierra Leone. I can think of nothing that the rebels would more want us to give them. They could then settle down in their jungle hideouts and wait until the deadline came around and we went away. The hon. Gentleman might want to reflect on the fact that his demand for a British withdrawal was faithfully echoed by the rebels, who made the same demand in the ceasefire negotiations.
  We will withdraw when we have completed our task of equipping Sierra Leone with a trained army that is capable of defending that country's democracy and protecting it from rebel atrocities. We intend to complete that task partly out of simple human decency. The most harrowing experience I had in the past Session was my visit to the amputees camp outside Freetown, where I saw 2,000 victims who had had at least one limb lopped off by the rebels. Many of them were children; some were infants who had been unable to crawl before they had lost their arms. Everywhere I looked, I saw stumps held out to me in a plea for safety and justice. I defy any hon. Member to go to that camp and talk to those victims about setting a deadline for British withdrawal.
  We will also complete the task because it is important to our standing in the world. Britain is one of only five permanent members of the Security Council. It is important to our standing at the United Nations that we support the UN's largest peacekeeping operation. Britain is a leading member of the Commonwealth, and our standing in the Commonwealth would be diminished if we left one of its most vulnerable members in the lurch. Our standing in those bodies is important to Britain. If we want to make a difference in the world, we cannot do so in isolation. We can do so only by setting the agenda in the unique range of international bodies in which Britain has an influence.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cook: I shall give way, but this must be the last occasion.
  Mr. Cohen: I agree with my right hon. Friend, especially about the importance of supporting the United Nations. Why cannot our forces in Sierra Leone operate under the auspices of the United Nations?
  Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that British officers serve with the UN mission in Sierra Leone. Indeed,

  385
  we have the chief of staff to the head of the UN forces there. Our troops in Sierra Leone are mostly engaged in something that the UN force is not mandated to do, which is to train an army for the Government of Sierra Leone. I do not believe that we would assist Sierra Leone by entering into an arrangement with the UN that would not enable us to fulfil that unique, valuable and welcome mission.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: I shall make an exception for the hon. Lady.
  Dr. Tonge: Before the Secretary of State leaves the subject of Sierra Leone, I should like to draw his attention to the fact that we have still not had a Bill on arms control, although it is nearly five years since the Scott report. I was a great admirer of the right hon. Gentleman for a long time after the Scott report. When we get the draft Bill that is mentioned so briefly in the Queen's Speech, will it include arms brokers and a register of arms brokers? Will it ensure that brokers have to apply for a licence for each transaction that they effect?
  Mr. Cook: I am sorry if the hon. Lady was disappointed by the brief reference in the Queen's Speech, but all Bills get only a brief reference. I am glad that she welcomes our commitment to publishing a draft Bill. I assure her that it will tackle the issue of brokering. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who will introduce that Bill, said in his speech last September that we will go further than was indicated in the White Paper. I am sure that the hon. Lady will want to support us when we produce the draft Bill.
  Since we last met for a debate other than on European affairs, the Conservative party has published a new international policy statement. I read that statement: it did not take me long. One of the reasons why it did not take me long was that it does not mention a single one of the many international organisations to which I have referred. There is not a word on the UN or the G8, and only a reference in the margin to the Commonwealth. It is the first time in history that a party has tried to produce a foreign policy while solving the problem of not having to work with foreigners.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: This really must be the last time.
  Mr. Soames: Before the right hon. Gentleman goes on to the comedy in which he is about to indulge himself, could he clarify a matter for the House of Commons? In the excellent annual report on human rights published by his Department, mention is quite correctly made of Iraq and Palestine, yet for some unknown reason Israel is left out of the list. Would he examine why that is so, and perhaps let me know?
  Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning what he describes as our "excellent" human rights report. I am glad that it has been welcomed. I shall happily inquire whether it might be appropriate to refer to events in Israel in a future edition of the report, but as the
  386
  hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the events that are most in his mind have happened since the publication of the current edition.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not regard the comments that I am about to make as comedy. I think they are more tragic than comic. What depresses me most about the policy statements of Opposition Members, and their general approach to foreign affairs, is how little confidence they have in Britain. Their vision of Britain in the world is one of a timid, frightened little thing staying at home with the door locked, clutching a comfort blanket of vetoes in case a foreigner asks a question. It is a Britain with no leadership to offer the international community—a Britain surreptitiously sliding—
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: What document is that in?
  Mr. Cook: I am fascinated by that question. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had been to his own party's conference, and approved the document put before it.
  As I was saying, the Conservatives' vision is one of a Britain surreptitiously sliding towards the exit door of the European Community. [HON. MEMBERS: "Show us the document."] I am fascinated by the fact that Opposition Front Benchers are asking me to show them a document that they presented to the Conservative party conference. It is final proof that even they do not know their own policies.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with simply making a passing reference, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said—making a lot of jokes. Will he now show us the document to which he referred?
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is the Opposition defence spokesman. Is he telling us that he has not read the document on foreign policy that is part of the Conservatives' statement about "believing in Britain"?
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Send it to them.
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has come up with an excellent solution. We should do a service to the Conservative party, and send all Opposition Front Benchers copies of the policy document that they presented to their party conference. [HON. MEMBERS: "It does not exist."] It does indeed exist. It is called "Believing in Britain".
  The Britain in which we believe is one in which the British people are a confident people. We believe in a nation that deserves leadership, not isolation, in the world—a nation that is proud of its values of freedom, decency and justice; a nation that is not afraid of things, and not afraid of negotiating in Europe, because it knows that it will win in those negotiations.
  If the election does occur during the current Session, those are the international relations that we will confidently offer the people of Britain—a Britain that is a leading partner in Europe, and a force for good for Europe.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a limit of 15 minutes on all Back-Bench speeches.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Francis Maude: This is a wide-ranging debate on the foreign affairs and defence matters in the Queen's Speech. I regret to say that I think that the Foreign Secretary has done the office he holds no credit with the contemptible speech that he has just delivered.
  The Bill to ratify the United Kingdom's signature to the International Criminal Court treaty is, as far as we can see, the only Foreign Office Bill in the Queen's Speech, and I shall comment on it shortly. Interestingly, no Bill is planned to ratify the Nice treaty; I shall comment on that shortly as well.
  The plain truth is that the Foreign Secretary is a liability—a liability to the Government and a liability to his country. I do not mind his being a liability to the Government, but I do mind his being a liability to my country.
  In what can only be regarded as a proper reflection on his colleagues' view of the right hon. Gentleman's diplomatic abilities, responsibility for just about all the most sensitive issues of foreign policy has been removed. Responsibilities relating to Europe, the middle east, the relationship with Russia and the relationship with the United States have all been transferred from the Foreign Office to Downing street. Our relations with the middle east and north Africa—and, apparently, with South America—are now run by the man, estimable no doubt, who made his name managing Alvin Stardust. That is not a traditional prerequisite for good diplomacy, but it is clearly a major advance on the Foreign Secretary.
  In Europe, too, the Chancellor has bludgeoned his way into excluding the Foreign Secretary from involvement in possibly the single most important political decision of our time: whether this country should scrap the pound and join the euro.
  Responsibility for the remainder of European policy is being given to a senior official in the Cabinet Office, who is reporting to the Prime Minister. It is hardly surprising. Every time the Minister for Europe, now happily departed from his seat, opens his mouth, support for the single currency falls away.
  Eight years ago, the man who is now Minister for Europe signed an early-day motion congratulating Denmark on rejecting the Maastricht treaty. Today, the Foreign Secretary is busy reinforcing his reputation as the man who has been wrong on just about every major foreign policy issue since he entered Parliament. He was against nuclear weapons, proudly sporting his Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament badge. He was wrong. He was violently against our membership of the European Union. He was wrong again. One U-turn might charitably be called a Damascene conversion, but it is dizzying to follow his intellectual odyssey in the past quarter of a century, which has taken him from the wildest ramblings of extreme Europhobia to his current mania for all things European, whatever the cost, whatever the risk.
  The Foreign Secretary should enjoy his time at Chevening while he can. I am not the first to note that the brevity of the Queen's Speech points to an early election, which the right hon. Gentleman must view with all the enthusiasm of a Turkey cock looking forward to Christmas. One thing on which everyone is agreed, with the possible—only the possible—exception of the Foreign Secretary, is that whatever the result of the election—[Interruption.] Whatever the result, there will be one
  388
  certain consequence: the next incumbent at the Foreign Office will not be the current Foreign Secretary. His removal will be greeted with huge delight by anyone wanting to take pride in how his country is represented abroad, by the Foreign Office itself and by all our partners and allies, who find themselves constantly astonished by his ineptitude, arrogance and lack of finesse. [Interruption.]
  I will come to Nice and the European Union later, but too many times we have seen posturing in Britain, but pushover abroad. In relation to Zimbabwe, an important matter where we have serious responsibilities, one seasoned observer put it accurately enough. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not have incessant interventions from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Maude: One seasoned observer of the Government's stance on Zimbabwe put it accurately. He said that the Government appeared to be "insufficiently assertive". Who was that? It was the Prime Minister, and he was right. The Government did appear and have continued to appear insufficiently assertive; they have not asserted themselves at all.
  When it comes to the crunch, we see dithering. In Zimbabwe, there is a food crisis, a fuel crisis, inflation is roaring at 60 per cent. and people are being beaten and murdered for their beliefs. What are the Government doing about that long-running outrage? Apart from introducing a belated arms ban, they have willingly continued to give Mr. Mugabe too much room for manoeuvre. What country would ban arms sales to Zimbabwe, but the week after permit the Zimbabwean chief of air staff to come to Farnborough? It is this Foreign Secretary's Britain. The right hon. Gentleman continues to justify a policy of supine inactivity.
  There is a case for saying that attacking Mr. Mugabe directly might be counter-productive—there would a risk of allowing him, however improbably, to present himself as a persecuted martyr—but targeting his cronies, the coterie surrounding him who sustain him in power, could make a difference. It is time to show that this country, which should have a powerful voice in the world, holds those people responsible for the unfolding tragedy in Zimbabwe.
  We have proposed the freezing of the assets of those cronies, the imposition of travel bans on them and the threat of investigations into their involvement in crimes against humanity. After all, several of them were precisely the people involved in the loathsome Matabeleland massacres in the early 1980s. Does the Foreign Secretary finally agree that measures now to identify and to single out the people benefiting from Mr. Mugabe's refusal to accept the verdict of the ballot box are the only way to avert an unfolding catastrophe in that country?
  The Foreign Secretary talked about Sierra Leone.
  Mr. Cohen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: I shall make some progress—[Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary spoke for almost an hour. I am conscious that the debate started late, and that many Back Benchers wish to speak. I shall therefore make some progress. I do not want to take quite as long as the Foreign Secretary did.

  389
  We hugely congratulate Britain's armed forces on what they have done in Sierra Leone—they have, as we would expect, comported themselves with courage and great effectiveness. However, I ask the Foreign Secretary whether it might not have been better to allow the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone to take the action that they thought right to defeat the rebels? As that option involved the possible use of private military companies—which, in the Foreign Secretary's old, dogmatic and outdated view of the world, are the invention of the devil—he vetoed it.
  Would not such action have been a better answer? Is the Foreign Secretary not prepared at least to contemplate the possibility that it might have been a better answer than a huge United Nations force in Sierra Leone? That force has been thought, by common consent, to have been extraordinarily ineffective.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The shadow Foreign Secretary seems to be outlining a profoundly important benchmark in the Conservative Opposition's views. Is he really saying that they would condone and encourage the use of mercenaries by a Sierra Leone Government?
  Mr. Maude: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that it would be out of court and impossible in any circumstances for the Government to consider the possibility that a sovereign and legitimate Government might take the choice to avail themselves of expertise to uphold their legitimate Government against rebels? Let us face it: what has been substituted for that possibility is a huge United Nations force that has grown and grown. By common consent, that force has been extraordinarily ineffective. Is the Foreign Secretary at least prepared to accept the possibility that there might be a different way of dealing with the matter?
  Mr. Robin Cook: I hate to intrude on this with some reality, but the Government of Sierra Leone were first restrained from using mercenaries because of the Abidjan agreement, which was signed in 1996, when the previous, Conservative, Government were in office.
  Mr. Maude: Is the Foreign Secretary denying that, when the subsequent Lomé peace accord was reached, he absolutely insisted that he veto any further use of private military companies? Is he denying that?
  Mr. Cook: I can do more than deny that. Britain was not a party to the Lomé agreement—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman objects. We were not a party to the agreement, which was negotiated by the countries of the region. It was authorised and witnessed by others. We were not a party to it; nor did we seek to intervene. The right hon. Gentleman is ducking the fact that the ban on mercenaries began under the previous Government, not the current one.
  Mr. Maude: Is the Foreign Secretary really saying that no Foreign Office officials were present when Lomé was negotiated? Will he accept that Foreign Office officials were present, taking an active part in those negotiations? Is he really saying—this is quite important; I urge him to think about it—that Britain did not intervene in those negotiations? Will he answer that? Is he saying that there was no intervention at all?
  Mr. Cook: It is a well-known matter of record that an observer was present—[Interruption.] That observer was
  390
  not a party to the negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman has to answer this question. If he really thinks that mercenaries are the answer, why in 1996 did the previous Government, whom he supported, allow the Sierra Leone Government to sign up to Abidjan? May we have an answer to that?
  Mr. Maude: I think that what we have seen is a Foreign Secretary wriggling. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to contemplate the possibility that what has happened in Sierra Leone has been a continuing saga of ineffective intervention, and that there might be a better way of doing things. Cannot he concede that there might be a better way of doing things in future?
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: As has rightly been said, this part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech raises some fundamental questions. We discussed the Legg report on the Foreign Office's conduct in relation to Sierra Leone. Although I am operating from recollection, and there is always the risk of that being faulty, I do not recall those who were speaking for Conservative Members making the point that the Government should have agreed to the use of mercenaries.
  Mr. Maude: Again, we hear a refusal to accept that there might be a different way of doing things. Are we so hide-bound by previous thinking that we cannot contemplate a legitimate, sovereign Government being able to avail themselves legitimately of whatever resources they need to uphold their power? That seems a dubious proposition.
  In what was perhaps the Foreign Secretary's last intervention on Russian matters before No.10 took over the conduct of that relationship, he told the British press in Russia that he would talk tough to Mr. Putin about Russia's record on Chechnya and about fundamental freedoms of speech and the media. It was revealing that the Russian press told a quite different story, reporting that the Foreign Secretary had not given President Putin the dressing down that they had expected. The same Russian media now appear to be enjoying a running joke. They say that they have been hoping for 50 years that NATO would fall apart, and that they are now delighted to discover that it is doing so—led by the European Union.
  The image and the reality are also miles apart in relation to international development, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), the shadow Secretary of State for International Development, mentioned earlier. The fact that this morning's White Paper was given to the press but not to Parliament is yet another indication of a Government who are frightened to allow serious scrutiny of policies that do not stand up to a second look. There is no sign in the White Paper of any plan to reform the multilateral organisations, which continue, by common agreement, to under-perform, and no sign of the long-promised legislation to fight corruption. That marks another failure to deliver, despite the spin and the rhetoric.
  In spite of the Secretary of State for International Development's description of the European Union as
  the worst agency in the world, the most inefficient, the least poverty-focused, the slowest, flinging money around for political gestures rather than promoting real development—
  those were her words, not mine—there was no sign of that problem on the agenda at Nice, nor was it raised in the White Paper. Lacking in vision, and failing to find the

  391
  leading international role that Britain might have, the White Paper is further evidence that the Government cannot back up rhetoric with action.
  We shall not oppose the Bill on the International Criminal Court. We shall support it in principle. I question how much of a priority the matter has been for the Foreign Secretary, despite his fine words today. Despite previous opportunities to introduce the measure, it is now being introduced in what looks increasingly likely to be a truncated Session.
  How could anyone be against an institution intended to bring to justice those who have committed crimes against humanity? The question is how effective the court will be in accomplishing that. The danger is that this will simply become gesture politics, giving an impression of action and building more layers of higher institutions. The court's effectiveness will be questionable if the United States and China continue not to sign up to it.
  There is a case for saying that the court would not address the problem of arresting war criminals and obtaining evidence against them. There has, after all, been no problem in finding a tribunal in which to bring such people to justice. The problems lie in arresting them and getting evidence, and those problems will continue. Proponents of the International Criminal Court say that it will save money, but there is no guarantee that that will happen. Steven Kay, a Queen's Counsel with experience in the field—[Interruption.] I am not against the court, but we are not going to rubber-stamp the proposal. It is an important measure, which we shall subject to proper scrutiny. The Minister for the Armed Forces might think that the House is to be used as a rubber stamp for legislation that might be ill thought out. If so, he has another thing coming.
  Steven Kay, a QC with real experience in the field, has said that the International Criminal Court is in danger of being just a cosmetic exercise. It will be the job of the House, in scrutinising the Bill, to ensure that it is not.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: On the International Criminal Court, surely some of the worst atrocities in the third world have been committed by mercenaries. Did the right hon. Gentleman say that the agreed position of Opposition Front Benchers is to support mercenaries?
  Mr. Maude: No. That is about as fatuous an intervention as one might expect from the hon. Gentleman. A moment's reflection will show him that he is completely wrong on almost every count. I said that we, as a sovereign nation, ought to admit that it might sometimes be appropriate for a sovereign, legitimate Government to avail themselves of legitimate resources to support themselves in power, and that that might be the most humane way to proceed. If the hon. Gentleman is going to set his mind rigidly against any such possibility, let him say so. I should be surprised if he did.
  Mr. Tom King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an independent Committee of the House, with a majority of Labour Members, reached exactly the same conclusion as the one that he is now putting before the House—that in certain circumstances, faced with certain
  392
  threats and under properly organised conditions, mercenary forces might have a contribution to make? Let us also remember that, although they constitute a slight distortion of the normal national forces, a significant part of the French contribution in the Gulf war was provided by members of the foreign legion.
  Mr. Maude: My right hon. Friend has a degree of experience and knowledge of these matters that outweighs the entirety of that on the Labour Benches. The House would do well to weigh his words carefully.
  Like the Foreign Secretary, I warmly welcome the recent changes in Serbia. We all hope that stability, security for all, freedom and democracy will shortly be widespread and established. Great delicacy is needed in proceeding in the Balkans. I ask the Foreign Secretary to accept my view, based on an admittedly brief visit to the region recently, that, despite all the difficulties involved, anything less than independence and nationhood for Montenegro and Kosovo will prove unacceptable. Expectations have been raised extremely high, and if they are frustrated there will be a serious problem.
  The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have come back from Nice crowing over the success of their red lines, which, as we now know, turn out to be red herrings. We have repeatedly said that this was a bogus victory in a battle that need not have been fought at all. These issues were meant to be non-negotiable; they were a matter for decision. The Prime Minister just had to say no. However, his actions have enabled him to stage this vacuous victory in a bogus battle to distract attention from the 23—or perhaps 39, according to some Government officials—other areas in which it is proposed that the veto Should be given up.
  Mr. Anderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: No, I want to make some progress.
  The Government have failed to provide any leadership in Europe. Where was their plan for real reform that would have begun to create the modern, flexible multi-system European Union that would genuinely speed up enlargement? Where were the calls to reform the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy or development aid, which the Secretary of State for International Development has described as a disaster? Where were the calls for the kind of European Union that the mainstream majority of the public want—the kind of Europe that might make enlargement a reality rather than a pipe dream? Almost everything agreed at Nice takes the European Union further down the one-way street towards deeper integration and more centralisation.
  Why did the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister support the charter of fundamental rights if they were not prepared to proclaim it, let alone include it in the treaty? If the charter is so good, why does not the Prime Minister's signature adorn it? If the Government did not want their fingerprints on it, why did not they stamp on it in the first place? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, according to the initial programme, the charter was due to be proclaimed solemnly but, at the last minute, Great Britain and Denmark expressed their opposition to that way of proceeding? Does the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that that is an admission that the charter, in its previous form,

  393
  would have had legal force and that he had to take last-minute evasive action to prevent it from becoming binding? Will the Foreign Secretary finally accept what the European Commission has stated as a matter of simple fact—not a proposal, wish, hope or desire—and is supported by the weight of legal opinion—that even as a document outside the treaty, this will be "mandatory"?
  A few days ago, United States Defence Secretary Cohen must have decided that it was close enough to the end of his term of office for him to afford to be a little more candid than his office usually allowed. His speech, which warned of the danger of NATO becoming a "relic of the past"—his words, not mine—if a separate European army were created, was a landmark. It pulled the carpet out from under the feet of Ministers, who have been desperately trying to belittle our well-grounded concern that the proposal was not good for this country and not good for NATO. Their response was very interesting. There was no evidence of an elevated foreign policy working in Britain's best interest. Instead, we saw evasion, subterfuge and camouflage—the tactics of Ministers practising a terrified deception when the spotlight of informed scrutiny came to rest on their plans.
  Perhaps now, in the final days of the Foreign Secretary's term of office, he will find a little of the same candour and admit how badly wrong the Prime Minister's ill-judged venture on European defence has been. Why cannot the Foreign Secretary simply give his
  full support in resisting any defence competence for the European Union, which is not where Britain should look for its security interests?—[Official Report, 12 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 789.]
  That is what he said only four years ago.
  The reality is that on the European army the Government have been left high and dry. They accused us of scaremongering and of claiming to know America's interests better than America does when we criticised the effect that a competing European army would have on NATO. It then transpired that the United States Administration had precisely the same reservations as us about the type of force proposed and its autonomy from NATO.
  Why did the Foreign Secretary misrepresent American opinion in this way? Had he simply not talked to Secretary Cohen? Or had he talked to him and then deliberately misrepresented his view? Why does the right hon. Gentleman continue to misrepresent what has been decided? Secretary Cohen said that the European Union will erode NATO and United States security ties with Europe if it insists on separate operational planning for its new rapid reaction force. That is clear, straightforward and explicit.
  The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary say that all those concerns have been met. Secretary Cohen does not think so. He might have read the document that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister signed, which is very explicit on the key matter of whether the European Union has separate autonomous planning capability. It says that to enable the European Union fully to assume its responsibilities, the European Council—the very Council that the Foreign Secretary attended, although he may have been dozing off at the time—has decided to establish the following permanent political—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen say that this is fatuous. They might not understand it but their Ministers have just signed up to it, and they are misrepresenting it to the
  394
  House and the country. It is our job to make sure that the country knows what has been signed, so I will carry on and say what these Ministers have signed up to.
  The document says that the Council will set up the following permanent political and military bodies, which have been made ready to start their work—the Political and Security Committee, the Military Committee of the European Union and the Military Staff of the European Union. It says that the strength of the resources needed for the operation of such bodies, in particular the Military Staff, will have to be increased without delay. That sounds to me like an autonomous, separate, European Union Military Staff planning capability.
  The annexe to the document shows what is meant in detail. It says that the entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the European Union throughout the operation, after consultation between the two organisations. At least consultation has been included—I will give them that.
  The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have agreed to the setting up of a separate, autonomous European Union military capability—precisely what the United States Administration say will leave NATO as a relic of the past. Why cannot the Foreign Secretary admit that he has done that? The time will certainly come when he has to admit that he was wrong about this, just as he has had to admit that he was wrong about nuclear arms in the 1980s and the European Union in the 1970s. Would it not save time if he just did it now?
  Finally, the Foreign Secretary has spent the past few days trying to embed the artificial idea that enlargement depends on extending qualified majority voting, thereby eradicating the veto in yet more areas. The briefest look at what has been agreed shows what bogus logic that is.
  The Government cannot make up their mind what their case is. They say that many of the matters are very trivial, but if they are, why on earth do they make such a big difference to enlargement? Why is it necessary to have these matters decided for enlargement to take place?
  This summit had nothing to do with what is needed to allow enlargement to take place. All the extensions of QMV—some major, some minor—go in one direction only, towards further integration. It is time that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister gave up their charade, and admitted that their central undeniable agenda is to push ahead with European integration and that their declared interest in enlargement is a passing excuse to do so.
  There is an alternative to the party that accuses everyone else of extremism. The Conservative party's faith in Britain shines through everything that it does. Having a Foreign Secretary who does not believe in Britain is a bit like finding out that the Archbishop of Canterbury is an agnostic. Conservatives understand Britain's assets in the world. Unlike the Government, we are determined that Britain should not underplay its hand through ignorance or embarrassment. We are frank about what this country can achieve and where our intervention would only hinder.
  This country can achieve a great deal more. The quickest look at our asset set reveals so many opportunities to shape the world we live in—through the European Union, NATO, the Commonwealth, by our economic strength and investment interests, which are global and multilateral, not just in Europe. We have

  395
  opportunities around the table at the G8 and as a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations. English is fast becoming the world's common language and London is the pre-eminent international financial centre of the world. Britain is genuinely capable of being at the crossroads of the world's economy.
  What about our history, which the Government are so embarrassed about, because it all happened before day zero—1 May 1997? That history and heritage have given this country friendship and good will around the world, enabling us to play a part with global reach, yet the Government just do not begin to understand that. In the middle east, for example, we have a particular role, supplementing what America can do because we are a confidant of Israel and of so many of the Arab states.
  Throughout the world, we can be a glowing example of what a confident, democratic, independent, self-governing and free-thinking nation can achieve, yet the Government are still stuck in the mindset of the management of decline. They have a defeatist, depressing, minimalist view of what Britain can achieve. This weekend at Nice, the investment of time in promoting image over action showed this fundamentally defeatist and demoralised approach at work. We have seen the slow, gradual cession of more and more policy vetoes described as a victory.
  This Government and this Foreign Secretary do not believe in Britain. After the election, they will be replaced by those who do.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I am pleased to support all that was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. If he does not mind, I shall leave to one side Europe and the other matters with which he dealt; we have heard enough about them already this evening.
  I shall talk about another aspect of our foreign policy—the role that this Parliament can play in helping to bring democracy to the world, based on our shared values. Britain's foreign policy continues to play an influential role on the international scene. Practical support for democratic reform has been successfully carried out on our behalf—on behalf of all the parties in Parliament—by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, an organisation that I have the privilege of chairing.
  In a world where the quest for civil liberties and human rights has yet to be fulfilled, the foundation has encouraged openness and civic participation in the political process. In order to provide a timely and effective response to those needs, the WFD closely monitors and analyses developments in areas where democratic deficit has caused turmoil and hardship. I shall share with the House some of the thoughts, experience and expertise of the WFD in that vital aspect of our foreign policy.
  The year 2000 may prove to be a turning point in the politics of the Balkans. After 10 years of war and political turmoil, there are positive signs that that exhausted and embattled region is moving towards peace and democratic rule. Political changes in Croatia and Bosnia, accompanied by the departure of the wartime leaders, Tudjman and Izetbegovic, and the recent spectacular toppling of the Milosevic regime in Serbia have created opportunities for genuine progress in democratic development.
  396
  The WFD has played an active role in supporting forces for change, including political parties, independent media and civic groups. In Bosnia, in collaboration with the British political parties, we have intensified the training programmes for a new generation of politicians—aimed at developing a fairer and more effective distribution of power locally and nationally.
  The Serbian political opposition, non-governmental organisations and independent media received significant support from the WFD in their civic protest action and their "get out the vote" campaign. Over the years, we targeted assistance to a wide range of local activists, youth groups, political campaigners and print and broadcast media. In the run-up to the September elections, several of our partner organisations were constantly harassed by the authorities because of their work. The WFD is one of a small group of international organisations that have provided consistent support for the front-line groups whose foresight and courage led to the success of the bloodless uprising.
  We must not forget that in the Balkans peace and democracy are fragile. For example, in the recent Romanian elections, a right-wing nationalist party won 21 per cent. of the seats in the Parliament, reflecting the rise of xenophobic nationalism in that country.
  The dangers of backsliding are real and enormous challenges lie ahead. Further support is needed to pave the way for constitutional reform in Serbia and to negotiate solutions on the status of Montenegro and Kosovo. We shall make a priority of working in partnership with Serbian political parties and NGOs in order to build and strengthen democratic institutions. We continue to work with political parties in Kosovo to encourage political and civic engagement, and the practice of value-based politics. As Croatia prepares to join European institutions, the WFD supports activities to strengthen the system of accountability and compliance with international standards in key areas of Government activity.
  It is clear that simultaneous democratic and economic development in all countries is a necessity in order to achieve stability and prosperity in that region. In addition to support for individual countries, the WFD will continue to encourage cross-border activity and exchange through joint projects aimed at improving transparency, fair treatment of minorities and greater respect for civil liberties.
  In 2000, we saw momentous changes in Russia, with the arrival of President Putin in the Kremlin. However, democracy in that country faces significant challenges. The Parliament is still in transition; its upper house is due to undergo fundamental changes, while in the lower house the parties are moving slowly towards consolidation into larger and more viable entities. Outside Parliament, the formerly strong trend towards autonomy in many of the regions is being curbed—raising questions as to the ability of the more advanced areas to act as standard-bearers for democratisation.
  At grassroots, there continues to be a worrying degree of apathy about, or ignorance of, basic rights and participatory democracy. That is both a cause and a consequence of the failure of democratic institutions higher up really to get going. The WFD is trying to address some of the problems with a wide range of projects considering both grassroots and national issues.

  397
  In other republics of the former Soviet Union, progress towards a semblance of democracy is either lagging some way behind that in Russia or, in some places, has completely stalled. However, there are many common problems. We are funding voter education programmes and training for local councils in both Georgia and Azerbaijan. We are supporting the media in countries where they are often prevented from reporting freely; we are trying to assist Azerbaijani journalists to receive training about the legal environment in which they work. In Ukraine, we are helping journalists constantly to assess political bias in state-owned and independent media in order that they can combat it.
  Deliberate discrimination against women is exacerbated by the fact that they are the worst sufferers from the economic reverses in those former Soviet countries. The WFD supports groups in the Caucasus, central Asia and the Slav republics which are trying to educate women about their rights and training them better to defend those rights.
  Mr. Trend: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I too am a governor of the WFD, under his excellent chairmanship; I warmly acknowledge the support of the Foreign Office for the foundation's important work. If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to raise this subject later: in the context of conversations that we have held at the WFD, does it surprise the hon. Gentleman that, last week, the British Council closed its office in Minsk—in one of the countries about which we are most concerned? So far, I have been unable to discover why we are leaving the last tyranny in Europe—perhaps I shall find out later in the debate.
  Mr. Ross: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman is able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may receive an answer on that point from the Minister who responds to the debate.
  In Africa, UK political parties continue to increase the assistance that they provide to sister parties. The Labour party in particular sought to support more parties on the continent than ever before. The Liberal Democrats continued their programme of work with the CUF in Zanzibar, while the Conservative party supported sister parties through the African Dialogue Group. All three parties working together provided crucial help for the Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe—with obvious results: for the first time since independence, the country has a viable opposition party within Parliament.
  Elsewhere, the WFD worked alongside wider UK initiatives to assist Sierra Leone's efforts on the road to peace, stability and democracy; we are part-funding a British military assistance and training team project on democratic control of the security forces; providing funding for vital equipment for the only radio station outside Freetown; and supporting two other peace-building programmes. In Nigeria, the WFD has continued to support a range of projects aimed at building democracy in the most populous African state.
  In other parts of the world, the foundation supported visits to the UK by members of the Palestinian Legislative Council and supported human rights monitoring projects in Palestine. In Israel, we worked alongside NGOs which were working for reconciliation between Arab and Jewish Israelis. In Egypt, the foundation supported training for
  398
  women candidates in the run-up to elections, and the development of civil society. Elsewhere in the middle east, the WFD has been involved in Jordan, Lebanon and Yemen.
  In south-east Asia, the foundation has supported the US-based human rights group in China, the Human Rights Monitor based in central Hong Kong, the Tibet Information Network, Voice of Tibet radio, the API foundation in Indonesia and the East Timor International Support Centre. Support for those organisations reveals just some of ways in which we have sought to spread the benefits that we enjoy in this country to countries emerging from troubled pasts. On behalf of the foundation, I thank the Foreign Secretary for the support that we have been given by all Foreign Office departments and all its stations abroad.
  In conclusion, I shall spend a couple of minutes dealing with the middle east. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not refer to it because of other issues. I hope that other hon. Members will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and say a few things about that region. If there is one message that the House should send out tonight, it is that the killing must stop. We should all be united about that; it is the one thing that all hon. Members should try to ensure. I should like to make my contribution by reminding the Israeli Government, who now have no Prime Minister and are moving into an uncertain period, that the only real times of peace and security that Israel has enjoyed have occurred when it has worked within international law and agreed to resolve its differences with the other middle east countries—its neighbours—by accepting that international law forms the bedrock of such agreements.
  I remind the House that the original Camp David accord required Israel to withdraw completely from the Egyptian territory that it occupied after 1967. When Egypt and Israel failed to reach agreement on withdrawing from Taba, they referred the issue to the international court. Two years later, Israel accepted the court's decision that Taba belonged to Egypt, withdrew and peace—perhaps not the warmth of peace that many would have preferred—has existed ever since.
  The other occasion when Israel accepted international law was when it withdrew completely from every inch of Lebanon. Clearly, subsequent events have not proved as successful as the agreement with Egypt. However, we need to remind the Israeli Government that forces whose agenda is not that of the Lebanese Government can exploit the fact that the Israelis continue to hold Lebanese citizens in jail and over-fly Lebanon without the consent of the Lebanese Government.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend accept that although Israel has adhered to the United Nations resolution and withdrawn from Lebanon, Hezbollah has been permitted to be present on that border, using weapons from Iran, yet the United Nations refuses to take any action? Does he think that that is compatible with a genuine seeking of peace by Israel's neighbours?
  Mr. Ross: I made the point that Israel still unfortunately holds in its jails Lebanese citizens, some of whom were seized in Lebanon and taken to Israel. That sore allows those forces inside Lebanon to take their actions. If Israel started to use international law and stayed within it, there would be a possibility of lasting peace in the area.

  399
  It is clear that I shall not have as much time as I should like, but I recommend to my colleagues the report of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, who visited the occupied Palestinian territories, Israel, Egypt and Jordan between 8 and 16 November. Mary Robinson's report is well worth reading because of the many issues that it raises. It contains a fairly balanced outline of how the problem might be resolved and points a finger at some of the difficulties that have arisen because Israel and the Palestinians have not used international law. Although appearing to make progress, they have held negotiations in which the imbalance that exists between Israel and the Palestinian negotiators has failed to be recognised.
  Despite all the good words and brave stances of successive Israeli Prime Ministers—excluding Prime Minister Netanyahu—the fact is that Israeli Governments have never treated the Palestinians as equals in negotiations. Unless and until they do, the problem cannot possibly be resolved; nor can it be resolved if the Israelis still seek to deny the Palestinian refugees' right to return. They said that they would allow some refugees to return, but they accepted no moral or legal obligation to do so. That will not convince the Palestinian refugees—among whom the latest outbreak of violence started—that the Israeli Government are seriously determined to address the problems that they face. Equally, the use of lethal force against a mostly unarmed Palestinian civilian population is not only excessive, but cannot show good will on the part of a power that admits in the report that it is using only 2 per cent.—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) has made a very powerful case in an effort to persuade those who may be listening of the urgent need to restore peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. When he takes a stand on the requirement for both parties to observe the principles of international law, he adopts an unexceptionable position. I agree substantially with much of his speech. In particular, I should like to deal with one point that he made—that relating to the proportionate use of force, to use my own phrase.
  Some Palestinians are armed, but they do not have helicopter gunships or the sophisticated equipment that Israel has at its disposal. Israel probably has the most modern army in the middle east. Therefore, in legitimately dealing with the response that it is entitled to make under international law, it has a strong moral obligation to ensure that it does not abuse its superior position in terms of arms and equipment.
  This debate is about foreign affairs and defence, hut, so far, defence has featured only to the extent that it has formed part of our consideration of the events that took place at Nice over the weekend. I should like to raise two defence issues, the first of which is that of defence medical services, which now show that we are paying a heavy price for the ill-advised decisions of the Conservative Government under what came to be called
  400
  "Front Line First". As a consequence, defence medical services, which are responsible for serving the Army, Navy and Air Force, have only 24 per cent. of the anaesthetists, 29 per cent. of the orthopaedic surgeons and 13 per cent. of the accident and emergency consultants that they require. Only 65 per cent. of the establishment of volunteer reservists is fully recruited. Therefore, circumstances could arise in which a choice by the depended United Kingdom whether to deploy forces not on availability, capability or the political considerations involved but on whether we could put in the field adequate medical support. The sooner that is put right the better, and the Government have responsibility for that. I have some sympathy for the position in which they find themselves, but urgent action is required to ensure that the sorts of things that have been discussed in the debate could be achieved with the necessary medical support that our forces are entitled to expect.
  The second defence issue that I want to raise is that of the Chinook crash that took place on the Mull of Kintyre. I have already raised that topic on several occasions. I do not intend to rehearse all that I have said before, but there have been two significant developments recently, the first of which is the report of the Public Accounts Committee. I shall return to that in a moment. The second was a report in The Herald last Friday which appeared under the byline of Mr. Ian Bruce, who is known to be a responsible and well-informed journalist. He says that he has information, based on a communication from a former serving officer, that the destination of the helicopter may have been not Inverness but Machrihanish on the Mull of Kintyre, and that the pilots were instructed to fly low to avoid radar and to maintain security because of the nature of the passengers on board. If that were true, it would put quite a different complexion on the accident. If it were true, some of us would want the attitude publicly demonstrated by the Government to be revisited.
  Like those of many others, my doubts remain unanswered because of the attitude taken by the Ministry of Defence to the crash. As we now know, the Public Accounts Committee has similar doubts. The terms of its report were robust and I hope that I will not cause too much offence to those on the Treasury Bench if I say that the initial Government response was hasty, ill considered and inadequate. I hope that they will do better when they make a formal response to the PAC report. The families of the pilots deserve better, and the issue will not go away. The anxiety felt on both sides of the House and in the other place is clearly not diminishing with the passage of time.
  We are engaged in a debate on the Gracious Speech, and that inevitably raises questions about what is included and what is left out. I welcome unequivocally the commitment to the ratification of the statute of the International Criminal Court. Liberal Democrats will do everything in our power to assist the speedy passage of the relevant Bill. In response to the sensible programme of consultation on which the Government have embarked, we have already submitted suggested improvements. Although we have no guarantee that they will all be accepted, they have been received with a certain amount of sympathy and we have been asked to give further and better particulars in at least one instance. Such an approach to legislation is fundamental on a topic that should command the support of the whole House.

  401
  One issue causes me concern, and it was referred to in passing by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude).
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): I thank the Liberal Democrats for their responses on the International Criminal Court Bill. We have taken close note of their contributions, and I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be encouraged by that. I contrast their approach with that of the Conservative party, which made absolutely no response to the Bill. Forty-five consultations were received, but the Conservatives had nothing to say about it.
  Mr. Campbell: Those facts speak for themselves. However, before we get too carried away with our expressions of co-operation and good will, may I remind the Minister that, because the Bill will start in the House of Lords, our secret weapons are my noble Friends Lord Goodhart and Lord Lester? The Minister may find that they have quite a lot to say about the Bill in the other place, and mercenaries like myself in this House will unhesitatingly draw upon their contributions.
  I was about to refer to my concern about the United States apparent unwillingness to ratify the treaty unless US service personnel are exempt from its jurisdiction. There have been reports that the United Kingdom Government have been reluctant to make common cause with other European Union members to bring pressure to bear on the US. I hope that this evening or at a later stage the Government will be able to reassure those in the House who wish to co-operate with them that they will do all in their power to persuade the United States that it is in its interests, as well as in the interests of the effectiveness of the court, that it should be a fully subscribing party to the treaty.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) suggested, there is some disappointment among Liberal Democrats that no definite place has been found for a Bill to implement the recommendations of the Scott report, which was published nearly five years ago. It is worth recalling—the Foreign Secretary will have little difficulty doing so—that Scott said that a comprehensive review of Government powers over arms exports was long overdue. In describing the current statutory provisions, he said that they were
  based on wartime emergency legislation lacking the provisions for parliamentary supervision and control that would be expected and are requisite in a modern parliamentary democracy.
  When the Labour party was in opposition, it and the current Foreign Secretary justifiably profited politically from Conservative embarrassment on what I still describe as the scandal of the supply of arms-related equipment to Iraq. I hope that it is not too onerous an obligation, but the Government do have a moral obligation to put matters right at the first opportunity.
  I understand that there will be a draft Bill, but we have some questions about it. Will it set out to regulate arms brokers to a sufficient extent? Will there be consideration of the extra-territorial jurisdiction which is part of the Chemical Weapons Act 1996? Will the Bill deal with the questions of licensed production of arms abroad and their supply between foreign countries? Such production could be used to escape the consequences of what would otherwise be an illegal transaction, and it might be argued that the United Kingdom has no jurisdiction over that.
  402
  On arms exports, I have no hesitation in asserting that transparency, scrutiny and accountability are not the enemies of good government; they should be its allies. Even this Government have been embarrassed by arms exports. Good intentions do not bring immunity from embarrassment, as East Timor, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe have demonstrated. Sir Richard Scott said that the present arrangements were
  totalitarian in concept and effect.
  Such arrangements are inconsistent with a foreign policy with an ethical dimension, and there should be no room for constructive engagement in arms exports to countries that breach human rights.
  Another more explicit absence—if there can be such a thing—from the Gracious Speech is a reference to national missile defence and the Government's attitude towards that. I have previously argued in the House that the United States determination to proceed with NMD rests on a flawed assessment of threat. Rogue states and deeply unpleasant regimes exist, but we and the United States should ask ourselves whether those states are so lacking in comprehension that they would threaten to use or actually use weapons of mass of destruction against the overwhelming nuclear superiority of the United States.
  Does the United States really expect the United Kingdom and its allies in Europe to believe that, once it has established a limited missile defence to protect it from what are now described as "states of concern", domestic pressure would not grow in the United States for that cover to be expanded to embrace the larger missile capabilities of other nuclear weapons powers?
  We have already debated European defence and the apocalyptic consequences that some attribute to that, but it is perfectly reasonable to point out that NMD has the potential to damage relations within NATO, to weaken the cohesion of the alliance and to divide Europe from the United States. It will undermine the principle of deterrence on which a fragile strategic balance has been built, and it will change the basis on which nuclear strategy has been built for the past 30 years.
  In its most recent report on weapons of mass destruction, the Foreign Affairs Committee rightly argued that
  it is incumbent on the Government, as one of the five nuclear weapons states and a close ally of the United States, to make an early public statement on its analysis of NMD's likely impact on strategic stability and its assessment of whether this would be in the overall security interests of this country.
  We look in vain in the Gracious Speech or elsewhere for any clear sign of the Government's attitude. I repeat a charge that I have made before to the Secretary of State for Defence: it is disingenuous to suggest that, because no request has been made, no attitude has to be struck. As I have asked at least once before, what is the nuclear planning policy division of the Ministry of Defence doing if it is not taking some account of the potential consequences of the deployment of NMD? If the United States Supreme Court reaches an acceptable decision today, a request may be made very soon, although neither of those matters can be guaranteed. However, a request could certainly be made long before next May, which is the period that most of us reckon the Gracious Speech has been designed to cover. We are entitled to know what the Government's attitude will be when such a request is made.
  For 10 years, Liberal Democrats have consistently supported United Kingdom Governments on their policies on Iraq. Indeed, just the other day I was reading a book—

  403
  I shall leave its title and author clothed in anonymity—that reminded me that the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) rang me on the night when British forces went into battle on the ground. If I did not thank him for his courtesy then, I should like to do so today. We have supported Conservative and Labour Governments and the United Nations sanctions regime, but we believe that, after 10 years, we owe it to ourselves and the people of Iraq to review that policy.
  What have sanctions produced? Certainly not the results that we predicted. Ordinary Iraqi people have been driven into poverty, malnutrition and ignominy. Saddam Hussein has not been brought to heel. He exploits the sanctions and uses them as an excuse. They are his justification for the brutality and privations that he imposes on his people. One does not have to go far in the middle east to find much anxiety and the belief that the people of Iraq have suffered enough. That is evident in the Arab capitals. In this case, the Iraqi people are the oppressed, not the oppressors. The same people who suffer from the brutal dictatorship of Saddam's regime are those worst hit by sanctions, and the elite—perhaps, as ever—are left untouched.
  Our policy towards Iraq is of necessity—of containment—supported by credible military threat. Let me make this clear: if there were a military threat to Kuwait or a surrounding country, I would have little hesitation in supporting the threat or, if it came to it, the use of military means to contain it. However, the sanctions regime is being steadily eroded, in some cases aided and abetted by members of the Security Council. Its authority, and that of the United Nations, will be irretrievably damaged if the sanctions regime simply withers away.
  We can maintain the policy of containment by maintaining an embargo on military and dual-use goods, but is it not time for the United Kingdom to take the initiative at the United Nations to lift non-military sanctions? They contribute nothing to the policy of containment and make no difference to Saddam or his brutality, but they damage the lives of ordinary Iraqis and hand him a gratuitous propaganda advantage. It is time they went.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has twice suggested that we should take issue with the United States on the issues of the International Criminal Court and national missile defence. He confirms the worst fears of the official Opposition about the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party having a secret agenda and seems to look forward to having a battle with the United States on those important issues, but he has not said a word about the attitude of France in the Gulf and towards Iraq. Had the French been a little more supportive of our sanctions policy in the middle east, Saddam Hussein might have decided before now to accept the United Nations resolutions.
  Mr. Campbell: I confess that there is no secret anti-American agreement between the Foreign Secretary and myself. Indeed, I regard myself as something of an Atlanticist, not least because I was educated partly in the
  404
  United States. However, the fact that we are close allies of the United States should not inhibit us from commenting and criticising in justifiable circumstances.
  I notice no such inhibition on the part of Members of Congress, some of whom find it necessary to legislate in the most draconian terms on trade matters that have a direct consequence on people in our constituencies, not least that of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). The jobs of many workers in the woollen industry in his constituency have been at risk during the past 18 months because of the ludicrous notion that a dispute about bananas is best dealt with by targeting the cashmere-producing factories of the borders of Scotland.
  When it comes to the United States, robust and mature disagreement is much more likely to be part of a profitable relationship than the notion that we cannot open our mouths for the fear of upsetting it. [Interruption.] I am reminded of the French. I have said that the sanctions regime is being eroded, and that process is being aided and abetted by members of the Security Council. I wish they would not do that, but it is a fact of life. When we deal with European defence, I will say a thing or two about my attitude towards the French.
  I had the good fortune to accompany the Secretary of State for Defence on his visit to Sierra Leone in July. Like others, I was deeply impressed by the quality of the British presence there. However, the Foreign Secretary knows that we share a belief in the need for more effective and stronger United Nations peacekeeping. I have seen little evidence—either when I was there or since, especially now that the Indian and Jordanian battalions may be withdrawn—to suggest that, as far as the UN presence in Sierra Leone is concerned, we are able to bet on a winner. My anxiety is that if the UN operation in Sierra Leone fails, the long-term consequences for the credibility of UN peacekeeping will be severe. That is why, to echo a point made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), who is a member of the Defence Committee, I wish that the Government would reconsider whether a United Kingdom battalion could become part of the UN peacekeeping force in Sierra Leone.
  On Europe, I am sorry that the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Horsham, is not here. He gave the impression of an intelligent man making a case in which he does not believe. If he really thinks that there is an operation by stealth to drag the UK further into the morass of an integrated Europe, he is clearly reading the wrong newspapers. One can hardly open a newspaper without seeing—some would argue—more than adequate reflection of the views that he and his hon. Friends hold. When he says that, as Foreign Secretary, he would refuse to sign the treaty of Nice, I simply do not believe him. When he says that he will oppose ratification, I suspect that he might, but I doubt whether his heart or head will be in it. He also says that the Conservative party would hold a referendum on the treaty of Nice—that would be a first, because there has never been a referendum at its instigation.
  It would tell us a great deal about the journey that the Conservative party has travelled since the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) took the country into Europe if it feels compelled to hold a referendum on the treaty of Nice as we understand it. Where are the issues that are of such fundamental

  405
  constitutional importance? The Prime Minister was quick to explain that the pensions of those who are employed in the European Court of Justice are important, but they are hardly so earth shattering that they require a referendum. How would we approach people on their doorsteps? We would have to say, "It is essential to have a referendum on the treaty of Nice because it is dealing with things like the pensions of the people who work for the European Court of Justice." All that is self-evident when one puts the questions in that form, which convinces me that the right hon. Member for Horsham is an intelligent man who is required to make a case in which he does not believe.
  The Government succeeded in preserving the veto on tax and social security and they increased their voting power, but I do not regard those as great triumphs. They are no more than was to be expected. Nice did not deal properly with the size of the Commission. It is only 18 months since the House was up in arms about the inadequacies of the Commission, its arrogance, the failure of control and lack of scrutiny, so it seems somewhat curious to have no proposals to make in respect of the size of the Commission and the way in which it will work. That is a criticism addressed not only to our Government but to other Governments as well.
  As the shadow Foreign Secretary said, there was nothing in the Queen's Speech about the common agricultural policy. It is true that, in that respect, policy reforms are enough—we do not need a referendum or to go knocking on the doors of the people of the United Kingdom asking whether they will support a referendum to change the common agricultural policy; but if reforms are sufficient, we have to ask where is the motivation to bring about the changes that are essential if the CAP is to survive the accession of Poland, to name but one country.
  Why was no more robust and rigorous a view taken of the number of Members of the European Parliament? I believe strongly that there are too many Members both of this Parliament and of the European Parliament. If we embark on an open-ended commitment to increase the number of MEPs, we risk creating a European Parliament that is far too inflated to handle its responsibilities. In addition, there is in the minds of those on the doorstep a question about the cost. It is a great pity that Nice did not produce a far more robust attitude toward the size of the Parliament.
  There is to be an intergovernmental conference in 2004. That should be supported because I believe it is essential to determine and define the roles and responsibilities at all levels of government and in all the institutions of the European Union. The most fascinating aspect of the German-Italian document is that it raises in a concrete manner the matter of subsidiarity. Where does it come from? Not from the federal Government, but from the devolved governments of the Länder, which are rightly concerned that responsibilities that belong to them should not be taken over by Brussels. We must remember that we in this country now have devolved government—devolved to a greater extent to Scotland than to Wales, but also devolved to London—so it is not impossible to imagine the separate organs of government in the United Kingdom displaying similar anxiety. The proposals for an IGC in 2004 are for subsidiarity. We should ensure that we play a prominent and effective part in that IGC.
  I believe that we should have a constitution for Europe and that a declaration of fundamental rights should form part of that constitution, once it has been created and the
  406
  roles defined. I am always surprised by the anxiety displayed by the Conservatives about the use of the word "constitution", so I looked around for institutions and organisations that might be considered parallel, and I found one with which they might be familiar. It has an elected leader, a foreign policy, a defence policy and a constitution—it is called the Conservative party. It is certainly not a superstate and there are those who would say that it is no superpower, but to entertain the notion that having a constitution, foreign and defence policies and even an elected leader will transform the European Union—which, as the Prime Minister said and as was clearly demonstrated at Nice, comprises increasingly independent nation states—is to look for shadows and drum up fears that are unjustified by reality.
  Mr. Michael Howard: Who would be the guardian of the EU' s constitution? Would it be the European Court of Justice?
  Mr. Campbell: That is a matter for argument. In the first place, it probably would be, but part of the process of creating the constitution would be to define the role of the ECJ, and that might be done in such a way as to ensure that issues of a clearly domestic nature, rather than an international nature, would be dealt with by domestic jurisdictions, not by the ECJ. However, that is exactly the sort of argument in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman, myself and others should engage in 2004.
  On the question of European defence, it is worth reminding ourselves of what Secretary of State Cohen said. He said:
  If there is openness, transparency and a non-competitive relationship the United States would remain committed.
  He then said:
  If there was an element of using the—
  European Union—
  force structure in a way simply to set up a competing structure … then NATO could become a relic.
  I agree fundamentally, completely and comprehensively with both those statements, but we know that, after Nice, collective defence remains the responsibility of NATO. The article 5 response—an attack on one is an attack on all—remains the responsibility of NATO. Incidentally, it is worth asking against whom we think article 5 response might most immediately be required. There can hardly have been a time in the history of western Europe when the likelihood has been as remote as it is now of an attack of the sort that would trigger an article 5 response.
  Europe will operate only when NATO chooses not to do so. I wish that that was to be enshrined in a formal protocol, but I have already put that argument to Ministers, so far without success. Activities are to be confined to the Petersberg tasks—peacekeeping, humanitarian intervention and crisis management—and the decision to deploy is to remain a matter for sovereign Parliaments. Like the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I think that Parliament should have some say when this country deploys, for a long time, substantial forces.
  Mr. Mackinlay: So does the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. Campbell: I am grateful for that sedentary corroboration.

  407
  The verdict on Nice is best left to those representatives of the candidate countries who have pronounced upon it. The Hungarian Foreign Ministry spokesman said that the deal that paves the way for EU enlargement was a
  significant step towards the goal of European unity
  and the Polish Prime Minister said:
  The results of the summit are exceptionally good for us.
  Those countries, some of which lived under the jackboot of Nazism only to fall straight under the jackboot of communism, have at last had the opportunity to ensure that the market economies that they have tried with some difficulty to establish and the democratic principles that they have sought to espouse are reinforced by membership of the European Union, which, in its own way, is as successful an institution as NATO has been. It is our privilege to be members of both, and that is why we should be open and receptive to those who want to join either.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), because he is an expert in the field. He was too coy to mention that there are currently more Liberal Democrats than Conservatives in the Chamber.
  I do not wholly concur with right hon. and learned Gentleman's views on Iraq, but I agree with him on national missile defence. It is clear that the danger perceived by the Russian Federation is that, although it is currently limited, the radar installations that would be necessary for NMD could be upgraded speedily and could unbalance the carefully devised arms control procedures that are now in place. I also agree that the leaders of the main applicant countries which broke free from communism 10 years ago have given us a vision of their new attachment to European political and security structures. In that context, they welcome the results of the Nice treaty. Having heard the chorus of approval from the applicant countries, from those whose democratic institutions are now firm and whom we want to encourage much further along that path, how can Opposition Front-Bench Members say in the House that they would block the Nice treaty, which is answering the dreams and aspirations of those countries? What would be the response of those in Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland if they knew that the main Opposition party in this place were playing petty politics and destroying the aspirations which they have shown so clearly?
  What pygmy views do Conservatives have if they think that somehow they will block the treaty, in spite of the clearly expressed approval of the applicant countries' leaders? I ask Conservatives sincerely to reconsider that silliness. If they wish to be taken seriously in politics, they should listen to those who are directly concerned, the leaders of the countries of central Europe. They should not rather patronisingly believe that they know their interests better than they know them themselves.
  I disagree fundamentally with the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). I heard him this morning on "Today" claiming that the Conservative party would lead the European Union in a different direction. Having heard
  408
  that, I pose a little question: if it were to lead, would it be prepared to look over its shoulder to see how many people it was leading? Who would be following its course among the other 14 members of the EU, among the applicant countries, or among the sister parties in the EU with which it sometimes claims to be allied? The Conservative party would not be leading. It would be isolated and the United Kingdom would be marginalised, as we were in the late 1980s and early 1990s when the right hon. Member for Horsham, who now rails against qualified majority voting, signed the treaty of Maastricht. That makes him slightly vulnerable when now he rails against that loss of sovereignty and tries to link himself with the North American-owned press in the UK, which was dying in Nice to claim that there was treachery and a stab in the back for our people. It may find it rather difficult now to make that claim.
  On any criteria, we had a real success at Nice. We gained our negative objectives in terms of the veto. We gained also our positive criteria in paving the way for enlargement, which Conservative Members claim to want in principle but clearly do not want in practice, given their foolish pledge to stop, if they could, the ratification of the Nice treaty by the House.
  Perhaps I should turn now to the Queen's Speech. I agree with the right hon. Member for Horsham that it is not a long one. Indeed, only five short paragraphs are devoted to foreign affairs. There is one short paragraph on renewing legislation on the armed forces, and that comes routinely every five years. If one is planning for a general election in May, there is little time between now and then to change the world by means of new foreign policy objectives.
  There is one major omission in the Queen's Speech, and that concerns the question mark over whether time will be found to introduce legislation to control arms trafficking and brokering. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife has made all the points that I would wish to make. I merely say that it is important that Safer World and other non-governmental organisations that are active in this area have broadly welcomed the Government's initiative. A draft Bill has been promised and will shortly be published. I look forward to the Green Paper on mercenaries and regret that the scheduled publication date of November 2000 has been missed. The recommendation was made in the second report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on Sierra Leone, in the Session 1998–99.
  As co-chairman of the all-party Norway group, I am delighted that there will be a state visit to Norway. I know that Her Majesty will be warmly welcomed by the people of Norway. We have left our turbulent past with the Scandinavians behind us. At one time, the Vikings sailed into the Thames—hence the nursery rhyme
  "London bridge is falling down".
  There are now excellent bilateral relations at a popular level in football, at a parliamentary level and at a constituency level. There is a Norwegian church in my constituency. My grandfather, a new Viking, sailed into my constituency and married a local girl.
  To return to the Nice treaty, I agree with what has been said about the failure to achieve substantial reform of the common agricultural policy. However, it is true that the Berlin Council allowed financial headroom for enlargement. In its third report on enlargement, in

  409
  1998–1999, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs recommended that the applicant states have a more formal role in consulting on future EU policies at both ministerial and official levels. I am pleased that at least some progress has been made. There are ministerial meetings on the common foreign and security policy three or four times a year. I hope that that will be the reality; we do not want a minimalist approach, with little more than a photo call, which is what happened at Nice. Delays and a failure to consult can only increase the number of doubters in applicant countries.
  The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs recommended also that in the accession negotiations we should not seek to exacerbate divisions between countries. We welcome the degree of co-operation between the Helsinki six and the Luxembourg six. We are pleased that the Visegrad four are now co-operating and that there is more co-operation, for example, between Poland and Ukraine, in trying to prevent yet a further barrier being erected in Europe.
  It has been asked why dates were not set for enlargement at Nice. It is expected that at the Gothenburg Council in June next year the Swedish presidency, which is enthusiastic about enlargement, will be able to set dates.
  I am pleased also that there will be a new intergovernmental conference in 2004, with a new move to define powers so that ours is not a European Union of the elites. I hope that there will be a serious attempt, now that possibly the high water mark of the integrationists has been reached, to link national Governments in a clear way to what is going on in the EU. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made proposals to that end in his Warsaw speech. Perhaps as a kite-flying exercise, he put forward the idea of a second chamber. That needs to be taken seriously. In the interim, and before a new intergovernmental conference meets and conclusions are reached, we need to consider how we can bind national parliaments more effectively to the EU. I have said enough about the Nice treaty. Clearly it is a signal triumph for the Government to have a clear statement that NATO is the foundation of our defence and security.
  I am pleased that the Queen's Speech states that a White Paper will be published on globalisation. So speedily has that promise been realised that the White Paper was published today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. After the shame of the slashing of aid between 1979 and 1997—whereas in 1979, 0.52 per cent. of gross national product was devoted to development aid, by 1997 that had fallen to 0.26 per cent, which is a shame on this country—I am glad that we are pledged to increase development aid, and that, after the scandal of the Pergau dam, we have also pledged to untie the aid that we give.
  I end on the International Criminal Court. That was the subject of a pledge made by the Government in November 1999 in the debate on the Address. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary promised that the Bill would be published in draft. That Bill was published in August this year. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs made it clear that our priority was for the legislation to be voted on as soon as possible.
  I am sure that we are all delighted that the Bill is included in the Gracious Speech, but time is short. I appeal to the Conservative Opposition to ensure that it is given a fair wind, and that there is no silly politicking during that time by those on the Front Bench or by certain
  410
  mavericks on the Conservative Benches. There will be temptations in the brief time that is left if there is to be an election in May.
  Certainly, there must be proper scrutiny, as the Bill is highly technical and needs a certain legal expertise. It must take account of links with Scotland, and so on. However, it represents a key national interest, and I hope that the support from the Conservative Benches will not be, as the right hon. Member for Horsham said, just agreement in principle, followed by a series of reasons as to why there are problems in the Bill. I hope that there will be full-hearted support for the Bill, in the knowledge that it is, indeed, in the national interest.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I make it clear that we support the principles of the International Criminal Court but that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said, we believe that the proposed legislation needs examination in detail? We will not simply rubber-stamp it. That should not be demanded of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
  Mr. Anderson: I agree thus far. I appeal to the Opposition only to ensure that they do not fall into the temptation of engaging unnecessary time wasting and in calling it proper scrutiny.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. Michael Howard: I propose to limit my remarks to the European security and defence policy.
  The Gracious Speech contained references to NATO that were designed to be reassuring. We had more of them from the Prime Minister, and from the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. However, the history of reassurances on this subject from the Government is not encouraging.
  When the House debated defence on 1 November, the Secretary of State for Defence said:
  The Americans understand that we are strengthening NATO; we are not weakening it.—[Official Report, 1 November 2000; Vol. 355, c. 733.]
  As the month progressed, the right hon. Gentleman's protestations became ever more strident. Some of the most assertive of his assurances were set out in last Thursday's Daily Mail.
  On 19 November, the Secretary of State told John Humphrys on "On the Record":
  There is absolutely no division of opinion in NATO or elsewhere.
  The next day the right hon. Gentleman told the Daily Express:
  The US is hugely supportive of the initiative.

  411
  On 22 November he told the House:
  Not a single senior figure in the US Administration is opposed to the proposals.—[Official Report, 22 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 312.]
  On 23 November he told The Times:
  William Cohen was unequivocal in his support for the EU proposals.
  The Secretary of State for Defence was not alone in making those assertions. The Foreign Secretary told the House on 23 November:
  The American President, the American Defence Secretary and the American Secretary of State have all warmly endorsed the European security initiative.—[Official Report, 23 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 455.]
  The Prime Minister said in Moscow on 21 November:
  NATO has already given its blessing to this.
  When the Daily Mail and other newspapers suggested that his plans could threaten NATO, he said:
  Even by the standards of some parts of our anti-European media some of the coverage in those newspapers is fundamentally dishonest.
  Some of those statements were made in the House. Of course I cannot and I do not accuse the Secretaries of State or the Prime Minister of misleading the House. I do, however, accuse them of misleading the country.
  It must have come as a rude shock to the Government when the United States Defence Secretary finally made public on 5 December what we all know so many of his colleagues had been thinking and saying in private.
  A few moments ago, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) briefly quoted the US Defence Secretary. His quotation was very far from complete. Mr. Cohen said:
  There are a series of unanswered questions about the Rapid Reaction Force … about European defence spending … about who would command the force. If these factors are not taken into account NATO could become a relic of the past. Separate planning … would undermine the very aims of NATO. The one thing I do not want to see is a weakening of the transatlantic link.
  In the Government's view, was the US Defence Secretary being fundamentally dishonest?
  Of course, none of this deterred President Chirac, who confirmed last Thursday that he wanted to see a European defence force independent of NATO. No one should be surprised by that. An independent European defence force has long been a French objective—independent, that is, of NATO. The French are consistent in their objectives, though extremely opportunist in their tactics.
  When President Chirac declares himself 100 per cent. content with the outcome of the negotiations in Nice, we should all be concerned. Of course, the Government of the United Kingdom—the Ministers whose assurances proved so hollow last month—proclaim that they, too, are satisfied. How are we to judge? We can judge only by examining the text.
  The text of annexe VII, which deals with these matters, has only just become available. I shall not recite it all, but it is worth examining the very last subparagraph of the document. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham
  412
  (Mr. Maude) quoted the first sentence of that last subparagraph, but I think that the whole of it—it is only three sentences—is worthy of repetition. It states that
  the entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU throughout the operation, after consultation between the two organisations. In that framework the operation commander will report on the conduct of the operation to EU bodies only. NATO will be informed of developments in the situation by the appropriate bodies, in particular the PSC—
  the Political and Security Committee—
  and the Chairman of the Military Committee.
  There we have it. NATO will be informed.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: I am trying to understand what the problem is with the quotation that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just read out. If a situation arises in which NATO does not want to get involved and the rapid reaction force gets involved, of cours e that force should report to the EU on what is happening. That will not drive a wedge between NATO and the EU. NATO will have had an opportunity to get involved; will have decided that it does not want to get involved and will have handed the operation over to the European rapid reaction force, which should report to the EU. That is quite straightforward.
  Mr. Howard: The matter would not be straightforward, even if it were as the hon. Gentleman described. As the Defence Secretary acknowledged in the House just a few weeks ago, there is no reason whatever why all that cannot be done within NATO, as a European pillar of NATO. However, the hon. Gentleman was fundamentally wrong in the assumption that underlay his question. I do not blame him, as the Prime Minister made the same mistake, if mistake it was, twice during his answers to questions this afternoon.
  The documents do not refer to NATO choosing not to be engaged. There is not a word about that. On one occasion, the Prime Minister said that the EU would act alone if NATO chose not to be engaged. On another occasion he said that if NATO does not want to get engaged, the EU would act alone. However, he read accurately when he read from the presidency report the following words:
  where NATO as a whole is not engaged.
  The thrust of the presidency report and annexe VII can be interpreted in only one way. According to those documents, the EU—not NATO—will decide whether or not NATO is to be engaged. There is no question of NATO having the option to decide or having the choice. There is not a word to that effect in the documents, which represent the text to which the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have put their signatures. With a stroke of the pen, they have put at risk the greatest peacetime alliance that the world has ever seen. Little wonder that, when asked to comment on the agreement, the United States Defence Secretary refused to add to the statement that he made last Tuesday. Silence has never been more eloquent.
  How did we get into this mess? It all springs from the vanity of the Prime Minister, his desire to play a leading role in Europe and his notorious weakness for trying to appear to be all things to all men. I do not think that the Prime Minister wants to put our Atlantic alliance at risk. I believe that he simply thought that he could get away

  413
  with telling the French one thing and the Americans another. The Prime Minister displayed that weakness this afternoon when he spoke—as I have already said—about NATO choosing not to be engaged and then read from a document that said something different.
  This afternoon, the Prime Minister constantly emphasised the fact that Governments of member states will decide whether to commit their forces under the scope of the initiative. He seemed to regard that as an absolute safeguard. It may well be that Governments will decide whether to commit their forces. However, the Military Committee, as well as the Political and Security Committee—which will be separate from NATO, but which will duplicate what it does—are to be set up now. The mischief will therefore be done long before any country has to decide whether to commit forces under the initiative.
  The Prime Minister said that, without this step, European countries would not increase their spending on defence and would not enhance their defence capability. As I said this afternoon, and as Conservative Members have always believed, it is important that European defence capability be enhanced. Of course it is important that European countries should spend more on defence. However, that can and should be done within NATO. There is not the slightest bit of evidence to suggest, as the Prime Minister did this afternoon, that that would not happen without the new initiative. Indeed, the initiative would never have taken place if the Prime Minister and the UK Government had not done a complete U-turn on their position in 1996—my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham referred to it this afternoon—and their position after the treaty of Amsterdam, when they told the House that an initiative of the kind to which they have now signed up would be the wrong way forward.
  Without the UK contribution, European defence would be meaningless. There is no other country, with the possible and partial exception of France, capable of making a significant military contribution. Without UK agreement, the initiative would never have taken place. If the Prime Minister and the UK Government had adhered to the view that they expressed in 1997, we might have seen the necessary and welcome development of a European pillar of NATO. That should be happening, but I fear that it is not.
  This episode will be seen as one of the greatest acts of folly ever perpetrated by a Government of our country. The sooner these ministerial pygmies are dismissed from office, the sooner we can turn back from this catastrophically wrong turning. If we do not, the consequences may be incalculable.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: May I start by thanking the people of Preston, Walton-le-Dale and Bamber Bridge who placed their trust in me by sending me to the House. Those areas were well served by my predecessor, Audrey Wise, who battled for many years on issues such as health, unemployment, housing and immigration. It is an honour to follow in her footsteps in such a wonderful town.
  I have represented Preston in a different place across the water. Preston is at the centre of my former central Lancashire European constituency and is the town where I live. It is a fine town with the fastest-growing university in the land and world-beating aerospace and technology
  414
  companies. The town centre combines old and modern and, of course, there are down-to-earth Lancashire folk. Preston is outward-looking and its prosperity is largely dependent on the sale of aircraft around the world. It is a town full of people with the skills to produce world-beating European fighter aircraft, with plans for newer and even better aircraft on the drawing board. It is a town with a rich ethnic and religious diversity, with people all living together in s harmony. Preston values European industrial and defence co-operation because it used to build military aircraft in the previous century to defend Britain from our European neighbours. In recent years, it has built aircraft jointly with our European neighbours.
  In looking forward to the new century, it is important to look briefly at where we have come from. I should like to quote Winston Churchill, who summed up the sentiments behind closer ties between European nations when he said:
  This noble continent, comprising … the fairest and the most cultivated regions of the earth … is the origin of most of the culture, arts, philosophy and science of both ancient and modern times. If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, to the prosperity and glory which its three or four hundred million people would enjoy.
  Clearly, Churchill's party does not hold that view today.
  Good European connections very often start at local level with twinning agreements between towns such as Preston, Recklinghausen and Almelo. That sort of co-operation is helping to create a stronger, more unified Europe that is built from the bottom up by the people, as well as from the top down by the politicians—and may I take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on reaching an historic agreement in Nice?
  Throughout history, cultural divergences and differences have provided Europe with a richness of culture unrivalled in the world. However, they have also led to some of the bitterest conflicts known to man. One need only look at a map of Europe to see where the lines of conflict have been drawn over the centuries. A determination among the leaders and people of Europe that battle lines must never again be drawn between Germany, France and Britain led to the commitment to develop cultural and historical ties between nations. However, the commitment to European co-operation and understanding between different nationalities had to go far beyond the local level, and has done so. Governments are now well aware that collective initiatives are far more effective than individual ones. It was on the basis of that belief that the European Community was founded. Although many at first doubted the ideas behind the European Union, now, almost 40 years after its creation, there can be little doubt that it has been an overwhelming success.
  Since 1957, the European Union has grown stronger year by year. Not only have new member states joined the original six, so that the European Union now comprises 15 member states, but, as we have seen in Nice, Europe is increasingly expanding its vision eastward to encompass the countries of central and eastern Europe. However, the European Union beyond 2000 will not just be a Europe with increased membership: its policies have also grown considerably in the years since its founding. Withdrawal from Europe is now virtually an impossible option. Whether loose talk about reserve powers to end Britain's commitment to the EU treaties is a rejection of any possibility or is based on the discredited notion of joining the North American Free Trade Agreement, such messages undermine British interests.

  415
  Three million jobs depend on our trade with the European Union. Massive advances have been made in social and environmental legislation. A Tory recipe for the isolation of Britain in an era of globalisation is folly. It is unnecessary because the European Union does not pose a threat on health, education, defence, welfare or tax. Indeed, the EU's involvement in all those matters has been of great benefit to Britain.
  The myth is still being peddled that an anonymous bureaucracy in Brussels takes decisions on European legislation, not the elected representatives of national member Governments and directly elected European parliamentarians.
  Europe and the world beyond 2000 will be places where communications bind together disparate and diverse cultures, languages and traditions. The boundaries that have existed for centuries will be swept away, because the economic, social and political forces that are developing will make them irrelevant. That is not to say that we will lose our language, culture or traditions, but merely that we will have the benefit, knowledge and understanding of others. People can still have a hotpot on a cold evening and fish and chips on a Friday, in spite of European integration.
  As MEP Nobel peace prize winner, my good and hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), would say, we must not see diversity as a threat. It is an opportunity for understanding, and respect for it is a prerequisite for peace. When we consider the war in the Balkans and the ethnic cleansing that occurred on a mass scale, we are reminded of the horrors of the second world war. Murder, torture and rape are the weapons of evil, and are being perpetrated on people because they are different. Difference should be treasured and cherished. What sort of a world would it be if we were all the same?
  As we move beyond 2000, I am convinced that the war in the Balkans and other conflicts around the world are the last vestiges of nationalism. They are nationalism gasping for its last breath. That is happening—it might seem strange for me to say this as a socialist—because internationalism is being driven by international capitalism. To be successful, internationalism needs rules, laws and order—a new international order that is different from that which prevailed in the previous century through the cold war. It also needs peace and co-operation. That is not to say that this new century will be without war; it will not. However, as someone who believes that the power of good will conquer evil, I believe that in this new century, Europe and the world generally will have won another battle against evil.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: May I start by warmly congratulating the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on jumping his first parliamentary fence with such confidence, feeling and knowledge? He came to the House to replace Audrey Wise, who was a formidable champion and spokesman for the causes that she favoured and advocated with such strength and fortitude. I am sure that he will prove to be a successful Member of Parliament in her place, following her sad loss. His constituents will be fortified by the knowledge that he gained in another career. I have no doubt that we will hear a great deal more from him, to the great advantage of the House of Commons.
  416
  I want also to pay another warm tribute. As this a foreign affairs and defence debate, I pay tribute to our armed forces and—this applies especially at this time of year—to the families of our service men and women, wherever they are. The nation owes a huge debt to them, as, time after time, they have to pick up the pieces of overstretch, as well as dealing with great difficulties and often terrible disasters. They also regularly have to come to terms with the many penalties of long and unwelcome separations. By keeping the home fires burning, they provide a signal and largely unrecognised service, as do wonderful organisations such as the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association, which does so much to help and support service families.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand—I hope that other hon. Members will also do so—the furore about the new defence arrangements, which rouse such strong feelings in this country. Apart from the strategic importance of getting it right, the people of Great Britain are truly and rightly proud of their armed forces and the way in which they carry out their duties, often in the most difficult circumstances and sometimes in very dangerous conditions. We are all living in a period of revolution: social, technological and political. That is extremely uncomfortable, as it destabilises people. In this extraordinary period of turbulence, the armed forces have maintained high credibility and a unity of purpose and performance. They will survive and prosper whatever the Government do to them, as they are imaginative, courageous, adaptable, flexible and not afraid to use new ideas. In their standard of personal conduct and sense of duty and cohesion, they are an institution that is wholly unique in this land and a priceless and golden asset for the vigorous promotion of our national interest throughout the world.
  It will not, however, surprise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I want to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) in saying a few words about the Gracious Speech with particular regard to NATO. I should like to start with what I hope is a truism. Our small armed forces—indeed, they are too small for all that is asked of them—vastly exceed in quality and operational ability those of any other European state. The French, who are the best of the rest, may just have a deployable force of British size and capability in about 10 years' time, but certainly not before.
  Thus do we see that the efforts of the previous Conservative Government to improve the capability of our European partners were vital. It is a massive untruth promoted by the Government' s propaganda factory to say that the Tories are anything other than wholly in favour of enhanced, improved and greater European defence co-operation and capability. The Minister for the Armed Forces can sit with an inane grin on his face, but it remains the case that, for three and half years, a massive amount of work was done by the previous Government in that very field. It was done under the aegis of NATO, however, and not some foolish, half-arsed idea—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to split NATO asunder.
  We already have a good rapid reaction force in NATO: the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, for which a specialist military doctrine was developed on the basis of the joint rapid deployment force concept. The corps was intended to deal with all crises, up to and including war fighting, and included the use of American

  417
  assets and logistics, and, most important, intelligence. What can the new paper creation do that the ARRC cannot do much better already? I repeat that Conservative Members are wholly in favour of increased defence co-operation, but not at any price. What is required, in truth, is a vast improvement in capability, greater firepower and larger European defence budgets. However, there is absolutely no sign or evidence that that is happening.
  What is proposed is, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, dangerous, for it has created the one thing that is most fatal in all military matters—a climate of uncertainty. As we warned, that could well damage NATO and the Atlantic alliance. All military operations, at whatever level, depend on absolute clarity of the chain of command and on simplicity of orders and mission. It is insane to have a separate EU planning establishment, Military staff and Military Committee. They are all bound to grow, which will certainly cause confusion.
  I do not question the Atlanticist credentials of the Prime Minister, but, in his vanity and naivety, although he believes that he can trump the French, he is quite wrong. As my right hon. and learned Friend so pointedly and correctly said, the French have worked for years to undermine and dilute the American influence in Europe. Indeed, General de Gaulle vetoed Britain's entry into the European Union precisely because she was too big, too powerful and too linked militarily to the Americans. What has been decided, whatever the spin of the Minister for the Armed Forces, will weaken the bonds that bind NATO to Europe.
  I do not think the Prime Minister understands that there are, in military matters, no substitutes for victory. Wars are not won by scruffy compromises on defence at EU summits or by the assigning of underfunded, undermanned forces to a largely paper-created concept. I want the development to take place wholly under the NATO umbrella, but the Prime Minister has seen to that—he has begun fundamentally to undermine the most successful defensive military alliance the world has ever seen, and his actions will have led to the weakening of the Atlantic alliance, with possibly grave military consequences.
  I am, in truth, staggered at the failure of the Government and their Back-Bench poodles not to see the dangers of the EU defence proposal. In this case, the Opposition have an absolute duty to warn that the arrangements will not work. We must see to it, when we come to power, that we radically put them back on the right track.
  I just do not understand how the Prime Minister cannot see how France has achieved her greatest ambition: to saddle the European Union with a separate and politically powerful, and certainly divisive, military planning capacity, against which the American Defence Secretary so powerfully spoke out last week.
  We Europeans live in an arc of danger, even in this cosy little socialist world into which we have been dragged. It begins with the countries of the former Soviet Union, passes through the Balkans—where we have a continuing and formidable commitment—stretches east to the troubled Caucasus, passes through the middle east and stretches along the north shores of Africa to the Atlantic. Those areas, which are crucial to Europe's interests, suffer from a range of violence and turbulence and the constant
  418
  threat of trouble. It is imperative, therefore, that the partnership between Europe and America gets this right; the current proposal is not the right way to do so.
  I want to say a few words in conclusion about our diplomatic service. Man for man and woman for woman, they are, in my judgment, the best in the world. They and their families are faithful, energetic, loyal and resourceful, and they are very good at what they do. We are exceedingly lucky to have such a fine diplomatic service, and I salute it as Christmas approaches.
  I of course welcome those parts of the treaty of Nice that will lead to the enlargement of the European Union, but only those parts that genuinely will do so. I detect across continental Europe a profound feeling that the existing and sometimes unwise transfers of sovereignty have reached popular limits. We do, indeed, need a fundamental rethink of the way in which that union works. However, I hope that the Commission and Governments will press ahead with producing a defining treaty which sets out clearly those tasks that need tackling on a European basis and those that should be left to nations. Popular opinion across Europe now demands a proper settlement of those matters. Only by doing so will we do away with the sullen mood of understandable scepticism across Europe, which is so souring this very important debate.
  I am fed up with my party being characterised as anti-European. On our side of the House, we understand, as these great and profound changes in the geometry of Europe take place, that it is not in the interests of Britain for a substantial group of continental countries to move ahead without us into any major sphere of policy if there is any possibility that in that sphere they will, without our participation, create a situation that will have a deep influence on our lives. The thrust of British foreign policy in recent centuries has always been to prevent that. An enlarged European Union will certainly need such flexibility. The ideas promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and many others in my party, about how to create a flexible, outward-looking, enlightened and vigorous Europe, can be signed up to by our whole nation.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: First, I welcome the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick). He is indeed a worthy successor to Audrey Wise. He speaks with much experience as a former, or perhaps current, Member of the European Parliament.
  Mr. Hendrick: Former.
  Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend is a former Member of the European Parliament.
  Audrey Wise always spoke her mind. She was independent and she held her views passionately. We miss her, but I take great pleasure in welcoming my hon. Friend. I am sure that his stay here will be very long.
  I want to discuss the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the continuing tragic loss of life. It might be appropriate to preface my remarks with one or two brief observations. I support an Israeli state—but without, of course, the occupied territories of 1967 onwards. I have supported the existence of Israel since it came into being in 1948.

  419
  In speaking against what I consider to be the excessive response of the Israeli armed forces and many of the injustices that many Palestinians face, I distance myself, as much as possible, from the anti-Jewish hate merchants and preachers, a few of whom, unfortunately, can even be found in this country. Such poison as they preach is no different from that preached by the fascist and Nazi thugs whose anti-semitism led to the holocaust.
  The events of the past few months—certainly the past 10 weeks—in the conflict have caused much loss of life and intense suffering on both sides, especially among the Palestinians. It should go without saying that the mob barbaric lynching of the two Israeli soldiers was a horrifying act. It does not take a great deal of imagination to appreciate how the scene that we all saw on television—the mutilation of the bodies after the horrifying murder—went down in Israel. It created a feeling of insecurity and a sense that perhaps, in the end, the only aim was to drive the Israelis into the sea.
  The response of the Israeli armed forces, including that against minors involved in stone throwing and other actions, led to many deaths among Palestinians. We saw on numerous occasions on television the terrible, tragic death of a boy. He desperately clung to his father, but to no avail—he was killed.
  There must be few hon. Members who do not believe that excessive force has been used by the Israelis, and that there has been too much indifference to loss of life. Nor should there be any doubt about the fact that what occurred during that period has increased the deepest resentment and anger that Palestinians on the west bank feel towards Israel. I shall discuss that feeling in more detail in a moment, but the terror and rejectionist groups—the very people who are opposed to any settlement with Israel whatever, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad—must feel pleased about what has happened. They must feel that they have fertile groups to recruit. If there is an analogy, it must be with the IRA after Bloody Sunday. What has happened has played into the hands of the terrorist groups, who do not want any Israeli state.
  Apart from the daily violence, the Israeli authorities should be concerned about the feelings of almost all Palestinians on the west bank, in east Jerusalem and in Gaza. They look on themselves as an oppressed, occupied people. They feel humiliated by the manner in which they are treated by the Israelis; they think that they are seen as inferior. On top of all those feelings of injustice, they have to put up with mass unemployment and a lack of essential basic needs, including an inadequate water supply. The number of job losses has been tremendous since the Oslo accord in 1993.
  Much of the unemployment on the west bank has been due to the closure policies adopted by Israel. It has been extremely difficult for Palestinians to cross back and forth into Israel for work. We know that Israel is concerned about its security—about the suicide bombers. Any country, including Israel, has a right to use whatever means it can to defend itself. I do not deny the Israelis that right, because I believe that Israel has a legitimate right to exist, which is accepted by virtually all countries, including quite a number in the middle east. The
  420
  collective punishment of Palestinians and their denial of work, however, is not only wrong in itself but plays into the hands of the terror groups.
  Israeli settlements have continued to be built in the occupied territories. That has been encouraged. There should be a willingness to find ways of withdrawing completely from the territories won in 1967, but since the Oslo accord settlements have continued to be built, encouraged by the Israeli Government through tax refunds and reductions in the price of water and electricity. The settlements are in defiance of international condemnation, of which Israelis take no notice. Who settles in these places? Are they people fleeing from persecution or who face repression, as in the Soviet Union until the end of that state in 1991? Not at all. They tend to be Americans. That is fair enough, but I am not aware that there is acute anti-semitism in the United States. Moreover, having gone to live in the occupied territories and built the settlements, they deny that the Palestinians have any right to their land. They find it difficult to use the word Palestinian, and use "Arab" instead. They refer to that territory as Judaea and Samaria. They say that it has been given to them by God: it is in the Bible. Palestinians experience understandable feelings of injustice when they see the settlements going up.
  I have always acknowledged that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complex. It is easy for those who see the problem in a simple light and advocate a simple solution, be it a denial of the Palestinian right to statehood or a belief that there should be no state of Israel. A possible solution, of course, is to have two states, which I think the international community recognises: Israel without the occupied territories and a Palestinian state. Such a Palestinian state must be truly independent: it cannot be a statelet or a place where the Israelis can decide at any given time whether to grant favours or not.
  Israel has genuine security needs, especially if we bear in mind what happened in 1967 and 1973. If there is to be a Palestinian state, it must be a genuine state with genuine independence. What the Palestinians make of that state—whether it is a democracy or a dictatorship—depends on them. I obviously hope that it will be a democracy, much like the one that exists in Israel, but it must be a viable state.
  I have already said that Israel has as much right to exist as any other state. It has a right to defend itself, but it must recognise the injustice that the Palestinians have suffered. An important consideration for Israeli security is the need to find a political solution for the Palestinians. They should be able to live in an independent, viable state, including the west bank and the Gaza strip. As for Jerusalem, there must be a solution that recognises the three important religions, not just one.
  That burning feeling of injustice and the deep-seated political and economic grievances of the Palestinians need to be addressed first and foremost by Israel, but they need to be addressed by the international community as well. We all have an obligation to try to find a just solution in the middle east between Israel and the Palestinians. I have made this contribution because, as someone who has always supported the Israeli state, I feel that I must make clear my concern and dismay at what has been happening not just in the past 10 weeks but since the occupied territories were taken by Israel.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I welcome the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) and congratulate him on his contribution. I am sure that he will prove to be a worthy successor to the late, much missed Audrey Wise.
  I agree with every word that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said. It is unusual for me to do so, but I fully endorse what he so eloquently said about the plight of the Palestinians.
  I should like to speak about the so-called Europe of the regions—the new regionalism in Europe. Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales, strongly believes that the European Union should properly reflect all the various regions and smaller countries of Europe if it is to succeed. There was no real Welsh representation in the recent Nice conference. In line with the principle of devolution, we believe that it is necessary to have that stronger regional representation.
  Plaid Cymru MEPs recently signed the declaration of Brussels, which recognises the historic nations within Europe that do not have representation. The declaration states that the amendments made to the treaties should specifically include recognition of, and respect for, the political and legislative powers of member states' internal political units in their relations with EU institutions.
  On 13 April this year, the European Parliament voted on the report of the constitutional committee on proposals for the intergovernmental conference. It voted against the report because its aim was to strengthen further the position of the biggest and most powerful member states, seemingly at the expense of the smaller countries. The only reference to an increased role for the political and legislative powers of the member states' internal political units was in the amendments of the European Parliament, which, sadly, were not adopted.
  Even those of us who believe in the EU project must admit that there is a serious democratic deficit in Europe. If we fail to respond to that, the charges of rule by distant Brussels bureaucrats will continue to increase in resonance, and perhaps even threaten the future of European integration.
  In response, I want to stress the importance of involving the regional level of government so as to close the gap between the EU and the citizens of Europe. That is one way of creating a European Union that is democratic and effective and has credibility among the people of Europe.
  As the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said, the Prime Minister, in a recent speech in Warsaw, expressed his support for a second chamber. Although my party agrees with the principle, I am a bit worried about the shape that the Prime Minister envisages. I fear that it will provide another opportunity for the larger member states to dominate decision making in Europe. We want a democratised European Union with a two-chamber Parliament; we would like one chamber to be directly elected, as happens at present, and a second chamber to be composed, possibly, of delegates from the nations and historic regions. The existing Committee of the Regions could form, as it were, an embryo.
  A way must be found of ensuring that the voice of Wales, and that of Scotland, are consulted and heard before the United Kingdom finally decides its negotiating
  422
  line in advance of major EU summits. There is concern in Wales about the lack of input on offer to the Assembly—the failure to invite it to become engaged in the process. The Assembly's views should have been sought before important meetings such as the one in Nice, because important issues of direct relevance to Wales were discussed.
  We need to enhance the Assembly's powers to scrutinise European legislation—as part of the reform of its procedures—in order to monitor legislation and policy developments that are likely to affect Wales. It is essential for the Assembly to be aware of the latest developments, and to have an opportunity to engage with the UK Government when they prepare their negotiation line. Regional authorities as a whole have an insufficient input in decision making.
  The declaration of Brussels, which I mentioned earlier, says:
  States must examine their own constitutions and government practices to eliminate any surviving elements of cultural repression inherited from an imperialistic past.
  The Minister may laugh, but those are not my words; they are the words of the declaration.
  On Wednesday, in the Queen's Speech, the Government stated their commitment to making devolution work, and continuing the process of decentralising government. There was, however, no sign of that in the speech—apart from an interesting phrase demonstrating that, apparently, the Queen sees devolution as a process, not a one-off event. At this point, let me say that the Queen's Speech was lacking in provisions for Wales—although I unreservedly welcome the appointment of a children's commissioner, which I suggested as long ago as 1993.
  That legislation is important, because it shows what the Assembly can do in presenting innovative solutions to Welsh problems. We asked the Government to continue the process of devolution, in order to create a true Europe of the regions in which Wales, along with other countries and regions of the United Kingdom, will be able to have her say. We make the obvious point that, if that is to be achieved, more powers should be devolved to the Assembly: we are thinking of, for instance, responsibility for the railways and the creation of a public transport authority for Wales. Responsibility for policing and fire services have already been devolved in Scotland, as have primary-legislation and tax-varying powers. I do not know why Wales is not yet on a par with Scotland; perhaps we shall find out one day.
  This week's IGC was about preparation for EU enlargement, which is a very important topic in Wales. We have recently been granted objective 1 funding, which I hope will bring us much-needed aid, but the entry of a number of poorer countries—which I welcome, of course—raises questions about the future structure of regional aid in the EU. The current tranche of European grants might be the last available for the regeneration of the Welsh economy. It is therefore a disgrace that Wales has still not received her due from European structural funds. According to the Government's own figures, the estimated shortfall in relation to the money that Wales was entitled to receive in full from European structural funds during the three-year period of the comprehensive spending review and the funds allocated in the settlement is £628 million. It is possible to arrive at that figure by stripping out the European funds allocation of

  423
  £421 million, and the match funding total of £207 million that must come out of the Barnett block. Following the deduction of those amounts, it is clear that the normal block grant for Wales will increase by 7.3 per cent., compared with an increase of 8 per cent. for the United Kingdom as a whole. For Wales to enjoy the same percentage increase in public spending as the UK as a whole and to take full advantage of objective 1 and other EU funds, the CSR allocation to Wales would have had to be £628 million higher over the next three years.
  Nevertheless, the Gracious Speech showed that good progress was being made in international matters. My party unreservedly welcomes the ratification of the International Criminal Court treaty, for instance, although I want to know whether it will apply to visiting heads of state. I also welcome the intention of regulating arms exports, although it is a little overdue. As was said earlier, some four years have elapsed since Sir Richard Scott's report on arms to Iraq. The Bill is still in draft form, but I hope that it will be published soon so that we can make strides.
  Mention has been made of a White Paper showing the forces of globalisation at work, and their impact on poorer peoples. I hope it will include consideration of the Tobin tax. We need a consistent method of transferring technology and funding to poor countries. Over the past decade, the environment, debt, financial instability and the growing gap between rich and poor have become global problems requiring global solutions. In Okinawa, the G8 could have decided to back the proposals outlined by Nobel prize-winning economist James Tobin for a small international tax on financial speculation, and the use of the money to fund debt relief. The amount would be huge: international currency speculation currently amounts to about $1.5 trillion a day, and a small tax of, say, 0.25 per cent. could raise as much as $250 billion per annum. I hope that we shall adopt the Tobin tax in the not too distant future. Some Governments say that it would not be practical, but others disagree. As I have said, Tobin is a Nobel prize winner who is highly regarded, and other advisers to many Governments favour the tax, considering it to be a steady, consistent way of dealing with the ever-present problems of world poverty.
  The Foreign Secretary said that Government had an interest in human rights and humanitarian law. In the light of their ethical foreign policy, I must ask why the Government are so supportive of Turkey, given its disgraceful human rights record in relation to the Kurdish people. The Kurds have recently received some attention from the international community, and there is now a big push for Turkey to join the European Union. It has already joined NATO, and it is supposed to be an important border country for Europe, but why is it thought ethical and proper for the British taxpayer to stump up £220 million to sponsor the Ilisu dam project? Is that really ethical and proper, given that 20,000 or even 60,000 Kurds will be displaced? In my respectful submission, there will be no room for Turkey in the European Union until it treats the Kurds properly.
  In the same vein, let me refer briefly to the problems of Sri Lanka. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath
  424
  (Mr. Hain), recently returned from Sri Lanka, and I hope he has been able to make further representations on behalf of the Tamil people.
  At the end of the day, if an ethical policy really is an ethical policy, it should be applied to protect vulnerable minorities, and when its application is not necessarily politically expedient.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). I support the case for a Tobin tax on international speculation.
  Today's debate concentrates on defence and foreign policy issues for the year ahead, of which the EU is a major one. The Prime Minister made a statement today about the Nice summit and if that summit is anything to go by, the state of the EU is anything but super. I have always favoured a far more open, transparent and democratic EU, and a far less bureaucratic, secretive and wasteful one. That is ever more essential with the enlargement of the Community, rightly, in the next few years.
  I support the European rapid reaction force proposal, under which 60,000 troops could be deployed swiftly and sustained in the field for a year. I am not in favour of duplication, so I am happy for that force to be within the overall NATO structure. The row about its independence seems largely to be about semantics. If its administration occupies a separate office, even if that is at NATO headquarters, the European force could still be termed independent. Its predecessor, the Western European Union, had separate offices, so it is no big thing for the ERRF to have them.
  Apparently, the United States in NATO will have the power of veto over any ERRF action, which will be a massive restraint on the force's operations. I hope that all the EU participants in the ERRF will also have the power of veto and that there will be consensus before any military action takes place. I would not want the force to go into military action on a whim, just to see if it works. For example, there could be a war in a year or two between Morocco and Algeria over the western Sahara. That would be a case for EU diplomacy, not military involvement.
  I suspect that the previous Conservative Government would have gone down the road of setting up the ERRF, because the lesson of Kosovo was that there should be improved European defence capability. If there were no ERRF, Conservative policies would presumably mean vastly higher defence costs for UK taxpayers so as to try to achieve that capability on our own—that is strange from a party that is committed to millions of pounds of public spending cuts. Alternatively, those policies might have led to a reduced defence capability on our part and that of our European allies.
  Although I support the Government's policy on the ERRF, I do not support their policy on Iraq. I am on record in the recent Select Committee on Defence report on Iraqi no-fly zones as stating that it is not a moral or humanitarian policy. It is highly doubtful whether there is any legal basis for the sanctions and military action. We are increasingly isolated, because the policy has been rejected by France, Russia and China, among others. It is misdirected, because the people of Iraq, especially the

  425
  most vulnerable, are disproportionately the main victims. The infant mortality rate is excessively high as a result of that no-fly policy, which also places our armed forces and our pilots unnecessarily at risk.
  These days, a measure of a country's "normality" in the global economy is foreign direct investment. That is seen as a crucial measure in central and eastern Europe. Why did not the United States and the UK concentrate just on foreign direct investment in Iraq, instead of on the callous anti-people, generalised economic sanctions that have been applied? The import of ambulances, medicines and goods necessary for the basic public health infrastructure have all been blocked at the UN SCR 661 committee. What UK representatives have done on the committee has been shrouded in secrecy. Over the next year, I urge an end to the people-bashing, people-killing economic sanctions imposed on Iraq as soon as possible.
  On Sierra Leone, Oxfam's briefing to hon. Members says:
  Oxfam believes that the time has come for Britain to commit itself to UNAMSIL—
  the United Nations mission in Sierra Leone—
  bring its forces under UN command and play a lead role within the peacekeeping mission—an internationally approved and accountable force—rather than be drawn further into an open-ended and unaccountable role.
  I agree with those representations. Again, UK policy, objectives and likely length of stay in Sierra Leone seem to be shrouded in secrecy. The Defence Committee receives private briefings, but there are no public ones.
  I have two worries about the policy. First, it could be tied to the United States's unfinished business with Liberia. The UK could be a conduit for that conflict and could get embroiled in it. Secondly, it is a form of imperialism along the lines of a sphere of influence, as the French had in Rwanda. The French Government gave their support to a genocidal Government right up to their fall. No other country felt able to persuade them to change their policy as Rwanda was deemed to be theirs. Sierra Leone is not ours.
  I agree that there is a job to be done. Again, Oxfam said that there is a
  danger of cross-border attacks exporting instability from Sierra Leone and Liberia into neighbouring Guinea and Ivory Coast, with severe humanitarian consequences.
  It is a humanitarian and law-and-order job, but it should be done by the UN. That would be a far more legitimate course of action. If our forces are involved, which I do not object to, they should be under the auspices of the UN and do the job properly as a UN mission.
  I welcome the proposed ratification of the statute of the International Criminal Court. I note the representations of Amnesty International, which states:
  Jurisdiction of domestic courts is limited to crimes committed on UK territory or by a UK national. It would be preferable to provide the courts with universal jurisdiction, as is the case with a range of other crimes.
  The provisions … should apply equally to all persons regardless of their official capacity.
  Otherwise there could be difficult, lengthy and costly challenges to the surrender of individuals to the ICC.
  The Director of Public Prosecutions, not the Attorney General should be responsible for the commencement of criminal proceedings, otherwise it leaves the government vulnerable to the charge that political considerations are interfering.
  426
  I note that the United States has not given its support to the ICC. Despite that, I call on the international community that has signed up to it to show courage and to try at that court any US citizen who has perpetrated war crimes, perhaps acting as a mercenary, despite possible US objection. US citizenship cannot be allowed to be a haven for terrorists and war criminals. At the very least, those individuals should know that they risk capture and prosecution if they travel outside the US.
  Time is short so I should like to discuss defence spending. I have already said that I support the ERRF and I would support spending to ensure that it operates properly. I also want indiscriminate weaponry such as cluster bombs to be outlawed and to be replaced by precision-guided weaponry, so I would support money being spent on that, but not on prestige projects. I note, for example, that virtually all the major projects are overspent by a considerable sum. Such projects should be entered into only with great caution and then only if there is an overwhelming case for them.
  I do not think that UK taxpayers should subsidise, even at second hand, the US national missile defence system. The US may waste its money on it, but we should not be fooled any more by so-called better burden sharing—which the US will call for—which would amount to us subsidising its system. The case is not proven for any generalised increase in defence spending.
  In the next four years the US could well be a wild card. It would be appropriate and proper if, rather than adopting the policy of recent years of supporting every US foreign policy, the Government maintained a little distance and expressed some independent views.
  The policy of our trying to act as a bridge between the US and Europe could become hugely discredited. In relation to global warming, that has already happened according to some quarters. What bridge can we hope to create in relation to nuclear weapons proliferation or violation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty? Such an attempt would be a bridge too far.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I very much agree with the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) about the situation that is developing in Sierra Leone, where the British nation and the House seem to be getting themselves into a difficulty that it will be very hard to get out of. We seem again to be engaging in becoming a colonial power in Sierra Leone, without the authority of an international organisation such as the United Nations to justify the degree of intervention to which we have committed ourselves. It is a very serious and difficult problem.
  I had planned, in what is probably my last speech in a debate on the Address, to soliloquise a bit on honesty in politics and in journalism, and on how honesty influences the decisions made in this House and in this nation. However, a speech that does justice to such heavyweight subjects would be so long that, it will have to wait for another occasion. I should like instead to talk a little about events in Nice and the future of the European Union.
  I should like to deal with a couple of specific matters: the lack of democracy in the European Union decision-making process; and a development—which seems to have hidden itself from Ministers, including the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—that reveals the real

  427
  purpose of developing an independent European defence force. The development also reveals the same type of sleight of hand that has characterised European Union debates since we first applied to join it.
  I have the good fortune to be reading the excellent book by Lord Shore. Although I do not share his views on the European Union, in his book he deals with the way in which Britain and the European Union have been constantly misled about the true intentions of the treaty of Rome—which are to form a supernational state. Such a state has to have an army, and what has been agreed at Nice is to create the army that goes with such a state. An army and common foreign and defence policy are all part and parcel of the powers that any state must have if it is to be a true state.
  Even today's debate has really only obscured the fact that the purpose of the tensions at least in France, on which Germany has given in, is to create a defence force that will be under the authority and control of the European Union. The article cited by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) seems to prove that the army would be under EU control and that NATO would only be consulted on it.
  Lord Shore has made various points on the creation of the European Union, and he gives seven reasons why we should not be in the EU. I do not share that view. Nevertheless, the first reason he cites is that we are very different from the continental Europeans.
  Secondly, the people of Britain do not want a European identity, but identify more readily with the English-speaking world and the Commonwealth.
  Thirdly, there have been transfers of responsibility, but no democratic accountability. I should like to return to that point.
  Fourthly—as I think that any hon. Member who has served on the European Scrutiny Committee will realise—even now, there are no limits on European encroachment on our national affairs, including defence and foreign affairs.
  Fifthly, the European Union needs a new treaty to repatriate powers. If the intergovernmental conference that is proposed for 2004 is to consider limitations and subsidiarity—as it is called in European talk—of the Commission's and Union's powers, I would very much welcome it. However, we shall have to work extremely hard to ensure that that conference is not diverted or distorted to create a supernational state—which I do not believe the British people either want or understand. I believe that the British people would revolt against such a state, and that, if the EU attempted to create one, the whole structure of the Union would disintegrate, to the very serious disbenefit of every country in Europe.
  We cannot suppress differences in culture and in language between our countries. We should be proud of those differences, but maintain a union that has been joined only for specific reasons that are good for Europe. Those powers should not be used by the union if they can be best exercised in national states.
  Sixthly, I agree with Lord Shore that we cannot resist the pressure for self-government. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has just said that
  428
  he believes that Wales should have even more power. Power could be devolved in such a manner, but we are acting in a totally contradictory fashion. We cannot deny the people of Europe the accountability and democracy to which they have become accustomed, particularly in the United Kingdom.
  Seventhly, Lord Shore suggests—it is a very good idea—that we should return to the United Nations with an overall, worldwide economic and financial council, to counteract the malign effects of globalisation—with which I should also like to deal briefly later in my speech.
  Lord Shore demonstrates the way in which the countries of Europe are being misled by referring specifically to new Labour's 1997 party manifesto. He concludes that there is a fundamental dishonesty in new Labour's overall approach to the single currency and to the European Union. The manifesto states:
  Our vision of Europe is of an alliance of independent nations choosing to co-operate to achieve the goals they cannot achieve alone.
  Lord Shore says, however, that such an alliance is fundamentally not what the new Labour party is proposing. If any proof of that proposition were needed, the Nice and Amsterdam treaties provide it. The words that Lord Shore quoted from the Labour manifesto were chosen to deceive, as the authors knew that the electors to whom the manifesto was addressed did not and do not want to lose their birthright of democracy and self-government.
  I believe that the European Union should be talking about democracy and accountability, and that those matters should have been on the agenda at Nice. They need to be on the agenda at any future IGC. I also believe that the Prime Minister is right to consider the possibility of a second chamber—a senate—of the European Parliament. I believe that members of such a body should be Members of this place and of other national Parliaments, so that national parliamentary interests and national interests are safeguarded, supported and explained to the British people and to the people of Europe's other nation states. I think that such a change will require a very serious adjustment.
  I think that we cannot go along with what has happened at Nice—which is to refuse the Germans proper representation and proper democratic rights by not allowing them a greater vote than that of any other nation. After all, Germany is 20 per cent. larger than France or Britain. The Germans should be given their proper status and we should recognise the fact that their country is so much larger. The fact that France will be inferior to Germany is not a matter that should concern it, having wished for the kind of Europe that it has devoted all its efforts to creating.
  Sleight of hand and dishonesty pervade our national life. In my constituency, for example, the Government said that the health service would receive more money. Our local hospital has not yet received any further money. In fact, it has been burdened with a £29 million debt from past mistakes made by the health authority. Education is to receive a huge amount of extra money, but no extra money appeared in the schools in my constituency until recently, when they received the small handout given directly to schools. There has been no improvement, despite the constant sleight of hand of the leaders of our nation.

  429
  The White Paper on overseas development that was published today was very welcome. Incidentally, it was in the Vote Office at 1 o'clock this afternoon, when it had already been released by the Secretary of State for International Development to the press at a great gathering earlier this morning. It is extraordinary that we should permit a statement of this importance to be made outside the House.
  The Secretary of State for International Development is right to address globalisation. I agree with chapter 1, paragraph 19 of the White Paper:
  Managed wisely, the new wealth being created by globalisation creates the opportunity to lift millions of the world's poorest people out of their poverty. Managed badly and it could lead to their further marginalisation and impoverishment. Neither outcome is predetermined; it depends on the policy choices adopted by governments, international institutions, the private sector and civil society.
  I hope that all hon. Members will support that hugely important statement. Making certain that the one in five people who live in abject poverty—that is, on less than a dollar a day—are considered, and their views, ideas and needs addressed, is the only way to bring about proper peace in the world and moral justice for people in that appalling condition. We should welcome the proposals in the White Paper and work assiduously on them for the future.
  8.31 pm
  Mrs. Ann Cryer: Last night, I should have attended a service at All Saints parish church in Ilkley in my constituency, at the invitation of the Wharfedale Amnesty International group, to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations human rights declaration. I could not attend but, owing to my interest in the people and politics of Kashmir, I looked up a recent Amnesty report entitled "India, a trail of unlawful killings in Jammu and Kashmir". On page 7, it states:
  Shabir Ahmed Shah who since the beginning of his political life in 1968 advocated the right to self-determination of Kashmiris, spent some 22 years of his life in jail, about half of this in preventive detention—
  without trial.
  The grounds for Shabir Ahmed Shah's various detention orders include calling for strikes, issuing leaflets calling for Kashmir's independence and boycotting India's independence day. These are non-violent activities involving the peaceful expression of his views. He was arrested again just a year ago simply for celebrating the anniversary of the UN human rights declaration. I and many of my Kashmiri constituents would warmly welcome a comment from the Minister on the current situation in Kashmir.
  The rest of my chat tonight will be about the reasons why I could not attend the service last night. That was due to difficulties on the railways, yet again. If I do not mention my anxieties about the railways now, I may not be able to do so for some time. I apologise to the House for straying from the subjects on which we should be concentrating, but this is a matter close to my heart and I would like to talk about these difficulties.
  Last night, I caught the 5.5 pm train from Leeds to London King's Cross. We ground to a halt between Retford and Newark, and were stuck there for nearly an
  430
  hour. We were initially told that there was an object on the line ahead. Then we were told that there was a power failure in the overhead cabling, which would involve one-way working. The next information was that we would need a pilot from Railtrack. We eventually completed our journey at 10.10 pm, having taken more than five hours to travel from Leeds to King's Cross.
  I give the details of my journey, not because it was unusually awful but because members of the travelling public and railway men and women are having to endure these conditions day in, day out. There was thankfully no tragedy; no one was hurt or killed. However, to put my journey into context, I will quote from early-day motion 1189 on railway safety which I, with the support of 67 right hon. and hon. Members, tabled on 28 November. I resubmitted it today. It states:
  That this House condemns the ill-conceived privatisation of British Railways by the previous Tory Government which, despite massive injections of tax-payers' money, has led directly to the present and continuing crisis suffered by rail workers and rail-users alike; regrets that many are reverting to car use with its adverse impact on the environment and consequent increases in death and injury; and calls on the Government to restore confidence in the rail network—
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I am enjoying this interesting debate, and I know that one can talk about matters other than defence and foreign affairs, do such matters not have to be related to the Queen's Speech? Is the hon. Lady perhaps relating this story to a royal train journey?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I think that I was showing the hon. Lady slightly more tolerance than the hon. Gentleman was in hoping that she will refer to the Queen's Speech at some point. However, the choice of topic is entirely hers.
  Mrs. Cryer: I checked with Mr. Deputy Speaker and the Clerk before I started this diatribe. As I was saying, the early-day motion
  calls on the Government to restore confidence in the rail network by returning Railtrack to public ownership and accountability with a clear onus to monitor track maintenance and renewal alongside a culture of safety and reliability as opposed to the present regime which places profitability before all else.
  Many of us campaigned vigorously to stop rail privatisation by the previous Government. Commenting on the "Today" programme on 20 October, the Opposition spokesperson said of that legislation:
  Mistakes were certainly made in the privatisation process. The system was made into too many different companies.
  Unfortunately, we have moved gradually away from bringing the rail network back into some form of public ownership. However, I am delighted that the Queen's Speech mentions that a report by Lord Cullen is due which will look into all forms of transport safety, including railways, air and road traffic.
  The Strategic Rail Authority, as stated in the Transport Act 2000, may be capable of sorting out the mess that exists today. I only hope that it does not take too long to improve matters, as there is an enormous adverse impact on too many lives. Businesses in west Yorkshire have achieved so much in the past few years in competing with London firms. Part of this success has derived from their

  431
  ability to be at least as good as City firms, as well as undercutting them because of the lower overheads of living and working away from the south-east hothouse. We are seeing a planned economy working well to spread the rich pickings to areas that the previous Government barely knew existed.
  Much of that success has depended on the ability of businesses in the north having the facility to meet clients and potential clients in the capital and return to their base in a day. This is now rarely possible. If the present crisis continues, there could be a long-term price to pay not only in respect of the well-being of northern businesses but in terms of quality of life throughout the country. Men and women frequently have two or three fewer hours a day to spend with their family. Should Ministers believe that I am exaggerating, they should take a ride on one of our overcrowded Northern Spirit trains that ply between my constituency and Leeds along the Airedale and Wharfedale lines. I could spend hours quoting the experiences of my constituents.
  Bringing Railtrack back into public ownership would not, in itself, be a panacea for our rail network. Many of the faults lie with the train operating companies, but if the situation does not improve in weeks rather than months—bearing in mind the fact that the Hatfield crash was on 17 October—surely the millions of pounds going from the Treasury to the rail industry should buy back parts of that industry for the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, instead of simply going in subsidies, reduced by profits to shareholders.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Michael Trend: I was very interested in the experiences of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) regarding the rail network, but I thought that she was not sufficiently critical of the Government. They are now in their fourth winter and have had a great deal of time to develop new policies for the rail network, if they chose to do so.
  I was more interested in the hon. Lady's comments on human rights. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) let the cat out of the bag when he used the once golden phrase "ethical foreign policy". I can understand why the Foreign Secretary gave up using that rhetoric once he realised what a foolish hostage to fortune he had given, but that does not mean that the Government's policy should apparently discard the larger picture.
  The House will know that I speak as one of the governors of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy—a most valuable organisation, described in some detail by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). Against that background, I have several specific questions and hope that the Government can provide answers on a particular foreign affairs issue that is intimately linked to other matters discussed today, and is highly indicative of the Government's overall foreign policy—their current view on affairs in Belarus. That follows directly from the debate of the hour—that on enlargement of the EU.
  When I travel, as a governor of the WFD, from one former communist bloc country to another and observe the extraordinary efforts being made to jump through the
  432
  EU's hoops, I wonder how sincere EU Governments are in their stated desire for enlargement. Of course, the applicant countries want to join and will do whatever it takes—even at extraordinary cost to themselves—but that does not mean that they believe everything they are told. They do not believe—and have not done so for years—the ever-shifting date of accession that has been suggested to them. They may not want to do what they are required to do, but the imperative to join the safety of western European organisations is great.
  We are told that Nice was all about enlargement. Despite the Foreign Secretary's remarks earlier—about some technical nonsense—if the EU was serious about enlargement, one would have expected the common agricultural policy to have been raised at Nice. Politicians in Poland, for example, will not believe a word of the EU enlargement rhetoric until they see that the CAP is being overhauled.
  We can be forgiven for thinking that, despite the proclaimed desire to enlarge the EU, Nice was more about something else: deepening and tightening the existing structures—a process that will make enlargement more difficult. Should that surprise us? It does not surprise me. After all, throughout western Europe, there are Governments made up of centre-left parties that, in the past, were wrong about all the important decisions that brought the cold war to an end. The left are on the wrong track again today.
  For me and my hon. Friends, enlargement is in large part unfinished business dating back to the liberation of central and eastern Europe. Not so long ago, it would have been unthinkable for countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and the Baltic states to join the EU, but now it seems obvious—even to those who never thought it possible or desirable. Many other countries are also well within reach, but further progress will be made only when our Government and their centre-left allies in the EU raise their eyes from the artificial horizon that they have set themselves.
  If in the past we had refused the first hurdle, there would be no free Poland. If we refuse the next jump, we condemn millions of people in eastern Europe to a future just as bleak as their past. That brings me to Belarus. With the fall of Milosevic in Belgrade, President Lukashenko in Minsk wears an unenviable mantle as Europe's most despotic and tyrannical leader.
  I had the good fortune to be able to raise the subject of Belarus in an Adjournment debate a few months ago. I outlined how Belarus is still a long way behind the countries that border it—visiting Minsk is like going back 10 or 15 years. The atmosphere is one of oppression and fear. Amnesty International recently reported on the gross abuse of human rights that is still widely practised in Belarus. October's so-called parliamentary election was manifestly fixed by the president in the most arbitrary fashion.
  In October, the United States Government dismissed the outcome of Lukashenko's elections in Belarus and said that they would continue to recognise the Parliament that the president dissolved four years ago. The State Department made it clear that it regarded the recent elections as neither free nor fair. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe has said that the minimum requirement for holding free and fair elections was not met. What is the British Government's view?

  433
  I have with me a detailed report of violations of electoral legislation that took place during the preparations for and the holding of the elections to the Chamber of Representatives. It is a most revealing and shocking document. It seems clear that, even in the terms set by Lukashenko, his election failed to reach the turnout required by his constitution. Even in his own terms, the election has no legitimacy. What is the British Government's view?
  In July, I warned the Government that the preparations for the elections fell far short of an acceptable norm on at least four counts. First, Belarus has no fully powered, properly functioning Parliament set within an understood division of power. President Lukashenko rules by decree. Secondly, electoral legislation needs thorough reform. Thirdly, there is still no guaranteed, real and regular access to the state-run electronic media. Fourthly and most important, there has been no effective or visible change in the political atmosphere. In other words, there is no end to political repression.
  I remind the House that Amnesty International has detailed information on detentions, disappearances and the forcible breaking up of demonstrations. That still goes on today. About 50 people were detained and beaten during a recent demonstration of youth organisations. In the face of that repression, the democratic forces of Belarus remain remarkably united in their determination to stand up to Lukashenko. His attempts to drive a wedge between them have failed. Together the united democratic opposition is preparing for next year's presidential elections. It intends to support a single candidate and co-ordinate a broad-based campaign. What more can we ask of brave people, inside and outside the political process, trying to bring their nation to a state of freedom that we take for granted in our part of the world?
  I have recently visited the British ambassador in Minsk and have nothing but praise for the way in which he and his staff go about their business. However, I must tell the House of a most alarming development in overall British representation in Belarus. If hon. Members visit the British Council's web page and find their way to the Belarus page, they will find this terse statement:
  We regret that the British Council office in Belarus closed on 1 December 2000.
  If, at the end of the debate, those on the Treasury Bench directly address only one point that I am making, it should be this: why at this moment of all times has the British Council pulled out of Minsk?
  To add insult to injury, the British Council web page goes on to tell its readers that information on various British international, academic, arts, youth, education projects can be found at, and general inquiries on Belarus can be made to, the British Council in Moscow. Does the Foreign Secretary have any idea how that will be viewed by democrats in Minsk? Are we trying to tell them something? Are we trying to tell them that we are falling in with Lukashenko's plan to reunite Belarus to mother Russia?
  The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who takes a great interest in such matters, raised a further concern during the debate on Belarus that I recently initiated. He told us that he was visiting Krakow in Poland two years ago when the treaty was signed between Lukashenko and the President of the Russian Federation. He said:
  434
  Although there was great alarm in that region … about the dangerous implications for security and co-operation in Europe, there was not a peep about it in the western press.
  He concluded:
  We are fiddling while Rome burns.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 18 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 28WH.]
  I agree with him; we are doing nothing while the position in Belarus daily grows worse. We are watching Lukashenko selling off his country in the hope of being given the job of Russian governor in Belarus. While we are preparing to welcome Poland into the European Union, we do not seem to be aware of the implications of having Belarus as the new border. Is it the Government's intention to regard Belarus as a buffer state, the internal position of which is of no concern? I can tell the Government that that is not the view taken in Poland or the Baltic states, our soon to be most welcome EU partners.
  I want also to refer to the position of the OSCE in Belarus. In recent days, Lukashenko has made it clear that he may soon close the OSCE's office in Minsk. Along with that there has been a dirty propaganda war against the mission and its head, Hans-Georg Wiek. In response to that, the United States State Department has already said it believes that the OSCE needs to be in Belarus. What is the British Government's position on that?
  With his threat to the OSCE and so much else in his behaviour, Lukashenko is testing us, and Moscow is watching how we respond. Will we let Lukashenko get away with it again? Britain needs to pay as much attention now to what is going on as a Conservative Government did in similar but broader circumstances in the 1990s.
  We cannot shelter behind a cosy belief that Lukashenko's rhetoric is empty and vague. His record tells us that he will match extreme words with extreme action. We need to let him and Moscow be in no doubt where we stand, or we will later have to face the consequences. Having come so far in bringing liberty to central and eastern Europe, we must keep going forward, not start rolling back. We should be adding to our representation in Minsk, not pulling out.
  Let me conclude by repeating the two vital questions for the Government that I hope I have raised in my speech. First, what is the Government's view on the current position in Belarus, the recent elections, the recent repression of human rights and on the threat to the OSCE? Secondly, can the Government now offer an explanation of why the British Council has closed in Minsk? The suffering people of Belarus need a voice on the international stage and we should be helping to give it.
  8.52 pm
  Ann Clwyd: I apologise to colleagues for not being here for the whole debate. Unfortunately, one plans a bit in advance, and I was chairing a showing of a film on Saddam Hussein. It is an interesting film and it was the first time that it has been shown in this country. It depicts him with an intimacy that has probably not been seen before. I wish that more colleagues had been able to see it.
  I obviously want to talk about Iraq, because I chair a committee that aims to bring about an international tribunal to try the crimes of the Iraqi regime. They were described by Mr. van der Stoel, who retired last week after 10 years monitoring human rights in Iraq, as the

  435
  worst crimes that have been committed since the end of the second world war. Anybody who has followed the details of what happens in Iraq cannot but agree with that.
  The organisation that I chair has collected evidence about those who have allegedly committed war crimes, including leading members of the regime. However, I am afraid that many leaders from throughout the world have paid lip service to the aim of bringing war criminals to justice. The fact is that many war criminals are still at large in many countries, including our own, and it takes a long time to bring them to justice. We have just produced evidence, which our legal experts say cannot be faulted, against five leading members of the Iraqi regime. That evidence has been presented to the Attorney-General, and we are waiting to hear what he intends to do. We hope that this country will want to mount a prosecution that will lead to the indictment of some of the leading members of the regime.
  We have also produced evidence in the Netherlands, which we have passed on to the chief prosecutor there. We are calling for it to prosecute those war criminals for their crimes. Such prosecutions will test the political will of European countries. If prosecutors were so minded, they could initiate prosecutions and indict leading members of the regime. An indictment can confine people to their countries, as we saw with Milosevic, and, hopefully, bring about their trial and condemnation. We will discover in the next few weeks whether this country will lead the way in that, as I hope it will.
  On prior scrutiny of the arms trade, one of the main criticisms of the Scott report concerned ministerial accountability. If, as stated in the Queen's Speech, legislation will significantly
  improve the transparency of export controls,
  it must also provide for a system of prior parliamentary scrutiny of export licence applications. It worries me that on 8 December the Government rejected recommendations for such a system, made by the quadripartite Select Committee, of which I am a member, in its report on further accountability. It believed that such a system would enhance ministerial accountability and introduce a vital element of prevention to the arms export licensing regime. Similar models operate in Sweden and the United States without damaging the defence industry, the licensing system or bilateral relations. Why would a system of prior parliamentary scrutiny compromise political and commercial confidentiality in the UK but not in the US or Sweden? I hope that I am wrong and that our recommendation is included in the Bill.
  Members of the four cross-party Select Committees that form the quadripartite Committee have vastly diverse political opinions. However, they unanimously concluded that
  the authority to export arms is of a different degree of sensitivity to other types of ministerial casework … There can be few decisions of greater potential impact on the conduct of foreign relations and on the lives of many people overseas than decisions as to whether to permit weapons made in this country to be put in the hands of overseas governments and their forces.
  The Committee unanimously decided that by extending its present remit to cover scrutiny of licences at the application stage, such accountability could be achieved without posing a threat to commercial confidentiality or
  436
  the competitiveness of British companies. Scott will be very disappointed if that suggestion is not implemented. The quadripartite Committee approached matters gingerly at first because of the diversity of opinion, but as it worked on through the year, it was gratifying to find consensus emerging.
  Two other countries concern me. The first is Indonesia and the areas of East Timor, West Timor, Aceh and West Papua. I had the privilege of observing last year's referendum in East Timor and I witnessed consequences of which we had warned before it took place. We had called for the militia to be disarmed, but the referendum went ahead without that, which was a bad error on the part of all the countries involved in organising the referendum. Many refugees remain in West Timor—people who would return to East Timor if not for the intimidation they would face from the Indonesian militia still active there. I spoke to the President of Indonesia when I was there last month: I asked him when he was going to disarm the militia, what he was going to do about the continuing human rights abuses, and about various other matters relating to human rights. I believe that since he came into power things have changed for the better in Indonesia, but there is a long way still to go.
  Current events in Aceh, where many people have been killed and, I am sorry to say, British-supplied arms are being used, provide an example of what I was talking about earlier. If there had been prior scrutiny of arms being sold to that country, I do not believe that Parliament would have agreed to the sale. Members of the United States Congress have not agreed to the sale of arms to Indonesia and the US embargo remains in place. It has been interesting to see at first hand the US system in operation. If such a system can work in that country, with all its commercial interests, there is no earthly reason why it could not operate in this country as well.
  The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) spoke about the European Union's decision to monitor human rights in applicant countries, and we would all support that, especially in respect of an applicant country such as Turkey, which already has its feet on the first couple of rungs on the ladder. As Amnesty International has frequently pointed out, the practice of torture remains widespread in Turkey. That organisation has written to the Heads of Government of the 15 EU nation states attending the Nice summit to raise its concerns.
  The treatment of the Kurds in Turkey is wholly unacceptable. Anyone who has visited the site of the Ilisu dam, as I did in July, will know that it is proposed to shift 75,000 people without consultation, without discussing where they are to go, and without asking how they feel about being pushed out of their houses. Other human rights abuses are occurring in that area, directed particularly against the Kurds. Most EU countries would agree that if Turkey is to become a member of the EU, that must end; and we have a responsibility to press the issue vigorously while Turkey has its feet on the rungs of the EU ladder.
  I should have liked to talk about many other countries, but in this canter around the course, I have mentioned the ones that cause me most concern. I am also concerned about parliamentarians in many countries throughout the world who do not have our privileges and cannot take it for granted that they will be able to speak as we in this Chamber are speaking today. Members of Parliament elected in Burma have been put in prison or under house

  437
  arrest, or have been tortured. In Malaysia, Members of Parliament have been imprisoned on spurious charges arising under the Sedition Act 1948, which we British left as a legacy to Malaysia and other former colonies. The position of parliamentarians throughout the world is a matter that is vigorously pursued by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and its committee on human rights, but it is incumbent on us all to raise issues affecting our fellow Members of Parliament as often as we can.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Paul Keetch: I shall raise a few issues and explore them briefly, as I know that other Members wish to speak. I join the hon. Members for Windsor (Mr. Trend) and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) in paying tribute to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. It is an excellent organisation, and I have seen at first hand how well it works. I echo the praise given by the Foreign Secretary to members of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff, and not only those based overseas whom we see regularly when we travel abroad as Members. The staff in the UK should be praised also.
  Since I was elected, I have on two separate occasions, both in relation to Chechnya, seen at first hand how FCO staff play a real and important role. First, two of my constituents, Jon James and Camilla Carr, were held hostage. They were released with a great deal of support and encouragement from FCO staff. Later, almost two years ago to the day, one of my constituents, Peter Kennedy, two other Britons and a New Zealander were tragically beheaded in Chechnya. I saw again how well FCO staff worked.
  One feature of that tragedy emerged which I think the FCO has not yet taken fully on board, and that is the role of its advice. It was clear that the FCO was giving advice to British people that they should not travel to Chechnya. In the discussions that took place with Granger Telecom and British Telecom, that advice was made clear to the companies. However, it was not passed on to employees. In a future Gracious Speech, I should like to see a proposal for a requirement to be placed upon companies that if they are sending their staff overseas to countries where they should not go on the basis of clear Foreign Office advice, they and any subcontractors whom they employ should be given that advice in full.
  I have been told that had Peter Kennedy realised that he should not be going to Chechnya, and had he been given the advice of the Foreign Office not to go, he would not have gone. In those circumstances, his life would certainly have been saved.
  We have discussed the applicant states at Nice. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). It is important that the applicant states believe that they have a real chance of being accepted into the European Union. When I hear Conservative Members attacking the EU, I want to say, "Look, if it is such an awful organisation, why are so many countries and so many people queueing up to join it?" It has been a success and we must ensure that as many states as possible join it.
  Last week, I was in Lithuania, a country which I first visited in 1995. It has made enormous strides, as have the other Baltic states, in trying to become members of the EU. The Baltic states have changed their economies and they are well on the way. We need to show and give them encouragement so that they understand that at some stage
  438
  they will gain access to the EU. If we do not adopt that approach, we risk their regression into right-wing nationalism and xenophobia. Those attitudes are never too far away in countries of the Baltic states and of central and eastern Europe.
  I shall underline what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said about the European rapid reaction force. The Liberal Democrats are very much the Atlanticist party. My right hon. and learned Friend said that he had studied in the United States. The leader of my party, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), also studied there. We shall do nothing and support no policy that drives a wedge between the EU and NATO. NATO must remain the cornerstone of our defence. We shall ensure that a European rapid reaction force does not prejudice NATO if the United Kingdom plays a leading role. If we do not, there is the danger that a wedge will be driven in. Bill Cohen was right to refer to it, but with a strong British presence, the rapid reaction force will be a force for good.
  I support the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who paid tribute to our armed forces. They are the most excellent in the world, but they need the right kit. The Government have started by introducing some important projects. We hope that by means of smart procurement we shall see the death of some of the faulty procurement legacies of the Conservative Government.
  We hope that the proposed new aircraft carriers will go ahead. I was honoured recently, with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), to visit the USS George Washington. I saw at first hand the power and capability of a real aircraft carrier. We should work towards having two carriers, although smaller, with that capability. There is also the importance of the type 45 destroyer fleet. However, it must be properly procured. There must be equal and fair procurement as between BAE Systems and Vosper Thornycroft. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) has been pressing the Government on that matter.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. David Ruffley: I shall focus my remarks on a narrow aspect of the treaty of Nice—the declaratory effect of the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. I raise the matter because it is at the heart of the debate that the House should be having—a debate about the primacy of the House and the prospect of powers being siphoned off to unelected judges in the European Court of Justice in a way that is undemocratic and unaccountable.
  What most concerns me is the Government's lack of clarity on the charter of fundamental rights. They say that it has no binding legal effect of any kind. I am not inclined to believe Ministers who, before the election, said that they were in love with the pound, and in October 1997 decided that they were in principle in favour of abolishing the pound. I am not disposed to listen to Ministers who told us one thing two weeks ago about NATO's view on the rapid reaction force, whereas two weeks down the road, the heroic efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) have exposed the duplicity and muddle of Ministers with regard to the Euro army, for that is what

  439
  it is. Nor am I disposed to believe a Prime Minister who vows that he does not believe in any kind of superstate, but speaks of his desire for Europe to be a superpower.
  On the declaratory effect of the charter of fundamental rights, we have only to examine the relevant law. The charter will not have direct effect such that the European Court of Justice can alter existing directives and EU laws, but it will be binding to the extent that the court can interpret existing laws. It is clear to eminent jurists among the Opposition and on the Government side in another place that by an interpretation of existing law, the European Court of Justice can, in effect, create new rights.
  When we consider the application of the charter as set out in article 51(1) of the latest draft, it is clear that the charter addresses the powers of the institutions and bodies of the Union with due regard to the principle of subsidiarity. Those of us who have bothered to look at the effect of the protocol on subsidiarity adopted as part of the Amsterdam treaty know full well that subsidiarity is an utterly meaningless, empty and hollow concept in respect of preserving the powers of nation states and allowing nation states to do what they can do best, in order to avoid decision-making by EU supranational bodies.
  Let us examine some examples of the effect that the adoption of the charter in its declaratory mode will have on the subjects of this country. In the working time directive, for example, there are two derogations. The directive can be amended by individuals agreeing to work more than the maximum number of hours, and there are exclusions from the directive.
  Those derogations are at present lawful in this country. It is clear that under the terms of article 31 of the charter of fundamental rights, it would be up to a British Government to justify those exceptions to the European Court of Justice. If the judges in the ECJ were not persuaded, they could strike them down.
  It is worrying that articles 34 and 35 of the charter, which relate to social security and health, give blanket rights of an unspecified nature for universal social security and health provision. In Euro-jargon, article 34(3) talks about the minimum level of social security and housing benefit needed
  in order to secure a decent existence for persons lacking sufficient resources.
  Jurists who know a bit about the subject are asking whether that would affect the ability of Her Majesty's Government to have special provisions for benefits for asylum seekers. At the moment, voucher systems are in place, but would they fall foul of a European Court of Justice determination? What about workfare and the Government's ability to say that benefits are dependent on certain onerous conditions, including the desire and ability to work in exchange for benefits.
  Those are clear examples of ways in which the interpretation of the articles by the European Court of Justice could, in both effect and practice, limit the ability of this sovereign House and the Government to make the law in this country. Those are only two examples of existing provisions, but what about laws and regulations that are not yet in place? I shall turn to the most topical subject for many in the House—laws and regulations on reproduction, human embryology and stem cell research.
  440
  Article 3(1) of the charter is headed "Integrity of the person" and makes clear references to what can be done in relation to
  making the human body or its parts a source of financial gain
  and in relation to
  the reproductive cloning of human beings.
  Those are delicate, sensitive areas that throw up complicated scientific and ethical issues. In my judgment, they have nothing at all to do with the EU and should not be the subject of EU competence or, in another sense, interference. They should, pre-eminently, be a matter for member states of the EU to determine in their own sovereign Parliaments and courts. Frankly, I am appalled at the prospect that the charter may be used further down the road in the ways that I have described on health, social security provision and human embryology research. Beyond peradventure, those are all matters for sovereign, independent legislatures of the kind that we have in this country.
  The lack of the clarity of the Government's position on the charter at Nice gives me more concern than anything in the Nice treaty. I urge members of the Government to explain in words of one syllable why the declaratory statement made at the end of last week at Nice will not have the effects that I have described and will not have binding effect on the courts or the legislature of this country.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Fabricant: Like the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), I wish to apologise for not being here for the whole evening, partly because I have been entertaining a guest from Austria, Mr. Rudolph Kampel. I make that point because I do not want the Foreign Secretary to think that any of my remarks are Euro-phobic in any way—heaven forbid.
  Today, the Prime Minister said that the idea of an independent standing army is nonsense. He also said that the idea of military planning being undertaken independently by the European Union without co-operation with NATO is nonsense. Finally, he boasted that we had secured our objectives in Europe during the past few days. He did so with particular regard to co-operation with NATO.
  The Prime Minister quoted from the presidential report in an interesting manner, as he included some statements and excluded others. It is worth repeating an important phrase that appears close to the end of the report's annexe on the standing arrangements for consultation and co-operation between the EU and NATO. The Prime Minister chose not to read it out. The annexe states:
  The entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU throughout the operation.
  Should we be surprised that Bill Cohen showed alarm and felt that the rapid reaction force would act independently of NATO?
  The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who spoke briefly, for which I am grateful, posed an interesting question. He asked why other countries would wish to join the European Union if it was so bad. I think that he cited Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and some other Visegrad countries. The reason why they are so keen to join and why we have our doubts is that Britain and

  441
  Germany mainly pay for the European Union. Of course, the countries that want to join will mainly benefit from the European Union.
  For that reason, hon. Members have every right to be alarmed that the common agricultural policy was not discussed. It is by far the biggest drain on European Union funds. Let us be clear: if the European Union is to expand, it cannot survive with the existing common agricultural policy. No country, not even a European Union superstate, can afford the CAP if the eastern European countries are absorbed. I believe that the European Union should absorb those countries. Indeed, it was the policy of the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), to broaden rather than deepen the European Union. Those fundamental changes must be made.
  In the few minutes that remain, I should like to deal with two issues that concern my constituency. In the most Gracious Speech, the Queen said:
  My Government will introduce legislation to modernise and improve law enforcement by, for example, tackling disorderly conduct.
  Such conduct has been called yob culture, and I do not believe that any hon. Member would object to dealing with that.
  Peter Gammon, president of the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, said:
  I think that yob culture is endemic and we need strong measures and mechanisms to deal with it. We have to improve the quality of life for people, remove the fear of crime. Part of this is brought about by yobbish behaviour and minor crime but we need to use these measures to rebuild the fabric of our community.
  That is all well and good, but, as Ministers know, a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers added:
  We need to make sure that when the Bills come forward they are workable. I refer in particular to the practicality of curfews.
  Spin is not enough; there must be substance. For that, there must be enough police officers on the ground for proper enforcement. PC David Stockport, secretary of the North Yorkshire branch of the Police Federation, said:
  It cannot keep going on like this.
  He was referring to the cut in police officer numbers. He went on to say:
  It is becoming impossible for police officers to cope. We have huge problems with lack of back-up. You may be in Whitby and the nearest support is in Scarborough. We are getting to the stage where it is putting us in danger.
  I contacted the chief constable of Staffordshire, Mr. John Giffard, who gave me some interesting figures.
  I do not wish to suggest that my constituents in Lichfield are yobbish, but we are blessed with a wide variety of public houses, and on Friday and Saturday nights, things get a little boisterous. As a consequence, police will have to be available to enforce the yob culture legislation, if it is enacted before Parliament is dissolved.
  How many police officers do we have in Lichfield on a Friday or Saturday night? Just three or four policemen, backed up, if we are lucky, by maybe four or five special constables. What about the large metropolitan area of Stoke-on-Trent? There is one sergeant, maybe four police constables and 10 special constables, although, apparently, 20 or 30 are available if they are required to deal with a special event or riot. Of course, police officers can be drafted in from other areas in an emergency.
  442
  Under this Government, there has been a huge cut in the number of police officers. In Staffordshire, there was a drop of 68.1 men in one year alone, and in the west midlands, more than 126 officers have been lost. In the three years since the Government came to power, Staffordshire has lost 250 police officers and civilians, and gained, from the Government's extra funding, a mere 90. That is a net loss of 160 police officers from Staffordshire's small force.
  It is worth contrasting the present situation with the record of the Conservative party. If I do not do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you can bet your bottom dollar that those on the Government Front Bench will, so I will get my word in first. Under the Conservative Government between March 1979 and 1997, the force's total strength increased by 15,400, from 109,653 to 125,051, an increase of 14 per cent. Under Labour, between March 1997 and September 1999, the total force's strength fell by 2,001 from 125,051 to 123,050, a decrease of 1.6 per cent. Once again, a great deal of spin is involved—we hear about legislation to deal with yobbish culture—but, sadly, there is no delivery. Without police officers on the ground, we will not witness law enforcement in this country.
  The Government were also elected on a promise of better health care. In Lichfield, Victoria hospital is under threat because of the abolition of fundholding practices. Despite the fact that 15,149 Lichfieldians signed a petition to save the hospital and its services, there is every reason to believe that the maternity unit in the hospital will be disbanded, that the dialysis unit in the hospital will be closed and that the minor injuries unit in the hospital will be disbanded, if not the hospital itself.
  A very expensive, and what is called an informal, consultation document has been produced. The health authority said that the document's findings were not what it wished to hear, namely, that people wanted to keep the maternity unit in Lichfield. Surprise, surprise—the local health authority is now being urged by the Department of Health to produce yet another consultation document, which may take three, four or five months to complete. That is purely a cynical act—the authority wants to delay the closure of the maternity and dialysis units and of other services in Lichfield until after the general election.
  That is happening across the land, not just in Lichfield. Actions taken by the Government show yet again that they are all spin, no substance and no delivery. Until the Government are prepared to put their money where their mouth is, to provide more police officers, more nurses and doctors and to fight our corner in Europe, they will continue to fail the people of this country.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I shall start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on his first appearance in the House. I pay him the courtesy of agreeing with my hon. Friends that he made a good speech. It was an excellent start to his political career. We crossed swords during his election, but I give him the benefit of the doubt on his first speech in the House and I welcome him on behalf of the Conservative party.
  As there is limited time available for my response to the debate, which was in two halves, I shall mention only those who commented on defence matters. If they will forgive me, I shall leave the remarks of those who spoke purely about foreign affairs or other matters to another time.

  443
  My hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) spoke about defence. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford made some pertinent points about Sierra Leone. Although I disagree with the comments of my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), I welcome him to his permanent place in defence debates. I did not agree with what he said on defence, but he said it rather well.
  The two speeches of note on that subject from this side of the House were from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who both made powerful contributions in the short time available about the effect on NATO of what the Government have agreed and exactly where that takes us.
  I pay tribute to our troops and their families. We have come to expect the highest levels of professionalism from our forces—perhaps we should not, but we do. They have shown that professionalism time and again. Whether or not we agree with Government decisions, or whether in opposition Labour agreed with the previous Government, the truth is that when our forces are called on to act to implement Government policy they do so with the utmost efficiency and professionalism. We are deeply proud of what they do. We are also proud of the families who support them and worry about them when they are away. All too seldom do we hear comments about their sacrifice and their sense of duty. Much is asked of them, and they give a lot. It is worth while recognising what they do.
  I also want to mention quickly one or two areas on which we will not be able to go into detail given the short time available, but which we have dealt with in two recent debates. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that when he winds up the debate.
  The Minister will shortly bring the quinquennial Bill to the House for its Second Reading. We are disappointed that the three services discipline Acts have not been put together. I understand why that is difficult, but it is high time that we got on with it. The Government would have had our full support to make that work.
  I welcome the proposals for the Ministry of Defence police, which the Minister had the courtesy to let me see today. Others will be welcome during the passage of the legislation. However, I give the Minister notice that the big issue that we shall want to debate is the move down the politically correct road, which will damage the ethos of our armed forces. The Government have incorporated the European convention on human rights in legislation, but included no caveat to protect our armed forces from what may become intrusive legislation via the courts. We will want to know how they intend to deal with that, because it could be damaging.
  In the run-up to the next election, the Government will have to return to the issue of overstretch and the current problem of a shortage of fast-jet pilots, among other forces. I gather that only 18 combat-ready Sea Harrier pilots are available, which is a serious indictment of the Government. We shall return to that issue again and again, as well as to the problems of forces families and the homes that they have been unable to live in because of their state.
  444
  Sadly, I was not present to hear the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), but I understand that he mentioned an important facet of overstretch and of the reason for the haemorrhaging of middle and senior-ranking and non-commissioned officers from the forces. He rightly referred to medical services, which were a problem under the previous Government and are still a serious problem now. The Minister has dealt with the matter in part, but is it not time for us all radically to rethink our approach to medical problems relating to families and service men? My colleagues and I would be happy to engage in a serious debate about that.
  European defence is the key issue that the Government presented to us today, following the Nice treaty. Two serious questions need to be answered. First, will the proposal—will what the Government have signed—duplicate the structures, dilute NATO and eventually decouple the United States from the defence and the alliance of western Europe? We think—I believe—that that will happen.
  The Prime Minister cannot now complain that he ignored all this because it was not a problem until the last few days before Nice, when the Americans suddenly discovered it. That is not the case. The Prime Minister knows that all along—from St. Malo through Cologne to Helsinki, and even Nice—the whole issue of the autonomy of the structure was critical, and he agreed at every turn with every statement that was written about the force being autonomous. There was never any question of its being anything else.
  Last week, when Mr. Cohen, the American Defence Secretary, made it clear publicly that the Americans had deep concerns, the Prime Minister pretended that it was the first time he had heard of this, and that suddenly he was in a face-off with the French presidency. What utter nonsense. He knows very well, as does the Foreign Secretary, that Mr. Cohen has made that absolutely clear to the Government privately, endlessly, over the past two years, since St. Malo at the start of all this.
  Nothing was a surprise to the Government a week ago, and they were not in a spat with the French just at the last moment. It is realistic to say that the Government knew all along. In his recent meeting with President Chirac, the Prime Minister said that they were at one and saw "eye to eye" on European defence matters. That was before the Americans, apparently, warned him publicly. That gave the game away and revealed that the Government were in reality very keen on all the proposals.
  There is plenty of evidence that the Government's assertion that they have managed to insert NATO's right of refusal in the document is nonsense. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe made that absolutely clear. The cornerstone of the force's being part of NATO is that NATO should be able to decide who will operate, but nowhere does that exist in the documents that the Government have signed. There is only a vague and general statement about circumstances where NATO as a whole is not engaged.
  The Government know very well that NATO as a whole is rarely engaged. The reality is that there will be caucusing among EU members before they go into NATO meetings, and it will end up with the United States versus the EU members of NATO. That is hardly a way to

  445
  balance the alliance, but the Foreign Secretary and the rest of the Government—and particularly the Prime Minister—have left us to pick up the pieces.
  Then there is the concept of operations being conducted without NATO assets. It is a fact that the EU will make the judgment on that, without any question. It was made clear in the annexe to the presidency conclusions on security, which states:
  In the event of an EU operation calling for NATO assets and capabilities, the following procedure … will be established … once the EU has chosen a strategic option … on a proposal from the EUMC.
  The EUMC is the European Union Military Committee. That is the reality, as is what was signed at Nice. The EU makes the decision, not NATO—and certainly not the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister.
  There is also a wonderful admission in the document about the chain of command. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe pointed out, the end of the document makes it clear how the arrangement will work:
  the entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU throughout the operation … NATO will be informed of developments in the situation.
  There we have it. There is not one formal link between any of those EU defence institutions and NATO. All we have is a clear indication of who will hold the decision-making power; it certainly is not NATO.
  What the Prime Minister said—that the right hon. Gentleman had managed to hold the line against the vicious French or the other Europeans who were hellbent on driving America out of Europe—was nonsense. As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman had agreed from St. Malo onwards about all those arrangements. He said that it was a "victory for common sense." I look only at what the others are saying. Interviews and comments from the German Government in the Süddeutsche Zeitung are clear. They say that
  the very initiators of the force, both bashfully saw to it that the real step by the Europeans towards more integration was concealed.
  The two to whom they were referring are President Chirac and the Prime Minister. That is the reality. In France, President Chirac said after the signing of the agreement, which he was happy to sign:
  as regards its preparation and implementation,
  the force must
  be independent of SHAPE: co-ordinated, but independent.
  Therefore, President Chirac has no doubts about what was signed. It appears that the Prime Minister is in some form of denial. We have a series of duplicate structures: a Political and Security Committee, a Military Committee of the EU, the Military Staff of the EU and strategic planning—duplicate structures and a weakening of NATO.
  The Government say that those structures and all that was agreed are not about anything important; they are about only some small-level delivery of Petersberg tasks. That was a question that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex got on to powerfully. We know that the Government are running to the election and that, now they have signed the agreement, they have gone into a process of denial, but will the Foreign Secretary please explain: if this is only about low-level Petersberg tasks, why do we need 100 naval ships on call, 400 combat aircraft and
  446
  between 60,000 and 100,000 men? It is absurd to think of that as aid to the civil power. The Government are dumping all that on its head; they want to ignore the reality for those who want to break up NATO. That is the route that they are taking because that is the force to which they have signed up.
  Given that the first conclusion is that what the French say about the matter, not what our Prime Minister says, and what other leaders are saying in Europe is correct, there must be a bigger scheme on offer. We saw it from the newspaper Die Welt before the Nice summit. It said clearly, referring to the German Government, that the whole scale of operation was way beyond Europe—it is the Caucasus, the middle east and north Africa. It is straightforward. They know that. They believe it and that is what they believe the Prime Minister has agreed.
  Only today, the chief of staff to the French armed forces, Jean Pierre Kelch, said in Le Monde that
  the EU's field of responsibility is far greater than that of NATO.
  Everyone else knows what the Prime Minister has signed. All he does is come back and deny it. We know what Secretary Cohen said. He would not deny that what he said still stood after the Nice treaty. Everyone knows that the Government have signed up to that.
  The question for all of us is this: why did the Prime Minister ever embark on that policy? I am reminded that both he and the Foreign Secretary said time and again that they opposed it. Only in 1997, the Foreign Secretary said:
  The European Union will not now be a defence organisation.—[Official Report, 12 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 911.]
  I remember that he grovelled to the previous Foreign Secretary in 1996 when he said that
  he will have our full support in resisting any defence competence for the European Union.—[Official Report, 12 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 789.]
  There it is: a Foreign Secretary who says one thing one day and does another thing another.
  The reality, as we know, is that the Government have given way on the issue. They have entered into an alliance with others who would change and break NATO, and have done so for one petty political reason: they were left out of the single currency. As they feared that the single currency would go ahead and they would lose influence in Europe, they signed up with the French to a process delivering Britain's defence forces outside NATO. The Foreign Secretary knows that, as do the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, who is not in the Chamber. That is the reality.
  I have travelled from Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe to NATO and elsewhere, and all the ambassadors—not only the British ones—say the same—that enhancing European military capability and co-operation should and could have been done within NATO. The only reason why it has not been done is that the Government joined the French, who would not rejoin the military wing of NATO, thereby opening the door to current developments.
  I tell the Foreign Secretary—who is hiding his head—[Interruption.] Yes, he is hiding his head. He has agreed to proposals that will break NATO and decouple the United States from European defence. All he has to remember is that, at the next general election, the Opposition will take great pleasure in taking a stake

  447
  marked "Euro-army" and driving it through the heart of this little beast called new Labour, driving them from government.
  9.46 pm
  The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): As Ronald Reagan would have said, "There he goes again."
  It is a great privilege for me to draw to a close this foreign affairs and defence debate on the first Loyal Address of the millennium. First, however, I should apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who is away on an extremely important Government visit to India.
  I also welcome our colleague, my hon. Friend the new Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), whom I knew when he was a Member of the European Parliament. He was an extremely effective representative. I know that not only will he be an extremely effective Member for Preston, but, from his speech, in years to come, he will make very Effective contributions to the House's debates.
  Over the course of the day, we have discussed Britain's place in the world, key to which is certainly our position in Europe. The Government are determined to be at the centre of the debate on the future of Europe, as that is the only way in which we shall be able to play a part in shaping the outcome and ensure that our national interest is fully taken into account. That is the only way in which we shall be able to ensure that others do not make the important decisions for us.
  As the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, it is my responsibility—indeed, my pleasure and privilege—to oversee the work of our armed forces and the part that they play in maintaining Britain's place and reputation on the international stage. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), like me, knows what a superb job I have in government.
  I join the hon. Members for Mid-Sussex and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) in their tributes to the work done daily, and even as we speak, around the world by our armed forces. I also pay tribute to their families, who bear much of the strain even in normal circumstances, but particularly at this time of year.
  I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in paying tribute to the work that our forces do around the world. Time and again—most recently in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Mozambique and Sierra Leone—they have shown that they can make a real and positive difference to people's lives. It is possible to make such a difference because our forces, and those who serve in them, are second to none.
  The reform and modernisation programme which we are well on the way to implementing following the strategic defence review will make our forces even better placed to act. A massive programme of investment is under way to improve their ability to deploy rapidly and effectively to crises and to make a decisive difference when they arrive. In the past few months, for example, we have announced the provision of new strategic lift for our forces. We are leasing the C17 and then procuring the A400M in a £4 billion airlift package. We are also acquiring roll-on, roll-off ferries and new logistics ships—another £1.25 billion of investment in our forces.
  448
  All of that is being funded from a defence budget which, for the first time since the mid-1980s, is enjoying a sustained real-terms increase. In the next three years, we are providing, even after inflation, £1.25 billion of new money for defence. That reinforces the Government's commitment to our forces, and it also shows that we are very serious about defence.
  I am not sure what the Tory party is serious about these days, and I am no better informed following the speech made by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). However, as a close observer of—and active participant in—the internal battles of the Labour party in the 1980s, I recognise many of the symptoms that accompanied the Militant takeover of our party. I counsel Conservative Members to read the book on that period, because they would do well to relate it to their own experience.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said something that was familiar to everyone who remembers those days, when he spoke of a sell-out over everything. I remember the Militant Tendency's view that every deal that anyone ever made was a sell-out. That is the ideology—the mindset—that drives parties to destruction, along with the rejection of history. It is very difficult to raise any issue relating to the previous Government, because it appears that no Conservative Member ever had any connection with that body. They all wish to consign that Government to another period of history. The deselection of Members of Parliament has even been proposed.
  I can tell Conservative Members from hard experience that all those factors make a great formula for staying in opposition. One would think that they would have read the book, skipped the gory bits, and tried to reach the conclusion. However, they seem intent on working their way through it.
  Mr. Soames: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, whose jokes are not quite up to it, could deal with a serious point. Under the new arrangements for European defence, in the event of the European Union deciding that it wished to go ahead with one of the Petersberg tasks, from whom would the rules of engagement emanate? What would be the role of the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe in such a mission?
  Mr. Spellar: I shall come on to the European issue. However, I fully understand that the hon. Gentleman, as part of the reasonable tendency in the Conservative party, must grieve at the state of his party and recognise exactly how accurate my description of it was. When I have dealt with European defence, we shall see whether I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question to his satisfaction.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) talked about the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and I pay tribute to his chairmanship of that body.
  The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) spoke of the speculation in parts of the Scottish media about the direction that the Chinook was taking. We have no evidence to support that speculation. Furthermore, irrespective of destination, nothing gainsays the need to maintain safe flying rules. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also welcomed the Bill on the

  449
  International Criminal Court, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen). I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his offer of help to expedite that legislation, and hope that such help will come from all parts of the House, including from those on the Conservative Front Bench.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) spoke movingly about the situation in Israel. He always speaks with depth and from the heart on that issue, and I am sure that my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will take on board his comments.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) spoke on Kashmir, and is a strong advocate of that cause. Her comments will also have been widely noted.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) spoke about the regional level of government. He will remember that the Prime Minister said in Warsaw that we have to see what the people of Europe are looking for in terms of government in the EU and be prepared to respond to that. The hon. Gentleman also referred to Turkey and Sri Lanka, but his contribution was slightly marred by its lack of any condemnation of the terrorism taking place in those countries.
  The issue that has dominated much of the debate, and the media, over recent weeks is our plans for improving Europe's defence capability. A good deal of what has been said has been misleading and I welcome this opportunity to set the record straight, especially in view of some of the near conspiracy theories that have come from the Opposition. That is not a new development; nor is the move to improve Europe's defence capability. It is a direct consequence of the treaty of Maastricht and of the NATO conferences at Berlin and Washington.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). Will he recognise that he and his right hon. Friends did not even vote for Maastricht?
  Mr. Spellar: Probably the hon. Gentleman did not either. He is once again trying to deny his party's history. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise other matters, I have to deal with them, otherwise he will say that I have not given an answer. He refers to Maastricht, which is exactly the point that I am making. His party, when in government, put Maastricht through the House. He rightly points out that we voted against it. I am not entirely sure of his logic, but he is demonstrating the continuity on this issue that exists between Governments of both parties.
  We have ensured that the organisation which provides our security adapts to changing circumstances. That is not a damaging development, because a stronger Europe means a stronger NATO. A stronger Europe will be able to act as a force for good in the world.
  The United Kingdom has played a leading role in this debate, ever since the Prime Minister called for fresh thinking in autumn 1998. We have shaped its course; we have ensured that it is focused on what really matters—the strength of European capability.
  Mr. Howard rose—
  Mr. Spellar: The headline goal agreed at Helsinki last December was the result, and the pledges made at last month's capability conference were the responses of the member states.
  450
  A lot has been made of Secretary Cohen's comments. He says that we need to establish a co-operative, collaborative mechanism as far as the European security and defence policy and NATO are concerned. As long as there is openness, transparency and a non-competitive relationship, the United States will remain committed. We have that.
  Mr. Howard rose—
  Mr. Spellar: Defence Secretary Cohen also said that Operation Allied Force in Kosovo revealed huge disparities in the military capabilities of NATO members. It showed that significant new investment was necessary to improve NATO's ability. He said that the European Union's proposals to develop a 60,000-man rapid reaction force will allow Europe to deal swiftly and effectively with local challenges to security when NATO itself is not engaged militarily.
  Mr. Soames: When will the hon. Gentleman answer the question? Who will be responsible in EU military operations for writing the rules of engagement, and what will be the role of DSACEUR in the command structure?
  Mr. Spellar: The European Union will be working with NATO's military planning capabilities. [Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is so resistant to the idea of working with allies. In NATO, we regularly work with allies. There is a tendency among those on the Opposition Benches not to want to work with any other country. They do not want to work with Europe—they did not even want to work with Australia over East Timor. Australia has been our ally for decades, coming to our aid any time, yet the Tories gave it the brush off.
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have so much shouting. [Interruption.] Order. The Minister has the Floor—he is entitled to shout, but no one else is.
  Mr. Davies rose—
  Mr. Spellar: Let us deal with the reality. This is a move to enhance NATO's military capability, working with NATO. At the Birmingham NATO informal conference, Secretary Cohen indicated the support of the United States for this initiative. Then, last week, he rightly identified problems which, if they arose, would create difficulties. Equally, he indicated that the United States supports the European security and defence policy.
  Conservative Members may wish to take the hermit approach of bewailing the state of the world. The Government, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are working with other countries to enhance NATO's capabilities. That is the future of defence, and that is why the Conservative party will stay in the past.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Pope.]
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993
  Motion made,

  451
  That, for the purposes of their approval under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000–01, the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2000–01 and the Pre-Budget Report 2000 shall be treated as if they were instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).—[Mr. Pope.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made,
  That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July 2001.—[Mr. Pope.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
  Motion made,
  That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
  Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
  Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
  Line 48, at the end insert the words: —
  '(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, wheremore than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Pope.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  Flooding (Lewes)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome the opportunity to raise an issue of great and continuing importance to my constituents, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is aware, given the aftermath of the floods and the problems that are apparent.
  As the Minister attended the debate that I initiated on 25 October, he does not need me to tell him of the major problems in Lewes and elsewhere in the south-east—including in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—and in towns such as Uckfield and Alfriston. People were evacuated from 400 houses and many have still not returned; the retail and business centre suffered significant damage. Even businesses that were not damaged have experienced a 50 per cent. drop in trade because people have not been coming into Lewes to shop.
  The disaster is not merely localised in Lewes; it is national. If it had happened in the United States, for example, it might have resulted in presidential action under US legislation. That has not occurred in this country. A national disaster calls for a national response, but we have not seen that—even with the best will in the world on the part of the Minister.
  I am grateful to the Minister for visiting Lewes so quickly and for his continued interest. His Cabinet colleagues have also shown an interest and I do not doubt the Government's sincerity and good intentions in trying to help people in my constituency. We have had plenty of tea and sympathy, but—I do not want to be aggressive—we need hard cash to deal with the problem; we cannot do it all ourselves. That is the strong message that my constituents want to give the Minister.
  We have received some Government help: an indication that an extra £51 million will be spent on flood defences for the whole country over the next four years. The Environment Agency has noted, however, that £55 million will be needed for Sussex alone.
  It is not even certain that the money allocated for flood defences will get through. The Minister may be aware of a meeting of the flood defence committee in Sussex only last week, when the Environment Agency's request for a 15 per cent. increase was rejected by the committee, which allocated only 10 per cent. An Environment Agency news release states:
  this will almost certainly mean cutbacks in work on new major construction projects such as Lewes.
  That is the last thing my constituents want to hear; it adds insult to injury. After all the devastation that they face, we are told that essential work that the Environment Agency wants to carry out cannot be funded. If it cannot be funded even now, when will it ever be funded?
  I welcome the fact that the Government have asked the Environment Agency to undertake a study of the Ouse and the Uck basin so that we can understand exactly why the problems occurred and assess what needs to be done. That is absolutely right. The agency is working on that and a report should be ready by the end of January. That is the right response from the Government.

  453
  We need a further response from the Government to follow that up. Will they undertake to fund the works that the Environment Agency recommends for the Ouse and the Uck, or will the scheme gather dust until the next flood? That is my key question to the Minister. Will he review the arrangements for responsibility for flood defences to which I and other Members have drawn the attention of the House, and which were referred to in the report of the Environment Sub-Committee? Those arrangements do not work; they are ludicrous. As recently as last week, one body was making a request while another refused to grant it. Those arrangements need to be changed.
  My constituents want other lessons to be learned. What the Government can do above all else is give an undertaking or guarantee so far as possible, given the powers of nature. I accept that nature has an impact that cannot be gainsaid. Nevertheless, my constituents want an assurance that, so far as possible, the necessary work will be done.
  There is some concern about the predictive ability of the Environment Agency. It clearly did not anticipate the extent of the flooding in Lewes. People in Lewes are increasingly concerned about the perceived inadequacy of the warning system. The Environment Agency issued a severe flood warning at 11.10 am on the day of the floods, but, for one reason or another, it was not communicated to the majority of the population. That may not be the Environment Agency's job, but the fact remains that people were not aware that that flood warning had been issued.
  In my view, there is no substitute for low-tech solutions involving sirens and loud hailer announcements in the town, but that was not done. Perhaps the broadcast media should be required to interrupt their programmes, whatever they are, to warn people that a severe flood warning has been issued. I believe that no such requirement exists, so I should be interested to hear the Minister's response to that point.
  The Government have made much of the support that they provide under the Bellwin scheme. The Prime Minister has said that 100 per cent. of local costs will be met. In the previous debate that I initiated, the Minister told me:
  Local authorities need applications to be dealt with as quickly as possible so that funds are released.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 25 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 66WH.]
  My information from Lewes district council today is that its claim was submitted early and in due course, but there still has been no written acknowledgement of the process time for its claim. If that is true, it is outrageous and unacceptable and, frankly, there is no excuse, given the strong commitment that the Minister has made. I have no doubt that he wants the claims to be deal with quickly, but that is not happening and he needs to ask his civil servants why.
  The county council has told me that it has submitted a £6 million bid under the Bellwin scheme. It is concerned that it will get nothing like that amount, for reasons that I gave in the previous debate. The Bellwin scheme does not take account of all relevant factors. It assumes an excess of £100 per building in insurance terms, when the excess is actually £105. Will the Bellwin scheme be remedied for the current claims to ensure that the Prime
  454
  Minister's wish that 100 per cent. of local costs will be met, or will the flawed formula be applied, in which case local authorities will receive nowhere near 100 per cent?
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) not only for giving way but for initiating this debate. I want to emphasise—not to him, but certainly to the wider public, including the Minister—that the anxiety is that, although we know that a long-term scheme can be prepared, we want some immediate compensation for the damage that has been done. So far, we are not getting the information that will give people hope that a start can be made in alleviating the awful problems that they face.
  Mr. Baker: I wholly concur with that intervention.
  I remind the Minister that in 1987 the county council claimed £9 million for what it thought was legitimate expenditure under the Bellwin scheme, but it was paid less than £2 million—less than 25 per cent. I do not believe that it was adding things on for the sake of it; it was a genuine claim. As the right hon. Member for Wealden rightly says, the consequence is that we have problems with current services. It is estimated that the damage to the county council's road network will cost £3.5 million to put right. I have a list of closed roads—the Minister is welcome to a copy if he wants one—which the county council has no money to open. There are pages and pages of roads that are shut until further notice in East Sussex.
  I previously mentioned to the Minister the impact on listed buildings in the conservation area in Lewes. He said, in his helpful way, that English Heritage might look into that matter and provide funds. Indeed, his colleague, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, helpfully sent the district council information about that. However, I am afraid that Ministers have been misinformed because when the district council contacted English Heritage's south-east regional office, it received a very discouraging letter. The letter, which is dated 8 December—it is very recent—states:
  You are quite correct that although we have the power to offer grant-aid to grade II listed buildings in Conservation Areas we do not generally have the resources to do so. The … main exception is our Emergency grants scheme. Unfortunately, I am not sure that this scheme will be able to provide much help in the context of the Lewes flooding.
  As you will see from the desk instructions, the Emergency grant scheme refers to emergency in the restricted circumstances in which events have caused significant damage or structural instability which may lead to imminent collapse or subsequent loss of historic fabric. My guess is that the main impact of flooding on buildings in Lewes has been to create a situation where the buildings need to dry out and be "restored" before they can be brought fully back into use … I am very sorry not to be able to write with a more positive message.
  Therefore, that avenue, which the Minister helped to identify, has been shut off by English Heritage. Will the Government provide money to help with listed buildings, because English Heritage clearly will not do so under its terms of reference?
  I remind the Minister that 134 grade 1 and grade 2 buildings in Lewes have been damaged by the floods, together with 230 unlisted buildings in the conservation area. That has had a major impact on the townscape of one of the top 50 towns in the country. The owners cannot rectify all the problems themselves, and the insurance companies will not cover problems that

  455
  have been unearthed, such as the need for restoration work or work to deal with woodworm. Problems that could not have been anticipated needed to be dealt with there and then, but they were not covered by insurance.
  On insurance, I have previously raised with the Minister the plight of those most affected. The Government's response—I entirely understand it—was that they were not responsible for making up the deficiencies of those who have not taken out insurance. I accept that view, but it does not cut much mustard with the 70 or 80-year-old pensioners who cannot afford insurance. They went out for a bag of beans and came back to find their houses under water. They have been out of their houses ever since and they have lost everything.
  The district council chairman, Maureen Messer, and the mayor, Jim Daly, have set up an appeal fund and the Government could salve their conscience at little cost—without paying to individuals—by making a significant contribution to the fund. The money could be used to help those most badly affected. Will the Government contribute to the appeal funds set up by local authorities to help those who are most in distress? The Government make great play in their policies such as the new deal of helping the most vulnerable. Here is a classic case of people who are vulnerable. If the Government put in money, it would be very well targeted and used effectively.
  The Minister has considered the issue carefully, so he will know that there has been wide variation in the response times from insurance companies and in how sympathetic they have been to householders. Unfortunately, some insurance companies have been unnecessarily difficult or have asked for ridiculously increased premiums. I am aware of one business in Lewes that has been asked for a sixfold increase in its premium by its insurance company. The Minister will also be aware that some insurance companies are reluctant to renew the policies at all.
  In one case, the insurer of a commercial property wants to deal with a claim on the ground of diminution in value. That means that the insurer will pay out less on the claim because it says that the property is now worth less and that it is unlettable because it is on the flood plain. Such an attitude cannot be allowed to continue. Other insurance companies have been very good, but there is clearly a need for the Government to introduce a regulation of standard terms and conditions for insurance companies to ensure that such wide variations do not occur.
  Insurance companies should be encouraged not simply to replace like for like. It may be in their interest to upgrade the protection available to buildings because that would reduce future claims on themselves as well as providing extra protection for the insured. Like for like has no future in this regard.
  On council tax exemptions, the Minister may have seen national coverage—in The Guardian and elsewhere—of my constituents who have unfortunately been asked to pay council tax on the temporary buildings, such as caravans, mobile homes and shacks, that they have occupied since they were forced out of their houses. I have looked into
  456
  this issue and the district council has no alternative but to send out such bills. That is very regrettable, but it is the law. I suggest to the Minister that there is a difference between people who choose to live in a caravan as a normal habitation and those who are forced into a caravan for a temporary period against their wishes because their property has been damaged. The Government should be sympathetic and exempt from council tax the people who live in caravans or other mobile homes temporarily while they are out of their houses.
  The Minister might be aware from previous conversations and from representations that have been made to him—either directly or indirectly—of the severe impact that the floods are having on businesses in the town. Even multinational companies such as Safeway are yet to reopen. That company is not short of money and could pull a shop off the peg, but it remains shut. If Safeway cannot reopen, what hope is there for small individual businesses?
  The Government need to help such people. I am not asking them to give each business a sum, but the businesses are doing well to get themselves back on their feet. They intend to have a promotion in Lewes early in the new year and it would be a nice gesture for the Government to help that promotion by providing seedcorn funding, perhaps to Sussex Enterprise, so that businesses are made aware of their support. That would help local businesses to communicate with the public so that they get people to come to Lewes and get used to the idea of the shops being open.
  The Environment Agency is dealing with some businesses unsympathetically. I refer in particular to Caffyns, the motor dealers, which has asked me to mention its case. It lost a multi-million pound sum in the floods, but received a letter from the Environment Agency saying that, following the floods on 12 and 13 October:
  it appears that you lost a quantity of oil. This oil escaped from your premises and polluted controlled waters. The Environment Agency has powers to recover reasonable costs incurred in establishing the source of pollution … This is a preliminary letter advising that an invoice will be sent in the future.
  Not only had the company lost a massive sum, but because it was flooded and not properly warned the agency was charging it for oil that leaked out. That is hardly business friendly and Caffyns is understandably upset by that letter.
  On farmers, the Minister's office has been helpful about payments for flax, which I raised with him. However, he should take note of other issues. As the right hon. Member for Wealden said, farmers have suffered. Their fields are still under water and they face a desperate winter. That issue needs to be considered separately.
  Sussex Enterprise is going to help, but its budget for this year is running out. It needs help. Will the Minister consider supplying extra funds for those businesses through such channels? Lewes people are responding well and with spirit to a desperate disaster. Against all the odds, a late-night shopping event was successful because the people of Lewes came out in their droves to support the shops. It was great to see. Lewes people and the council will do all they can to get the town back on its feet, but we cannot do that alone. The floods are a national disaster and need a national response. We need Government cash. Will we get it?
  10.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on the way in which he has represented his constituents and their needs. No one denies that Lewes experienced severe flooding. As the hon. Gentleman said, I, as the Minister responsible for the matter, went to Lewes at the peak of the floods. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office also went there to talk to local people, including the hon. Gentleman, traders and business people, about the pressures on them and the costs of recovery. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, also went to Lewes very recently, and wrote to me with a number of detailed points about concerns that local residents and traders had raised with him.
  The Government have stressed repeatedly that we do not want to leave people on their own following what have been the worst floods in this country since 1947 and the wettest autumn for over 330 years. We recognise that there is a need for clean-up and for support, and we want to play our role in that. We are trying to find ways of helping, especially in partnership with local authorities, which are the main point of contact for communities. I shall try to tackle a few of those points.
  I know that other hon. Members present represent flood-hit areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) represents the village of Gowdall, which has had national publicity and is one of the places that I visited, accompanied by my hon. Friend. I have spoken to local residents and I well understand the concern and misery felt by those whose properties have been flooded and the disruption that floods cause to businesses.
  On the question of declaring a national emergency, the floods have indeed been widespread, but I sometimes feel that the phrase "national emergency" is the subject of confusion. Declaring a national emergency does little except give the Government additional powers—powers which, I am glad to say, we did not need in relation to the recent floods, because the existing framework, involving local authorities, emergency services and the Environment Agency, worked efficiently, and the response from the various bodies was excellent. Nothing would have been gained from declaring a national emergency: no extra money or resources would have become available and the powers for central Government that a declaration would have provided were not necessary.
  As for money, the hon. Member for Lewes mentioned the sum of £51 million. I should stress that that is additional to an already increasing budget and it means that we can bring forward more flood defence schemes. We have increased the grant for river-based flood schemes by 20 per cent. and made funding available for whole catchment area studies; the hon. Gentleman's area is benefiting from the latter funding. Regional flood defence committees play an important part, although I do not have any information on extra spending in the Sussex area and I am not familiar with the figures bandied about as to how that money might be spent.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Bellwin formula and whether flood defences identified in his area would be funded. If the catchment area study identifies ways to strengthen the protection for Lewes and they meet the criteria laid down—relating to environmental impact,
  458
  technical standards and cost-benefit analysis—they will qualify for grant aid from my Department, and I am sure that any such scheme would be advanced by the regional flood defence committee. Funding mechanisms for flood and coastal defences in this country are under review. People have raised questions about how they work and whether they are efficient, and we are prepared to examine those issues carefully.
  The hon. Gentleman must remember that the floods that affected Lewes and Uckfield were wholly exceptional in terms of the volume of waters and the time scale in which the waters went down. That has a bearing on the attitude of insurance companies, which are well aware that the situation is atypical.
  Flood warnings were issued in Lewes. When I spoke to local people, they confirmed that. Some local people, for various reasons, might not have picked up the warnings, but they were broadcast on the national media—I saw the warnings about Lewes 300 miles away—and local media. Leaflets have been distributed in flood-risk areas in Sussex warning people that they might live in such an area and telling them what action they need to take when Environment Agency warnings are issued. In addition, loudspeaker vans toured Lewes warning people.
  People can opt into the automatic voice-messaging warning system, which is provided free of charge by the Environment Agency. Any of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who would like to take advantage of that facility can do so simply by contacting the agency. The system is quite sophisticated: not only does it ring up the desired number, but it is possible to programme in numbers to be rung if the person is not there, so that the message can follow that person; and it can ring portable phones.
  Mr. Baker: I understand all that and agree with most of it, except for the bit about loudspeakers, but the fact remains that a large number of people—for various reasons—did not know that a warning had been issued. That is what we have to address.
  Mr. Morley: In one of the follow-ups from the floods, I asked the Environment Agency to provide me with a detailed report. It is one of the issues that it will be addressing. I have made it clear that although I think that the national flood warnings worked well and the response was good, we can make improvements. We can learn lessons from what happened in the October floods, and we are more than willing to do that.
  I know that councils have submitted their bids, but I do not know details of the Lewes council bid. However, I know that bids under £10,000 are automatic. Understandably, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, bids of more than £10,000 have to be audited. I shall follow up the matter to ascertain whether progress is being made. I am anxious that bids be resolved as quickly as possible.
  Excesses for buildings insurance are the normal part of the Zűrich mutual insurance policies that local authorities tend to have. They can address the excesses within their own insurance cover. The Bellwin formula has been uprated. I think that most local authorities appreciate that it is now 100 per cent., and automatic. It is designed to speed up payments, and it can make interim payments. Following discussions with the Local Government

  459
  Association, I have made it clear that we are willing to review the full workings of the Bellwin system to ascertain whether it addresses all the issues that are required of it.
  The claims that are being submitted come under the existing Bellwin scheme; the review is for the future. The Bellwin formula covers temporary road repairs but not road rebuilding, which is part of a capital programme. The Bellwin formula was not set up to deal with that.
  I was surprised by the hon. Gentleman's comments about English Heritage. Following previous discussions, I wrote to English Heritage—I promised that I would—and its reply is dated today. Its response is encouraging:
  English Heritage has offered Lewes's conservation officer, Mike Lea, a technical conference on flood damage amelioration and disaster preparedness.
  It is seeking a suitable venue.
  The next paragraph reads:
  English Heritage's Regional Director … has offered Lewes Council grant aid assistance for a consultant or temporary member of staff to aid its conservation officer at
  what is clearly
  a stressful time.
  It has made the offer of technical staff
  to give advice to the local planning authority … on matters concerned with material damage, structural engineering, and the drying out of listed buildings.
  The letter continues:
  English Heritage runs an emergency grants scheme—
  that has been mentioned—
  and has sent guidance notes … to Lewes's conservation officer in order that he may advise the public.
  English Heritage
  do not have legal powers to grant aid Grade II listed buildings … except where they lie within conservation areas.
  It is
  also limited by resources to schemes already within our—
  that is English Heritage's—
  Heritage Economic Regeneration Scheme areas. The emergency grants scheme is designed to deal with pressing structural instabilities threatening imminent collapse.
  460
  That may be the case in some instances from flood damage. The scheme is not designed for
  general drying out after flooding, which in the majority of cases will be dealt with
  by the individual's insurance company. All this information has been made available on English Heritage's website.
  Perhaps that goes a little further than what English Heritage suggested to the hon. Gentleman. I am surprised that it did not stress these points to him, which I think are helpful to Lewes.
  I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about those who are uninsured. I met some people in that position in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole, in Gowdall. It is a difficult matter for the Government, and there is not a great deal that we can do, as the hon. Gentleman has fairly conceded. We do not have assessors and we cannot handle the matter. We are not geared up for it. Basically, we cannot help people with insurable risks.
  I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about local appeals, but there are potential problems. If one such appeal is granted, basically help will have to be given to all. Decisions will then have to be made on how to split funds. I can envisage many potential complications. I shall reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said about that. I have tried to help out farmers, and he is aware of the progress that has been made. I am aware of the work that has been done by Sussex Enterprise, and I pay tribute to it, and by the Small Business Service, in helping local businesses. Business rate exemption can be obtained, and I think that Lewes council has taken that up. Incidentally, 75 per cent. of that is paid for by central Government. That can help.
  It is a good idea to give some support in the form of business promotion, especially at Christmas. It is a matter for other Departments, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will reflect on the suggestion and take advice from the relevant Departments to ascertain what we can do. Whenever I have approached the local media, I have stressed that many businesses in Lewes and Uckfield and other parts of the country are up and running and deserve the support of local people. I am delighted to hear of the successful venture that has been promoted, and I wish all businesses well in the run-up to Christmas. I hope that they get the support that they deserve from other people.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Battle of Imjin (50th Anniversary)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will reconsider his decision not to allow representatives of the 1 Battalion of the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment to take part in the 50th Anniversary Commemoration of the Battle of Imjin, planned to take place next April in Korea. [142077]

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

WALES

  Classroom Assistants
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs as classroom assistants have been created to date under the new deal in Wales. [141691]

  Mr. Hanson
  Information on the destination of new deal participants is not collected at this level of detail.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  TRIPS Council
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what documentation has been prepared by his Department for the TRIPS Council to demonstrate compliance of the United Kingdom intellectual property law with the TRIPS Agreement; what response his Department has received from the TRIPS Council and other bodies to which such documentation was addressed; and if he will place copies of such documentation and responses in the Library. [1420831

  Dr. Howells
  As required by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, the United Kingdom notified its main dedicated intellectual property laws and regulations to the WTO. These were published by the WTO during 1996 in documents with the references IP/N/1GBR/1, IP/N/l/GBR/C/1, IP/N/1/GBR/C/2, IP/N/1/GBR/T/1, IP/N/1/GBR/T/2, IP/N/l/GBR/G/1, IP/N/l/GBR/G/2, IP/N/l/GBR/D/1, IP/N/1/GBR/D/2, IP/N/1/GBR/P/1, IP/N/ 1 /GBR/P/2, IP/N/1 /GBR/P/3, IP/N/l/GBR/L/1, IP/N/l/GBR/U/1, IP/N/2/GBR/1 and IP/N/6/GBR/1.

  The United Kingdom participated in reviews of developed country WTO Members' TRIPS implementing legislation carried out by the TRIPS Council throughout 1996 and 1997. Records of introductory statement made by the United Kingdom delegation, questions put to the United Kingdom delegation and the responses given
  16W
  were published by the WTO in four documents with references IP/Q/GBR/1, IP/Q2/GBR/1, IP/Q3/GBR/1 and IP/Q4/GBR/1.

  All of these documents are available to the public on the WTO website, www.wto.org.

  Employment Agency Regulations
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish the Employment Agency regulations. [141693]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I intend to publish final proposals shortly.

  Electricity Bill
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total electricity bill of his Department for each of the last four years. [141386]

  Dr. Howells
  The total electricity bills for this Department for the last four years are given as follows:

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  1,902,288

  1997–98

  1,958,842

  1998–99

  1,591,965

  1999–2000

  1,828,952

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government will submit evidence on the national minimum wage to the Low Pay Commission; and if the evidence will be published. [142492]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government have submitted their evidence to the Low Pay Commission today. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It is also available on the DTI website www.dti.gov.uk/er/nmw

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Official Publications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list each new publication issued by her Department since 1997; and what the total cost was to the Department of each publication. [141461]

  Clare Short
  The majority of the Department for International Development's publications are listed in the Department's Publications Catalogue, which is updated on a six-monthly basis and is available in the Library of the House. It would be disproportionately expensive to list the total cost to the Department of each individual publication produced since 1997.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's spending on official publications was for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01; and what the planned expenditure is for 2001–02. [141451]
  17W
  Clare Short
  Expenditure on official publications in the relevant financial years was as follows:

  £000

  1996–97

  375

  1997–98

  382

  1998–99

  537

  1999–2000

  658

  2000–01

  501

  Figures for 2000–01 include expenditure up to the beginning of December. Planned expenditure levels for future years have not yet been finalised.

  Globalisation and Development
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she plans to publish the Government's new White Paper on Globalisation and Development; and if she will make a statement. [142476]

  Clare Short
  The White Paper has been published today. It is entitled "Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation work for the Poor".

  This White Paper stands alongside our first White Paper published in 1997. It reaffirms our commitment to the elimination of poverty and the achievement of the International Development Targets.

  We are living at a time of profound historical change. One in five of the world's population—two thirds of them women—live in abject poverty, at a time of growing material plenty. If the poorest countries can be drawn into the global economy, and get increasing access to modern knowledge and technology, we could move forward to a period of massive progress and the removal of abject poverty from the human condition. But if this is not done, we will see growing poverty, marginalisation, conflict and environmental degradation.

  We need to work collectively to tackle the problems of conflict and corruption, boost investment in education and health, spread the benefits of technology and research, strengthen the international financial system, reduce barriers to trade, tackle environmental problems and make development assistance more effective.

  This White Paper sets out the Government's policies in these areas. It reflects our commitment to work across all parts of Government in order to work with other governments and international institutions to significantly reduce poverty. It provides an agenda for managing globalisation in a way that will help to ensure that the new wealth, technology and knowledge being generated brings benefits to the world's poor.

HEALTH

  Flu Vaccine
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each of the last five years the target month for completing the flu vaccination programme and the target take-up rates to be achieved by that time together with the rates actually achieved. [141539]
  18W
  Yvette Cooper
  No target month is set for the completion of influenza immunisations and therefore no target take-up rates were set. This year, for the first time, we have set a target of 60 per cent. uptake in those aged 65 years and over.

  The most current data on influenza immunisation uptake rates can be found in "Health Trends" volume 30, number 2, 1998, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Patients Forums
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department will provide further guidance on the new Patient Advocacy and Liaison Service; and if he will make a statement. [141528]

  Ms Stuart
  Details surrounding the arrangements for proposals to introduce a patient advocacy and liaison service are outlined in chapter 10 of the National Health Service Plan. We held a series of national stakeholder seminars to develop the detail of the policy based on the best practice from community health councils and others. We will disseminate the results at a national event early in the new year.

  Organs
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many organs, by type, have been retained by hospitals in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [141526]

  Mr. Denham
  The Chief Medical Officer has conducted an investigation into organ retention in the National Health Service which includes a census of all organs in England. An analysis is being carried out and the results will be available in due course. Health services in Wales are the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Local Authority Scrutiny
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department will provide further guidance on local authority scrutiny of the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [141527]

  Ms Stuart
  Guidance on the scrutiny of the National Health Service by local authority overview and scrutiny committees will be issued following the passage of forthcoming legislation.

  The legislation in this context is an amendment to the Local Government Act 2000; accordingly guidance will be issued to local authorities by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Concurrently, the Department will issue guidance to the NHS on its roles and responsibilities in relation to the new scrutiny arrangements.

  The NHS will have a duty to provide information to local authority overview and scrutiny committees which will make reports and recommendations to health bodies based on the review of that information.

  Chief executives will be required to attend scrutiny committee meetings to answer questions on the operation of the health services.
  19W
  NHS bodies will also have a duty to consult with the scrutiny committees on major changes to health services.

  Citizens' Councils
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department will provide further details on the proposed citizens' councils; and if he will make a statement. [141530]

  Mr. Denham
  The Citizens Council for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence was announced in the NHS Plan. We will be evaluating different models with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in spring 2001, and will make an announcement later in the year.

  Hepatitis C
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will allow access to confidential hepatitis C testing in the NHS without the necessity for those wishing to be tested having to volunteer to be a blood donor. [142246]

  Yvette Cooper
  Hepatitis C testing is available in the National Health Service other than through blood donation. Those who have been at risk of exposure to hepatitis C and who seek testing in the National Health Service should be offered well-informed advice and made aware of the implications of a positive test. Those who test positive will be referred to a specialist for confirmatory testing, further assessment and treatment, if appropriate.

  Community Hospitals (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were awaiting discharge from acute hospitals in Worcestershire at the end of(a) October, (b) September, (c) August, (d) July and (e) June. [141405]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  A one-day census undertaken by the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals National Health Service Trust found that of the 808 patients in trust hospitals on 14 June, 88 patients were awaiting discharge. On 5 November the figure was 80.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Not-for-profit Companies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what representations he has received on the adequacy of resources available to the NAO for investigating not-for-profit companies which have been set up at arms length from Central or Local Government to deliver services to the public and which depend in part or in whole on public finance. [141907]

  Mr. Sheldon
  The Public Accounts Commission last met on 18 July to consider and approve the National Audit Office's Corporate Plan for 2001–02 and beyond. This covered a bid for resources for the Office to undertake its financial audit and value for money duties. These resources include a small provision for the investigation of not-for-profit companies where the C&AG has secured access to—but not the audit of—records on a case by case basis. However, under existing companies legislation the 20W
  C&AG is not permitted to undertake the financial audit of limited companies, nor does he have statutory access rights to limited companies. The Commission have advocated in their submission to the Sharman Review of Central Government audit that the C&AG should have full rights of audit and access to such companies.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Clergy Recruitment
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what measures are being taken by the Church of England to tackle shortages in recruitment of clergy. [141908]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  I understand from the Archbishops' Council, whose responsibility these matters are, that although the total number of stipendiary clergy in the Church of England is projected to decline on present trends, the number of new people coming forward for ordination training has risen over the last five years. It is equally encouraging that the number of non-stipendiary priests and Readers continues to grow.

  Church Repairs (VAT)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what recent representations he has received on reducing the rate of VAT on church repairs; and if he will make a statement. [141909]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  I was very encouraged, as indeed was the Church of England in general, by the announcement on 8 November by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of Exchequer that the Government wish to seek a reduction in the rate of VAT levied on repairs to listed buildings that are places of worship. I understand that a letter has already been sent to the European Commission on the scope for such a reduction. Any reductions in VAT realised in this area would directly benefit thousands of parishes who currently bear a very heavy and ongoing VAT burden in respect of the necessary repair of their churches.

  Ethical Investment Policy
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what representations he has received regarding the ethical investment policy of the Church of England. [141910]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Church Commissioners are advised by the Church of England's Ethical Investment Advisory Group, who constantly monitor representations on these areas and who review, co-ordinate and communicate policy on ethical investment issues on behalf of the three main investment bodies of the Church.

  Assets
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the value of the assets of the Church Commissioners in the financial years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [141911]
  21W
  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Commissioners' financial year ends on 31 December and their end year asset value is stated in their annual report, a copy of which will have been sent to the hon. Member. The total market value of their assets at the end of each year from 1997 to 1999 was:

  £ billion

  1997

  3.5

  1998

  3.7

  1999

  4.4

  For the three year period 1997 to 1999, the total return on the Commissioners' assets averaged 19.7 per cent. p.a. against the WM All Funds average of 17.3 per cent.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Global Warming
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the findings of current scientific evidence on the contributions to global warming of(a) the greenhouse effect, (b) sun spots and (c) other cyclical influences on climate. [141521]

  Mr. Meacher
  Recent scientific results from the Hadley Centre have shown that the observed temperature rise over the last 50 years is most likely to have been caused by greenhouse gasses emitted through human activities. There is some evidence of solar effects causing warming in the early part of the century but these are now secondary to the effects of greenhouse gasses. Cyclical influences due to the earth's orbit are important on time scales of thousands of years but currently have a negligible influence on global warming.

  Electricity Bill
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the total electricity bill of his Department was for each of the last four years. [141384]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Total electricity costs were as follows:

  £

  1996–97

  3,191,532

  1997–98

  3,137,493

  1998–99

  3,284,279

  1999–2000

  2,851,554

  Concordat (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish a concordat with the Department of Regional Development in Northern Ireland. [142394]

  Ms Armstrong
  I am pleased to say that we have now reached agreement with Gregory Campbell MLA, the Northern Ireland Minister for Regional Development, on the terms of a concordat between us. This is being 22W
  published today and copies will be placed in the House Library. The concordat is also being made available on the Department's website.

  Starter Homes Initiative
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to announce final details of the Starter Homes Initiative. [141402]

  Mr. Mullin
  We set out for consultation our proposals for the Starter Home Initiative for consultation in our Housing Green Paper, published in April. In July we announced that we would provide £250 million of extra funding for the initiative. Further details, including invitations to organisations to bid for funding, will be announced soon.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress there has been on the Small Area Health Statistic Unit study, on health effects around landfill sites. [142395]

  Mr. Meacher
  On the advice of the Director of the Small Area Health Statistic Unit (SAHSU), in the light of problems with the scale and interpretation of data, a revised protocol (study design) has been agreed. A summary of the revised protocol will shortly be available on the DOH website www.doh.gov.uk/envchemh.htm. As a result of this we are now expecting the report from SAHSU by summer 2001.

  Connex South Eastern
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to ensure that greater priority is given in the repair of track to the restoration of full normal line speeds for the services operated by Connex South Eastern. [141340]

  Mr. Hill
  The industry is working hard to achieve a steady improvement in rail services across all parts of the country. Rai1track expect that nationally train services will be largely back to normal by the end of January. The Rail Recovery Action Group, chaired by the Minister for Transport, has been formed to help to get services back to normal as soon as possible.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what additional guidance he will offer to local authorities to ensure that the concerns of local residents over planning applications for mobile telephone masts can be more fully represented;[141712]

  (2) following the recommendation that the precautionary principle should be exercised with regard to the siting of mobile telecommunication masts, what additional protection the Government plan to offer local authorities and their communities to avert the need for court action. [141713]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (chaired by Sir William Stewart) published its report on mobile phones and health on
  23W
  11 May 2000. The Group recommended a precautionary approach, comprising a series of specific measures, to the use of mobile phone technologies until we have more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects. In their response, the Government accept the recommended precautionary approach advised by the Stewart report. Our acceptance of a precautionary approach is limited to the specific recommendations in the Group's report and the Government's response to them.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning wrote to all hon. Members for constituencies in England on 29 June 2000, to set out what we were doing to take forward the land-use planning recommendations in the Stewart report, and to reiterate how local planning authorities should treat applications for mobile phone development in the meantime. A similar letter was sent to all Council Leaders in England, copied to all Chief Planning Officers.

  On 31 July 2000, we issued a consultation paper to seek views on possible changes to the planning arrangements for telecommunications development. In particular, the consultation paper sought views on how to improve public consultation in the planning process. The consultation paper included a draft revised planning policy guidance note (PPG8—Telecommunications). The consultation period ended on 31 October. The Department is currently analysing the responses. We shall announce our conclusions as soon as practicable.

  Air Transport
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish his air transport consultation document. [142396]

  Mr. Mullin
  Tomorrow my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport will be launching a national consultation document on air transport, entitled "The Future of Aviation". This is the first major step towards a new White Paper on air transport. The consultation document invites views on a wide range of aviation and airports issues that underpin air transport policy. In particular, it will examine consumer issues; the best use of airspace and airport capacity; environmental questions; and planning for airport development. The closing date for responses is 12 April 2001. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House. Two supporting studies will also be issued alongside the consultation document: part 1 of a UK Air Freight Study and a study into the Potential Impact of Changes in Technology on the Development of Air Transport in the UK. Copies of these studies will also be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many owners of houses in multiple occupation have been prosecuted for permitting use of substandard accommodation in each of the last 20 years. [141686]

  Mr. Mullin
  Information is not collected from local authorities, in either England or Wales, on the number of owners of houses in multiple occupation who have been prosecuted for permitting use of substandard accommodation and this, therefore, is not centrally available.
  24W
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of and how many houses in multiple occupation did not have adequate fire escapes in(a) England in 1980 to 2000 and (b) Wales in 1980 to 1998. [141683]

  Mr. Mullin
  This information is not available centrally in England. However, in 1996, it was estimated that 27,500 traditional HMOs (bedsits) and purpose-built HMOs in England were unfit under section 352 of the Housing Act 1985 due to inadequate "means of escape". This was approximately 30 per cent. of the total number of these dwellings. There is no centrally available information for Wales.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people lived in houses in multiple occupation in each of the last 20 years. [141685]

  Mr. Mullin
  This information is not available in the form requested. Estimates of the number of people living in HMOs in 1991 and 1996 in England are provided in the table. There are no reliable sources of information for intervening years or prior to 1991. Comparable figures for residents living in hostels and bed and breakfast accommodation are not available.

  Number of people1

  19962

  1,592,000

  19913

  2,159,000

  1 Figures include people living in converted flats, purpose-built HMO and traditional HMO (bedsits)

  2 Figures from the English House Condition Survey 1996

  3 Figures from the English House Condition Survey 1991

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of and how many houses in multiple occupation were judged to be substandard in each of the last 20 years. [141684]

  Mr. Mullin
  This information is not available in the form requested. Comparable information on the standard of some houses in multiple occupation in England is available for 1991 and 1996 in the English House Condition Survey. However, this covers only standards relating to use as a dwelling generally rather than standards for multiple occupancy. There are no reliable sources of information for intervening years or prior to 1991. Information on the condition of hostels and bed and breakfast type accommodation is not centrally available.

  Substandard under section 604 only

  1996

  Number

  148,000

  Percentage

  16

  1991

  Number

  182,000

  Percentage

  14

  Note

  1. Substandard dwellings are taken as equivalent to unfit under Section 604 of the Housing Act 1985 (as subsequently amended)

  Driving Licence Regulations
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the revisions to the Motor Vehicle (Driving Licence) Regulations 1999 will be implemented. [141392]

  Mr. Hill
  The revised Regulations were laid on 7 December 2000 and will come into force on 1 January 2001.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list meetings he has had with the Mayor and Greater London Assembly about the introduction of congestion charging in Greater London. [141483]

  Mr. Hill
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have had any meetings with the Mayor or the Assembly specifically about the introduction of congestion charging in Greater London. I have regular meetings with the Mayor at which we cover topics of mutual interest. We have touched on congestion charging in this context.

  London Underground
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what meetings he has recently had with Transport for London concerning the London Underground. [141484]

  Mr. Hill
  I and other Ministers have frequent meetings with representatives of Transport for London on a variety of issues.

  Midland Metro
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has completed a preliminary assessment of the economic appraisal of the proposed extensions to the Midland Metro. [142494]

  Mr. Prescott
  In accordance with the policy set out in my Department's Guidance on Local Transport Plans, West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority sought a provisional view on the economic appraisal for two proposed extensions to the Midland Metro, prior to seeking the necessary powers under the Transport and Works Act (TWA). The extensions are between Wednesbury and Brierley Hill and to Birmingham city centre. We have now completed a provisional assessment of the appraisal. I am satisfied that on the basis of the available information the current proposals pass our economic appraisal tests for deciding eligibility for funding.

  This provisional view is given solely in respect of the economic appraisal, and does not in any way indicate any view that I may take on any subsequent TWA application. Any such application would be determined entirely on its merits in the light of all the relevant considerations, and only after all interested persons had been given a full opportunity to state their views.

  Should TWA powers be obtained, final approval of the project for funding would depend both on whether an updated economic appraisal, reflecting any changes to the scheme as a result of the TWA process or any other
  26W
  developments, demonstrates that the project still represents good value for money and on conclusion of a satisfactory agreement on funding.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what circumstances QMV applies to the Common Foreign and Security Policy, specifying the treaty base; from which treaty the power was derived; on what decisions it has been used; and in respect of which matters. [141431]

  Mr. Vaz
  Article 23 of the Treaty on European Union states that the Council shall act by qualified majority—when adopting joint actions, common positions or taking any other decision on the basis of a common strategy;—when adopting any decision implementing a joint action or a common position.

  These provisions formed part of the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Maastricht Treaty had stated (Article J.3(2))
  The Council, when adopting a joint action, shall define those matters on which decisions will be taken by qualified majority.

  Despite the availability of QMV, all decisions on the basis of Common Strategies have, in practice, been taken by consensus, with one exception. This was on the Joint Action on Russia (disarmament and non-proliferation), when one member state abstained. There was also one decision on a Common Position relating to the FRY, when one member state abstained.

  Article 23 of the TEU goes on to state that
  If a member of the Council declares that, for important and stated reasons of national policy, it intends to oppose the adoption of a decision to be taken by qualified majority, a vote shall not be taken. The Council may, acting by a qualified majority, request that the matter be referred to the European Council for decision by unanimity. The votes of the members of the Council shall be weighted in accordance with Article 205(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community. For their adoption, decisions shall require at least 62 votes in favour, cast by at least 10 members. This paragraph shall not apply to decisions having military or defence implications.

  Lord Levy
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Lord Levy's visit to Latin America was made on behalf of the Prime Minister as his personal envoy. [142076]

  Mr. Battle
  Yes.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the visits made by Lord Levy as a member of Panel 2000 and (b) the objectives and outcomes of these visits since 1 April 1998; and if he will make a statement. [142071]

  Mr. Battle
  Lord Levy's work for Panel 2000 has not included any visits.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the value is of the expenses that Lord Levy has claimed from Panel 2000 since 1 April 1998. [142070]
  27W
  Mr. Battle
  Membership of Panel 2000 is unpaid. Lord Levy has claimed no expenses.

  Family Visit Visas
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many appeals against a refusal of a visa to visit a family member in the UK have(a) been lodged at posts abroad and (b) been received by the Immigration Appellate Authority since (i) 2 October, (ii) 1 November and (iii) 1 December. [142087]

  Mr. Vaz
  Our latest information from the 100 largest entry clearance posts, which submit monthly statistical data, is that 18 family visit appeals had been lodged by the end of October. The Immigration Appellate Authority, which covers all 164 entry clearance posts, has received appeals as follows:

  Number

  2 October to 31 October

  1

  1 November to 30 November

  57

  1 December to 8 December

  23

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many refusals of a family visit visa application have been overturned by entry clearance managers after submission of an appeal since 2 October. [142089]

  Mr. Vaz
  According to the statistics received so far, two refusals (Islamabad and Lagos) have been overturned by entry clearance managers after submission of an appeal since 2 October.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances he has received from his Yugoslav counterpart that the new administration in Belgrade will co-operate with the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. [141396]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are in no doubt about their international obligation to co-operate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Contacts between ICTY and the Government in Belgrade are ongoing. In particular, the FRY Government have now agreed to the re-opening of the ICTY Liaison office in Belgrade.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the security situation in Presevo Valley. [141399]

  Mr. Vaz
  The activities of armed ethnic Albanian extremists in the Presevo Valley area of southern Serbia continue to be a matter of concern to the international community, as well as to the Serbian and Yugoslav authorities. We welcome the constructive dialogue between the Yugoslav authorities and KFOR/NATO on this issue, and are pleased that this has helped to lower tensions. A lasting resolution to the current situation can only be found through dialogue involving the local communities, not through confrontation or violence.
  28W
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the results of the Bosnia-Herzegovina general elections. [141398]

  Mr. Vaz
  Bosnia and Herzegovina held general elections under OSCE supervision on 11 November. Voters chose between 44 political parties and 6,000 candidates for six levels of Government. The OSCE released final verified results on 27 November. In the State-level Parliamentary Assembly and the Federation House of Representatives, moderate parties won a slim majority of seats. In Republika Srpska, candidates for the nationalist Serbian Democratic Party (SDS) won the Presidency and the Vice-presidency and emerged as the largest single party in the Republika Srpska National Assembly, with 31 of the 82 seats.

  Although it will take several months for coalition Governments to emerge in the Federation, Republika Srpska or in the State-level Parliamentary Assembly, both the war-time nationalist and moderate parties are claiming victory. Nationalists point to the increased SDS vote and the relative success of the HDZ and the SDA. In fact, the results confirmed the progressive trend (seen in every election since Dayton) way from the nationalist parties. Thus for the first time since Dayton, the nationalist parties failed to secure a majority at either Entity or State level.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to his Yugoslav counterpart on securing the release of the Kosovo Albanian prisoners detained in Serbia. [141397]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have repeatedly made clear the importance we attach to the rapid resolution of this issue. In a statement on 1 November, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary welcomed the release of Dr. Flora Brovina, who had been illegally detained by the Milosevic regime, and urged President Kostunica to release the other Kosovo Albanian prisoners detained in similar circumstances. We have re-emphasised this point in discussions through our Embassy in Belgrade.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the Yugoslav Government's demands that the Kumanavo agreement be renegotiated; and if he will make a statement. [141400]

  Mr. Vaz
  President Kostunica confirmed publicly on 3 December that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will respect both the Kumanavo Military Technical Agreement and UN Security Council Resolution 1244. We welcome the ongoing dialogue between KFOR/NATO and Yugoslav authorities on developments in the Presevo valley. A lasting solution in this area can be found only through dialogue.

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the WEU and the EU have agreed on how they are to co-operate during the transitional period until the EU's crisis-management structures become fully operational. [141336]
  29W
  Mr. Vaz
  Under the authority of WEU Secretary-General/CFSP High Representative, Javier Solana, there is close co-ordination between the WEU and the EU on the transfer of certain functions from the WEU to the EU.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements the EU has made for non-EU NATO members to contribute to EU decisions on defence crisis management. [141332]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Nice European Council agreed extensive arrangements to involve non-EU European members of NATO in EU military crisis management. Those countries have the right to take part in any EU-led operation involving NATO assets and capabilities. Nice also made initial proposals regarding the involvement of Canada in ESDP.

  In any operation in which not-member states take part they will have the same rights and obligations in the day-to-day conduct of that operation as participating member states.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the rights of non-EU European NATO members and other accession candidates(a) within the new ESDP structures and (b) their status in WEU as associate members and associate partners. [141338]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Nice European Council took decisions on arrangements for the involvement in ESDP of non-EU European members of NATO and other accession candidates. These provide for the fullest possible association of such countries in EU-led military operations in times of crisis. These countries' status as WEU associate members and associate partners is unaffected by developments in the EU.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what progress has been made in settling means of parliamentary scrutiny over the CESDP; and if he will make a statement;[141334]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the proposals by the European Parliament to offer representatives of national Parliaments a limited opportunity for involvement in parliamentary scrutiny over CESDP. [141335]

  Mr. Vaz
  Decisions on the deployment of United Kingdom forces on EU-led military crisis management operations are decisions for the Government of the United Kingdom. They will be taken by the Prime Minister, in the same way that decisions to deploy United Kingdom forces on the operations of any international organisation, including NATO or the United Nations, are taken. The Government will be accountable to Parliament for those decisions.

  European Union documents relating to common European security and defence policy will come within the scope of procedures for parliamentary scrutiny of all EU common foreign and security policy decisions.

  The European Parliament will continue to exercise scrutiny over all aspects of common foreign and security policy in accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union.
  30W
  The Prime Minister has proposed the creation of a second chamber of the European Parliament, to be composed of representatives from the national Parliaments of EU member states. Such a chamber could provide a forum for the consideration of CESDP matters in the future.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the basis and structure of consultation between the EU and non-EU NATO countries will be established. [141337]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Nice European Council agreed arrangements for consultation with non-EU European NATO countries and made initial proposals regarding consultation with Canada.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress made in developing permanent consultation bodies for co-operation between the EU and NATO. [141333]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Nice European Council made proposals for permanent arrangements to provide for co-operation, consultation and transparency between the EU and NATO. This followed detailed discussion in EU/NATO working groups over the last few months. We want to see EU/NATO permanent arrangements finalised as soon as possible.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the impact of the ESDP on NATO's primary rights to first resort for(a) collective defence and (b) crisis management. [141331]

  Mr. Vaz
  NATO remains the foundation of the collective defence of its members and retains an important role in crisis management. The EU will act in military crisis management only where NATO as a whole is not engaged. This was agreed by EU Heads of State and Government at the European Council in Helsinki in December 1999. Nothing in the evolution of ESDP has changed that position.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on how NATO members are to be consulted on when and where the EU may act in an emergency crisis. [141339]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Nice European Council endorsed proposals to provide full consultation, co-operation and transparency between the EU and NATO. These EU proposals are now for negotiation with NATO.

  Landmine Clearance (Croatia)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial contribution his Department makes to the landmine clearance programme in Croatia. [141348]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department has contributed £250,000 this year, through the United Nations Mine Action Service, for the landmine clearance programme in Croatia.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Marshals
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in relation to High Court judges on circuit,(a) what are the duties of the marshal, (b) who appoints the marshal, (c) who pays the wages and fees of the marshal, (d) what was the total cost of the marshal service to public funds for each of the last three years, (e) what uniform, dress code or badge of office distinguishes the marshal, (f) how many marshals there are and (g) what are the qualifications and experience required to be a marshal; and if he will make a statement. [141351]

  Mr. Lock
  (a) A marshal is expected to take an active interest in the trial, make notes and be prepared to enter into discussion with the judge on legal matters; (b) the marshal is invited by the High Court judge to accompany him/her to small official functions; (c) the marshal is not paid any wages or fees, other than an allowance of £2.10 per day which is paid by the Court Service and any travel or laundry costs are borne by the marshal; (d) since April 2000, there have been nine marshals used, for a total of 86 days at a total cost of £180.60; (e) working dress is decided between the marshal and the judge; (f) the number of marshals on any circuit does not usually exceed two; and (g) marshals are normally law students or newly qualified lawyers, who accept the position as useful work experience.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in relation to High Court judges' marshals, when on circuit,(a) what is the selection or appointment procedure followed in choosing a marshal, (b) what training is given to ensure the marshal is appointed in accordance with equal opportunities legislation and (c) for each of the last two years, how many marshals (i) were men, (ii) were women and (iii) were from ethnic minority backgrounds; and if he will make a statement. [141352]

  Mr. Lock
  There are no appointment procedures. Marshals are invited by the High Court judge concerned to accompany him/her while on circuit to gain work experience. The statistics requested are not kept centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Judges' Lodgings
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the value of judges' lodgings and associated expenditure as a benefit in kind for income tax purposes. [141350]

  Mr. Lock
  None. On the Department's present understanding, tax liability is not considered to arise from the existing arrangements for the provision of such accommodation to High Court judges and associated expenditure.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in respect of the Crown courts situated at(a) St. Albans, (b) Reading,(c) Chelmsford, (d) Colchester and (e) Maidstone, (i) how many sitting days were held at each court in each of the last five years, (ii) for how many nights the judges' lodgings were occupied in each of the last five years,
  32W
  (iii) for how many High Court judges sitting at each of the courts (A) regularly made use of the lodgings and (B) habitually commuted from their own residence to court and (iv) what was the annual cost of each of the lodgings for each of the last five years. [141349]

  Jane Kennedy
  For ease of reference I will answer each element of the question using the same numbering as the hon. Member. I should also point out that there is neither a Crown court centre nor judges' lodgings at Colchester.

  Prior to 1997, lodgings were administered locally and it would incur a disproportionate cost to collect comparable cost information for 1995–96 and 1996–97. While sitting figures exist for the Crown court for these years, there are no readily available lodgings data against which to make a useful comparison and they have therefore been omitted from my answer.

  (i) In the context of this question, I have interpreted the request for sitting day information as relating to High Court business only. On that basis, High Court judge sitting days in the Crown court are as follows:

  Crown court

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  St. Albans

  91

  79

  144

  Reading

  98

  78

  76

  Chelmsford

  61

  84

  111

  Maidstone

  124

  149

  82

  (ii) The number of judge nights each lodging was occupied during the same periods are as follows:

  Lodging

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  St. Albans

  105

  120

  165

  Reading

  115

  99

  110

  Chelmsford

  68

  98

  113

  Maidstone

  140

  165

  120

  The difference between sitting day figures and the days the lodgings were occupied can be attributed to a number of factors. For example, cases which settled or adjourned on short notice would not have been recorded as sitting days but would have resulted in the judge being at the lodgings doing paperwork. Similarly, time taken by the judge in writing judgments and decisions during and at the end of cases and on occasions when other High Court judges stayed at lodgings while on other official business would count as judicial occupation but not sitting days.

  (iii) No information is held on how many of the High Court judges who sat at these courts resided at their homes rather than the lodgings.

  (iv) The annual cost of each of the lodgings is set out below on three bases:

  Total cost of lodgings

  £

  Lodging

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  St. Albans

  157,962.00

  203,369.00

  216,451.00

  Reading

  157,152.00

  127,811.00

  112,420.00

  Chelmsford

  107,606.00

  84,690.00

  105,494.00

  Maidstone

  157,553.49

  259,227.43

  185,689.18

  33W

  Total cost of lodgings (less the Treasury capital charge for freehold properties)

  £

  Lodging

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  St. Albans

  133,961.61

  139,977.35

  145,772.95

  Reading

  139,465.25

  94,794.38

  75,576.69

  Chelmsford

  107,606.00

  84,690.00

  105,494.00

  Maidstone

  121,555.49

  217,433.54

  139,051.68

  Costs solely attributable to judicial occupation

  £

  Lodging

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  St. Albans

  50,440.95

  52,863.60

  74,563.50

  Reading

  84,661.85

  55,293.48

  55,169.40

  Chelmsford

  14,877.75

  21,559.56

  29,435.94

  Maidstone

  44,531.20

  81,005.10

  41,024.40

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average cost, including accommodation costs and other overheads, to the Immigration Appellate Authority of processing and determining an immigration appeal. [142096]

  Jane Kennedy
  In the time available I regret that it has not proved possible to provide the average direct cost, including accommodation and overhead costs, to the Immigration Appellate Authority of processing and determining an immigration appeal. This information will shortly be calculated and will be laid in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appeals against a refusal of a visa to visit a family member in the UK have been determined by the Immigration Appeals Authority(a) at an oral hearing and (b) on the papers alone since 2 October; and with what outcome. [142094]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Immigration Appellate Authority received the first family visit visa appeal on 27 October. From 27 October to 7 December (inclusive) a total of 81 family visit visa appeals were received, of these 67 were for determination on paper alone and 14 were for oral hearing. Of this number 33 appeals have been determined, 31 paper and two oral. The outcomes were as follows:Paper appeals—20 dismissed, 11 allowed,
  Oral appeals—two allowed.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the total cost to the Immigration Appellate Authority of administering family visitor appeals since 2 October. [142095]

  Jane Kennedy
  The total fee income of administering family visitor appeals between 2 October 2000 and 7 December 2000 was £17,000. It is too early to assess the costs of administering these appeals. A review is under way.
  34W
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applications for funding in respect of representation in an oral appeal against a refusal of a visa to visit a family member in the United Kingdom have been made to the Legal Services Commission since 2 October; and with what outcome. [142093]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Legal Services Commission does not currently record case data in a form that would enable an answer to be given to the hon. Member's question.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  School Football Coaches
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how the Football Foundation will help expand the activity of qualified football coaches in primary and secondary schools. [141892]

  Kate Hoey
  The Football Foundation will devote 75 per cent. of its income to improving grassroots football facilities and coaching across England. This will be in the region of £18 million in the current year and double from April 2001 onwards. Grant criteria are a matter for the Foundation, but I would expect primary and secondary schools to be eligible provided facilities and/or coaching was for both the school and the wider community.

  Regional Theatres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations he has received about the funding of regional theatres; and if he will make a statement. [141893]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have received some representations from the sector, however this remains a matter for the Arts Council of England, as the main funding body for the arts in England, and the regional arts boards.

  Tourism (Wales)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the promotion of Wales as a tourism venue overseas by the British Tourist Authority. [141894]

  Janet Anderson
  The British Tourist Authority (BTA) works with the Wales Tourist Board (WTB) as equal, strategic partners in promoting Wales abroad. The BTA has an overseas marketing agreement with the WTB, which sets out their respective roles, responsibilities and working relationships in the overseas promotion of Britain and Wales. In addition, the Chairman of the WTB is an ex officio member of the BTA Board, representing Welsh interests and advising on strategic and policy matters whenever key decisions are taken.

  School Sports
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will ensure that those primary schools with poor sports facilities will be made a priority for investment under the space for sport and arts scheme. [141895]
  35W
  Kate Hoey
  One of the key objectives for the space for sport and arts scheme is to create new, and modernise existing, sports and arts facilities for primary schools where existing facilities are poor, inadequate or simply do not exist. The prospectus sent to 65 local education authorities in early October highlighted this objective, and this key message was further re-enforced during a series of regional workshops held with the LEAs in October and November. Sport England received outline proposals from the LEAs last week and these are currently being assessed against a number of criteria, including the condition of existing facilities. We will announce in January details of projects which have been given, in principle, support.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has made to Sport England to amend the 40 hour rule governing the grant of lottery funds to primary schools for sports development involving local communities. [141896]

  Kate Hoey
  Sport England has already reviewed the way in which it assesses Lottery applications under its School Community Sports Initiative. As a result Sport England no longer has a specific requirement that school facilities must be available for 40 hours of community use per week. Rather it assesses the overall sporting benefit to the community together with any particular factors affecting the level of community use in deciding whether to award a grant. Facilities provided by primary schools under the space for sport and the arts scheme will be available to the community, but there will be no requirement for 40 hours of such use.

  Seaside Resorts
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to support the regeneration of seaside resorts. [141897]

  Janet Anderson
  My Department is doing a great deal to support the regeneration of seaside resorts which was one of 15 key action plans set out in the national strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism". Many resorts are in a position to benefit from funding opportunities in the new European structural funds and UK assisted areas maps or from this summer' s single regeneration budget announcement.I announced a four-point support plan for resorts at the start of a tour I made this summer to learn at first hand about the problems and best practice in seaside resorts. In line with our funding agreement with the English Tourism Council, its resorts task force is due to produce its report early next year, which will recommend a programme of actions for resort regeneration.

  National Museum Visits
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to encourage families to visit major national museums. [141899]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Our policy is to encourage all museums to offer the widest possible access to their collections. We have enabled those national museums funded by my Department which already offer free admission to continue to offer it, and we have scrapped entry charges for children and the over-60s at those that charge. We have also funded them to enable their trustees to introduce a standard admission charge of £1 for adults 36W
  from September 2001, and to allow free admission to all people who are in receipt of the major benefits, including people with disabilities.

  Lottery Funding (Targeting)
  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to ensure that funding from the lottery is targeted on the communities with greatest social and economic need. [141900]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have directed Lottery distributors to take into account the need to ensure that all areas have access to funding and the scope for reducing economic and social deprivation. Distributors must show how they will achieve this in their strategic plans and my Department is monitoring progress.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with commercial companies about the future of the dome at Greenwich. [141901]

  Janet Anderson
  I have had no discussions with commercial companies about the future of the Dome at Greenwich.

  Community Groups (Lottery Funding)
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received about the process by which community groups will apply for national lottery funding. [141902]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have received a number of representations from community groups and others on the need for application processes to be as accessible as possible. The reports I commissioned from the independent Quality, Efficiency and Standards Team and Sheffield Hallam University contained recommendations for simplifying and improving application processes to make it easier for community groups to apply for funding.

  Lottery distributors have welcomed the reports and are working together, with the Department, to take forward the recommendations. These include: the setting up of a joint national helpline to provide initial advice and guidance for potential applicants; reducing information requirements on applications for smaller grants; and ensuring that all guidance notes are of a high standard.

  In addition, the highly successful awards for all scheme, which uses a simpler application form and provides Lottery grants of between £500 and £5,000 to small community based groups, is to continue in England until at least March 2002.

  Bridge and Chess (Lottery Support)
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received in relation to the eligibility for Lottery support of organisations involved with bridge and chess. [141877]

  Kate Hoey
  My Department has received a number of representations in the past from chess and bridge organisations regarding eligibility for support from the Lottery.

  Public Libraries
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to improve accessibility to public libraries. [141881]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Last year I published a policy document, "Libraries for All", which identified what public libraries can do to help combat social exclusion and improve their accessibility to everyone in the community. I intend to publish a revised policy statement together with an action plan very soon and I shall also be introducing public library standards next year which will deal with all aspects of library services including access.

  Sports Coaching
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals he has for increasing the number of qualified sports coaches working with schools. [142059]

  Kate Hoey
  Many of our proposals are directed towards increasing the number of qualified coaches working with schools.

  The school sports co-ordinator scheme will provide 1,000 co-ordinators in secondary schools by 2004. Most of the co-ordinators will be based in secondary schools and linked to specialist sports colleges, of which there are now 83 designated across 58 different local eduction authorities. The sports colleges draw on the coaching expertise of local sports clubs and are developing excellent facilities across a range of sports, and, through their partnerships with local primary schools and community groups, are giving many children the opportunity to gain a head start in sport.

  Alongside the co-ordinators scheme, we recognise the need to invest in volunteer training to increase the links between schools and elite sports. That is why we have set aside £4 million from our spending review settlement to invest in two levels of volunteer training and support from 2002. We will underpin the training and support for young people aged 14 to 19 to develop leadership skills in sport and in their local communities where they can act as role models for younger children and perhaps prepare themselves for careers in sport. We will be working closely with NGBs to develop volunteer strategies to encourage and support more adults to get involved as leaders, coaches, officials and administrators.

  The Sport Strategy Implementation Group has been looking at ways to increase the number of qualified sports coaches working with schools, and once the recommendations have been presented to Ministers on 13 December, the implementation process will proceed.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the value in each of the last three years to(a) sports bodies and (b) cultural organisations of advertising and sponsorship by the tobacco industry. [141416]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  As part of the 1995 Voluntary Agreement on Sponsorship of Sport by Tobacco Companies, the Tobacco Manufacturers Association is 38W
  required to make a return detailing the expenditure incurred in that year by tobacco companies on sports sponsorship in the United Kingdom.

  The returns for the three most recent years available are:

  £

  1996–97

  8,053,000

  1997–98

  7,516,000

  1998–99

  8,139,000

  Detailed figures for sponsorship of cultural organisations by the tobacco industry are not available, but we do not believe that significant sums are involved.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much funding for sport has been secured by the Tobacco task force since it was established. [141415]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Assistance with the replacement of existing contracts can most effectively be targeted in the 12 to 18 months before they lapse, which is the normal lead-in time for negotiating new sponsorship agreements. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport is in close touch with the seven sports affected and task force members are also offering ongoing advice and assistance to help the sports prepare to move away from existing tobacco sponsors. None of these sports have asked for the task force to reconvene at the present time.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on which dates since December 1997 the Tobacco Task Force has met; and who was in attendance on each occasion. [141414]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The information requested is as listed.

  10 December 1998

  Tony Banks

  Jon Smith (First Artist Corporation)

  Maurice Lindsay (Central Council for Physical Recreation)

  Mike Reynolds (Institute of Sports Sponsorship)

  Anne Leach (Virgin Group)

  Rajiv Bhattia (Virgin Group)

  Derek Etherington (DCMS Sports Sponsorship Consultant)

  Colin Jones (DCMS Official)

  Graham Bond (DCMS Official)

  24 February 1999

  Tony Banks

  Jon Smith (First Artist Corporation)

  Lizzie Leopolds (First Artist Corporation)

  Maurice Lindsay (Central Council of Physical Recreation)

  Mike Reynolds (Institute of Sports Sponsorship)

  Derek Etherington (DCMS Sports Sponsorship Consultant)

  Colin Jones (DCMS Official)

  Graham Bond (DCMS Official)

  39W
  19 October 1999

  Kate Hoey

  Lizzie Leopolds (First Artist Corporation)

  Mike Reynolds (Institute of Sports Sponsorship)

  Derek Etherington (DCMS Sports Sponsorship Consultant)

  Will Whitehorn (Virgin Group)

  Helen Day (European Sponsorship Consultants Association)

  Graham Bond (DCMS Official).

  In addition, there was also an informal meeting on 19 June 1998 which included members of the Task Force. Present at that Meeting were:

  Tony Banks

  Jon Smith (First Artist Corporation)

  Maurice Lindsay (Central Council of Physical Recreation)

  Mike Reynolds (Institute of Sports Sponsorship)

  Brad Rosser (Virgin Group)

  Colin Jones (DCMS Official)

  Graham Bond (DCMS Official).

  Although there have been no formal meetings since 19 October 1999, work has progressed. The Task Force has concluded the first phase of its work to identify the needs of the sports and ascertain how it can best assist them. Most sports have confirmed that it is too soon to be looking to replace existing contracts, and have indicated that the help of Task Force can most effectively be targeted in the 12–18 months before these contracts lapse, which is the normal lead time for negotiating new sponsorship agreements. It has been agreed with the sports therefore that there is no need for the Task Force to continue to meet on a regular basis. The Task Force has made it clear to all the sports that its assistance is still available in its second phase, as and when they require it.

  Accommodation Rating Scheme
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures he proposes to promote a UK-wide accommodation rating scheme. [141425]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Responsibility for tourism policy, including on accommodation grading, in the other countries of the United Kingdom now rests with the devolved administrations. Ministers have previously looked at the possibility of moving towards a UK-wide accommodation grading scheme but there was no straightforward solution. Both the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting and I would, however, be happy to discuss this again with our counterparts in Scotland and Wales should they so wish.

  Historic Wrecks
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to extend the statutory protection of historic wrecks. [141535]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government are seeking the earliest suitable legislative opportunity to give English Heritage powers with regard to underwater archaeology, including historic wreck sites designated under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973, in the territorial waters of the UK adjacent to England. This will put underwater archaeology in England on the same footing as land 40W
  archaeology, allowing underwater projects and sites access to English Heritage expertise and grant funds which are currently not available to them.

  Tourism
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what methodology is used by his Department to calculate average spending by visitors to(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [141410]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My officials consult the findings of well-established surveys of(a) UK households and (b) overseas visitors to the UK, from which information is collected concerning total tourism spending in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The total figures are then divided by the estimated number of tourists, as also identified by the surveys.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his policy is towards proposals to extend EU competence in the field of tourism. [141418]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Her Majesty's Government would not support any proposals to extend EU competence in the field of tourism.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on trends in incoming tourism to the United Kingdom. [141426]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The numbers of North American and other long-haul visitors to the UK have increased by 3 per cent. and 1 per cent. respectively in the first 10 months of this year, compared with the corresponding period of 1999, although visits from Europe are down by 4 per cent. and overall visits by 2 per cent.

  Overall spend by overseas visitors is up by 1 per cent. to £10.8 billion in the first 10 months of this year, compared with the equivalent period of 1999, and remains on course to be one of the highest levels on record.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to restore a marketing remit to the English Tourism Council. [141424]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The English Tourism Council was set up with a specifically strategic role. It does of course consider marketing needs in this context and it carries out market research and identifies and disseminates best practice, working closely with Regional Tourist Boards and others. In recent months it has produced guidance for the use of regional and local bodies and the industry, to help to promote the England brand.

  The British Tourist Authority does an excellent job marketing England abroad and this is complemented by the work of the Regional Tourist Boards, local authorities and other destination organisations.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the English Tourism Council regarding the funding of IT programmes. [141417]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I and my officials are in regular contact with the English Tourism Council (ETC) about the development of e-tourism in this country. The
  41W
  importance of this was highlighted in the Government's national tourism strategy and we have set up an e-tourism group, chaired by the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, and including private sector expertise, in order to assess the best way forward, including funding. We have increased the ETC' s budget by 20 per cent. from 2002–03, rising by a further 5 per cent. the year after.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the per capita public funding of tourism in(a) England, (b) Scotland,(c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland in the current financial year. [141411]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In 2000–01, the National Tourist Boards are due to receive grant in aid as follows:

  Board

  Grant in aid £ million)

  Population (Million)

  Grant in aid per capita (£)

  British Tourist Authority

  37.0

  57.6

  0.64

  English Tourism Council

  11.0

  49.6

  0.22

  Scottish Tourist Board

  24.5

  5.1

  4.80

  Wales Tourist Board

  15.4

  2.9

  5.31

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  13.9

  1.7

  8.18

  However, Government support for tourism is not confined to grant for tourist boards. DCMS is also spending some £1 billion in 2000–01, for example, on the arts, royal parks and palaces, museums and galleries, much of which directly benefits tourism. Moreover, English local authorities are estimated to have spent over £90 million last year on tourism, or £1.81 per head; comparable figures for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not available.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he last(a) attended and (b) was represented at, the EU Internal Market Council for Consumer Affairs and Tourism. [141419]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The first meeting of the newly reorganised Internal Market, Consumer and Tourism Council was on 30 November in Brussels and was attended by my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans he has to reform cross media ownership rules; and if he will make a statement;[141533]

  (2) what plans he has to reform the regulation of independent television; and if he will make a statement;[141534]

  (3) what plans he has to reform the role of the Broadcasting Standards Commission; and if he will make a statement. [141532]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government's plans for the future framework for and regulation of broadcasting and telecommunications will be considered in a Communications White Paper, which I expect to be published tomorrow.

  British Sports Trust
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the future funding of the British Sports Trust. [141413]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The British Sports Trust has made an application for funding to Sport England which is currently under consideration. I understand that discussions between officials of Sport England and the Trust will be taking place soon.

  Olympic Games
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the Government's support for a bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games, indicating where the opening and closing ceremonies would be held. [141421]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government are committed to supporting a viable bid for the Olympic Games, but the British Olympic Association has primary responsibility for UK bids and has not yet taken a decision on whether to bid for 2012. The BOA has decided that a London-based bid would have the best chance of success and are due to report their conclusions of extensive studies on the viability of a bid to my Department by the end of the year. The location of opening and closing ceremonies will be a matter for the organising committee of any bid.

  National Lottery Licence
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the award of the next licence to run the National Lottery. [141412]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The award of the next National Lottery operating licence is a matter for the National Lottery Commission. The commission will make its decision on the criteria set out in section 4 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (as amended): ensuring that the National Lottery, and every lottery that forms part of it, is operated with all due propriety; ensuring that the interests of every participant in a lottery that forms part of the National Lottery are protected; and, subject to satisfying those two criteria, maximising the net proceeds of the Lottery for good causes.

  I understand that the Commission hopes to announce the outcome of the bidding process for the next licence later this month.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to enable English Heritage to undertake projects on behalf of overseas clients. [141537]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government are seeking the earliest suitable legislative opportunity to give English Heritage powers to enable them to undertake projects on behalf of overseas clients. This will enable EH to generate additional income and may well create export opportunities for other suppliers and contractors in the heritage field.

  World Athletics Championships
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on England's bid to host the 2005 World Athletics Championships.(141422]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In April this year, the International Amateur Athletics Association (IAAF) announced that the London bid for the 2005 World Athletics Championships had been successful. UK Athletics and the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority are working closely with Sport England and the London Borough of Enfield to develop the new National Athletics Stadium in Edmonton, North London, which will be the venue for the 2005 World Championships.

  Official Publications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list his Department's spending on official publications for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01 and the planned expenditure for 2001–02. [141443]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Department's spending on official publications for the period 1996–97 to 2000–01 is as set out. This excludes the cost of publications produced only for internal use. Where the Department makes use of a private sector publisher the publishing and printing costs are generally met by the publisher as part of their acceptance of the risks of publication. Estimates for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  501,366

  1997–98

  338,761

  1998–99

  288,100

  1999–2000

  448,238

  2000–01

  1345,000

  1 Forecast outturn

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list each new publication issued by his Department since 1997 and the total cost to the Department of each publication. [141466]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The new publications issued by my Department since 1997 are as listed. Information on the cost of each document could be supplied only at disproportionate cost. I have however provided the hon. Member with overall yearly figures in answer to another question he has tabled. These figures show that we have achieved substantial savings over the sums spent in the last year of the previous Government.

  DCMS Publications 1997–98

  Treasure Act Code of Practice

  Underwater Archaeology poster and leaflet

  Government Response to the Select Committee

  Export of Works of Art 1996–97

  Government Art Collection: Tel Aviv Catalogue

  National Lottery White Paper

  Film Policy Review Group Report

  Government Response to the Select Committee report on the Millennium

  44W

  Departmental Annual Report

  Interfaith Millennium Leaflet Network leaflet

  UK Presidency leaflet and booklet

  Poetry and the Presidency booklet

  DCMS Publications 1998–99

  The Eyre Review

  Export of Works of Art 1997–98

  Response to the Select Committee on the Multimedia Revolution

  Creative Industries mapping document

  Departmental Annual Report 1998

  Common Wealth and Museums Report

  Digital Convergence Green Paper

  Portable Antiquities Annual Report

  Building a Global Audience

  Government Response to the LIC Report

  DCMS/Wolfson Fund Annual Report 1997–98

  Children's Play leaflet

  National Lottery information leaflet

  New Opportunities Fund consultation document

  Interfaith Millennium leaflet reprint

  Museums in the Learning Age

  Sustainable Tourism document

  Tomorrow's Tourism Strategy Report

  DCMS Publications 1999–2000

  Government Art Collection leaflet

  Export of Works of Art

  Government Art Collection—Conditions of Loan booklet

  Portable Antiquities Annual Report

  World Heritage Sites

  Treasure Annual Report

  Finding Our Past leaflet

  Building a Global Audience

  The Future Funding of the BBC

  Review of the BBC's Financial Projections

  Creative Industries—Report on the Creative Industries Finance Conference

  Creative Industries—Exports: Our Hidden Potential

  Creative Industries—Internet Inquiry: Snapshot of a rolling wave

  Creative Industries—Your Creative Future

  Creative Industries—UK Television Exports Inquiry

  Annual Report 2000

  Local Cultural Strategies

  PAT 10—Policy Action Team 10: Report to the Social Exclusion Unit

  A Sporting Future For All

  Libraries for All: Social Inclusion in Public Libraries

  The White Book—Option Appraisal of Expenditure Decision: A Guide for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its Sponsored Bodies

  Consumers Call the Tune—The Impact of New Technologies on the Music Industry

  Report on the DCMS/Wolfson Fund 1998–99

  Libraries and the Regions—A discussion paper

  Appraisal of Annual Library Plans 1999

  British Library Review

  Regional Consortium leaflet

  Efficiency and Effectiveness of Government-sponsored Museums and Galleries

  Report of the Tourism Consumer Group

  Guidance on Disposals of Historic Buildings

  45W
  DCMS Publications 2000–01 (to date)

  Treasure Annual Report

  Vacant Plinth Advisory Panel Report

  Broadcasting Command Paper

  Review of the Transparency of the BBC

  Creative Industries Finance booklet

  DCMS Annual Report 1999–2000

  Learning Power of Museums

  Government Art Collection—Conditions of Loan booklet

  Public Appointments Guidance

  Tax Relief for Charities booklet

  Music Industry Report

  Library Standards Report

  Coalfields and the Lottery Report

  Museums Education Report

  Museums Social Inclusion Report

  New Opportunities Fund Consultation Paper

  Better Public Buildings

  A Sporting Future for All

  Tourism Summit leaflet

CABINET OFFICE

  Official Publications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what is the cost per issue of "Modernising Government News"; how many issues there have been to date; how many civil servants are employed full-time or part-time in work on it; what its circulation is; and what is its total cost to date. [141428]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  There have been seven issues of "Modernising Government News", the first of which was published in April 1999.

  Two staff work on the newsletter. This equates to 25 per cent. of one full-time member of staff and 10 per cent. of another full-time member of staff.

  The circulation is 72,443.

  The total spend to date is £173,965.56.

  Opposition Policies (Civil Servants)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) if civil servants are unable to take part in work that analyses or costs policies of Opposition parties; and if she will make a statement; [141722]

  (2) if, under the model contract for special advisers, they are unable to take part in work that analyses or costs policies of opposition parties; and if she will make a statement. [141723]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Departments are asked from time to time, under Governments of any party, to cost the policies and pledges of their political opponents. Since Departments would provide factual answers (subject to the limits on disproportionate cost) to questions from MPs about the costs of identifiable changes in activities or benefits, there is no objection to officials providing such factual information. These rules have applied under successive Governments.
  46W
  The basis on which this is done is that Ministers, assisted if they wish by their special advisers, are responsible for identifying the text of commitments together with any further interpretations or assumptions necessary to allow the commitments to be costed. Departments then provide factual material, drawing attention to any additional assumptions or qualifications which they have made (eg territorial basis, price level, first year or full year) including possible overlaps with other similar costings. Very often the exercise will be co-ordinated by the Treasury, who will then be in a position to exercise their own scrutiny and check consistency with other costings. When the exercise is not being co-ordinated by the Treasury, individual costings are cleared with the Treasury before being published.

  When the factual material has been provided, it is for Ministers (assisted by their special advisers) to determine the form of presentation, although it is legitimate for Departments to check the presentation for factual accuracy and consistency.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  SERPS
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the current SERPS rebate rates for those who have contracted out of SERPs and taken out private pensions; and what estimate he has made of what these rates would have been had their calculation taken into account the recently announced SERPS widows' entitlements. [141546]

  Mr. Rooker
  Current rates of rebates for contracting-out of SERPS are set out in the following Orders:The Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions) (Salary Related Contracted-out Schemes) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/ 1054)
  The Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions, and Rebates) (Money Purchase Contracted-out Schemes) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/945)
  The Social Security (Minimum Contributions to appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/944).

  The rate of rebate for members of salary-related schemes was set for the five years beginning 6 April 1997 following a review by the Government Actuary. That rebate is flat rate, based on a range of economic and demographic assumptions, using weighted averages with regard to age and sex, and including a contingency margin and expense loading. The weights assumed comparatively few members in the age range affected. The effect on the rebate of the changes to SERPS announced on 29 November would have been insignificant compared with the total level of the rebate. Age-related rebates for members of money purchase schemes and personal pensions would not have been affected because of the cap which applies at older ages.

  Social Security Fraud
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people who have been convicted of social security fraud in each of the past five years had a previous conviction for social security fraud; [141432]
  47W
  (2) how many people have been (a) prosecuted and (b) convicted of social security fraud in each of the last five years. [141433]

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

  Sanctions for benefit fraud

  Year

  Prosecutions

  Cautions and penalties as an alternative to prosecution

  Total

  1995–96

  10,677

  —

  10,677

  1996–97

  12,863

  —

  12,863

  1997–98

  12,009

  —

  12,009

  1998–99

  11,185

  2,835

  14,020

  1999–2000

  10,087

  10,292

  20,379

  Note

  The figures do not include sanctions for benefit fraud by authorities administering Housing and Council Tax benefits. Penalties as an alternative to prosecution were introduced by the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act with effect from December 1998.

  Information on the number of prosecutions resulting in convictions is currently only available in respect of Benefit Fraud Investigation Service prosecutions in the years 1997–98 and 1998–99—in both years, 99 per cent. of such prosecutions were successful.

  The proportion of prosecutions resulting in custodial sentence has increased from 3.9 per cent. in 1996–97 to 5.5 per cent. in 1999–2000.

  Our research suggests that approximately 5 per cent. of prosecutions involve a person with a previous conviction for benefit fraud. We are putting in place mechanisms to identify second and further convictions.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Electoral Procedures
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what pilot schemes of electoral procedures he has approved for the local elections in May 2001. [1421751

  Mr. Straw
  I have approved the following pilot scheme applications for May 2001:

  Hertfordshire—electronic counting (two divisions)

  Norfolk—(seven divisions)1

  Reading—(three wards)1

  Staffordshire—(eight divisions)1

  West Sussex—(one division)1

  1 All-postal ballot

  2 Marsham Street
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the annual running cost is, including the council tax liability, of his Department's former offices in 2 Marsham Street; how many civil servants work there; and what his plans are for the future of 2 Marsham Street. [141429]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department took responsibility for the maintenance of the site of 2 Marsham Street on 1 April 1999, as part of the Home Office Central London 48W
  Accommodation Strategy. The cost of maintenance and security for the year ending 31 March 2000 was £640,000 and for the year ending 31 March 2001 is not expected to exceed £725,000. Offices are not liable to Council Tax but to non-domestic rates. The empty rate liability is currently expected to be £1.2 million for the current year.

  No civil servants work at the site, which has been vacant for several years other than occasional casual use such as a winter shelter for the homeless. With respect to the redevelopment of the site, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 1167W. This explained that subject to final contract negotiations, part of the site will be used for the relocation of the Home Office, including the Prison Service, and part will be sold for other uses, mainly housing including affordable housing. Anne's Gate Property plc has been selected as the preferred bidder for the project. The demolition of the existing building on the site will commence after contracts are exchanged.

  Once demolition has started no non-domestic rates liability will arise until a new building has been erected. Completion of the new development is expected in 2004.

  Gaming Machines
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans that the Gaming Machines (Methods of Payment) draft Deregulation Order will be put out to formal consultation; and if he will make a statement. [141542]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Preparation of the consultation document has taken longer than we had hoped. The deregulation proposals raised some complex legal issues which have required detailed discussion with the industry and the Gaming Board. We expect, however, to publish it very shortly.

  Asylum Applications
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what average time is currently taken by the National Asylum Support Service to determine an application for support. [142085]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is not currently available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have exercised a human rights appeal under section 65 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in relation to a refused family visit visa application since 2 October. [142092]

  Mrs. Roche
  I am not aware of anyone who has made an allegation under section 65 in respect of a decision to refuse an application for a visa to visit a family member.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for support were determined by the National Asylum Support Service in(a) September and (b) October; and in what proportion of these cases the application was determined (a) within seven days, (b) within 14 days and (c) in more than 14 days. [142086]
  49W
  Mrs. Roche
  As at the end of August 2000, 11,3001 asylum seekers were allocated support by the National Asylum Support Service. This figure was 14,2001 at the end of September 2000 and 18,2001 at the end of October 2000. These figures include dependants. Information on the proportion decided within seven or 14 days is not available.
  1 Figures rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the net income from fees for family visitor appeals since 2 October. [142091]

  Mrs. Roche
  As of 4 December, the net income from fees from family visitor appeals was £13,000. It may be that some of this total will be refunded following the resolution of appeals which are currently outstanding.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for support have been made to the National Asylum Support Service by asylum-seekers since 3 April 2000; how many of these applications have been determined; and how many applications remain under consideration. [142084]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at 4 December 2000, the National Asylum Support Service had received 25,0001 applications for support since 3 April 2000. 22,7001 asylum seekers, including dependants, have been allocated NASS support. Information on the number of applications determined, and the number outstanding, is not currently available.
  1 Figures rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the rules governing asylum seekers' ability to undertake(a) voluntary work and (b) paid employment; and if he will make a statement. [141705]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have no plans to limit the ability of asylum seekers to undertake paid voluntary work. I am reviewing the concession which allows asylum seekers to seek permission to take paid employment if an initial decision on their asylum application has been outstanding for six months or more.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed in processing asylum applications on the last date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [141706]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at 4 December, the number of staff employed in the Integrated Casework Directorate in processing asylum applications was about 1,230. As with the reply given to the hon. Member on 4 July 2000,Official Report, column 175W, this figure includes those who manage and support staff making the decisions as well as the decision makers. It does not include Immigration Service staff also engaged in processing asylum applications.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time was for reaching(a) an initial decision and (b) a final decision on an asylum application for (i) an individual, (ii) a family and (ii) for all applications, (A) on the latest date for which figures are available and (B) in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [141703]
  50W
  Mrs. Roche
  The available information is given in the table.

  Although 2000 statistics are not yet available, the average time taken to reach an initial decision in October 2000 was estimated to have fallen to 11 months.

  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) are setting in place new systems which will enable average decision times to be calculated, split by individual and family applicants.

  Average time to initial decision1, in months, 1996–99

  Applications lodged:

  Year

  All applications

  Pre-July 1993

  Post-July 1993

  1996

  17

  52

  11

  1997

  22

  64

  14

  1998

  17

  78

  12

  19992

  35

  91

  16

  October 20002

  11

  n/a

  n/a

  1 The average length of time (in months) is calculated from when the data application is lodged to the date of initial decision, and relates to the year in which the decisions were made.

  2 Figures are estimates based on cases for which information is recorded.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what date he expects to comply with Government targets for the time taken to process asylum applications; and if he will make a statement. [141704]

  Mrs. Roche
  The 1998 White Paper committed the Government to make most initial asylum decisions within two months by April 2001. We are on course to meet this target and are already doing so for families with children.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he made of the administrative costs(a) in total and (b) per asylum seeker of providing support for asylum seekers through (i) the voucher system and (ii) the social security system; what the total cost to date is of administering asylum vouchers; and if he will make a statement. [141707]

  Mrs. Roche
  The total staffing and related costs of the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), which include the administrative costs of the voucher scheme, are estimated as £16 million for 2000–01. Based on an anticipated total of 43,000 applications for support the estimated administrative cost per asylum seeker in 2000–01 is £372.

  Total staffing and related administrative costs of NASS, including the costs of administering the voucher scheme, assessing applications for support and arranging the dispersal and accommodation of asylum seekers to 30 November 2000 are recorded as £9 million. Vouchers are printed and distributed by third party providers under contract to the Home Office and the costs of this service are commercially confidential. Payments made under the voucher contract to 30 November 2000 are included in the total staffing and related administrative cost.

  Between 1994 and 1999 the annual administrative costs for income support for asylum seeker claims for one year was estimated to be in the region of £1 million and £2.5 million in 1999–2000. The estimated costs in the current year to the end of October are £0.5 million.
  51W
  These figures, which are rounded to the nearest £0.5 million, are based on the cost of processing new income support claims and maintaining existing cases. Costs per asylum seeker are not available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what date he plans to end the policy of not allowing change to be given when asylum vouchers are spent; and if he will make a statement. [141702]

  Mrs. Roche
  As part of the review of the operation of the asylum voucher support system, we are giving early consideration to how change and lower denomination vouchers can be issued in the context of the decisions made by Parliament and reflected in the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act. My officials are working on the practicalities and we hope to make an announcement soon.

  Oakington Reception Centre
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide an analysis of the weekly unit cost of housing an asylum seeker at Oakington reception centre when the centre is operating at full capacity; what is the basis of the difference between the figures given in his answers to the hon. Member for Aylesbury on 14 April 2000,Official Report, column 292W and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 26 October 2000, Official Report, column 217W; and if he will make a statement. [141482]

  Mrs. Roche
  The weekly cost of housing an asylum seeker at Oakington, when operating at full capacity, is expected to be £800. That figure includes contract costs for accommodation, supervision of detainees, security and costs of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) staff on site.

  The purpose of Oakington reception centre is to deal quickly with asylum applications. This requires the presence on site of IND caseworking staff, although consideration of all asylum applications involves caseworking costs.

  The cost of £527 a week given in the earlier reply was based on a preliminary estimate of the costs of running and the establishment and excluded the costs of IND staff.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to review the voucher scheme for asylum seekers. [141353]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) on 27 November 2000,Official Report, column 446W.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reported incidences of domestic violence there were involving(a) grievous bodily harm and (b) death for England and Wales in the years 1980 to 2000. [141688]
  52W
  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested on reported incidents of domestic violence involving grievous bodily harm is not available. Offences recorded by the police do not separately identify domestic violence.

  The most readily available information on the number of recorded homicides where the principal suspect is the current or former spouse, cohabitant or lover is as follows:

  Offences currently1 recorded as homicide where the victim was the spouse or former spouse, cohabitant or lover England and Wales

  Year

  Number

  1988

  126

  1989

  136

  1990

  121

  1991

  150

  1992

  137

  1993

  111

  1994

  130

  1995

  131

  1996

  119

  1997

  130

  1997–98

  130

  1998–99

  112

  1 As at 29 October 1999; figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and courts as further information becomes available.

  Some information on the extent of domestic violence against men and women is available from the British Crime Survey (BCS). The survey does not include grievous bodily harm as a category and, as a survey of victims, does not hold data on deaths.

  The estimated number of incidents of domestic violence measured by the BCS is as follows:

  Number of BCS incidents of domestic violence, 1981 to 1999 England and Wales

  Thousand

  Number

  1981

  292

  1983

  288

  1987

  443

  1991

  538

  1993

  1,178

  1995

  990

  1997

  834

  1999

  761

  Source

  1982, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998 and 2000 British Crime Survey

  The number of victims reporting domestic violence incidents to the BCS is relatively low and results are subject to sampling error.

  The 1996 BCS included a special self-completion component that addressed the extent of domestic violence in 1995. Respondents recorded significantly more incidents when asked about domestic violence via a self-completion module. This found a best estimate of 6.5 million 'domestic assaults' against men and women during 1995, and that 2.9 million of these incidents resulted in injury. A report is in the Library (Home Office Research Study No. 191).
  53W
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been victims of domestic violence in each of the last 20 years. [141679]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  Information is available on the numbers of homicides where the victim was a son or daughter.

  Offences currently1 recorded as homicide where the victim was a son or daughter

  England and Wales

  Year

  Number

  1988

  78

  1989

  46

  1990

  51

  1991

  66

  1992

  53

  1993

  53

  1994

  58

  1995

  55

  1996

  59

  1997

  52

  1997–98

  49

  1998–99

  69

  1 As at 29 October 1999; figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and courts as further information becomes available.

  Child Prostitution
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of children involved in prostitution in each of the last 20 years. [141677]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office does not collect data on the number of children involved in prostitution. The hidden nature of this problem makes it difficult to produce reliable estimates of the extent of child prostitution. Those studies that have attempted to examine this have focused on particular geographic areas, but no accurate national data exist.

  Suicides (Prisons)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out(a) the number and (b) the rate per thousand inmates, of suicides at (i) Eastwood Park and (ii) all women's prisons, (A) in each of the last three full years and (B) in each month of the current year; and if he will make a statement. [141345]

  Mr. Boateng
  There have been three self-inflicted deaths at Eastwood Park this year. Overall deaths of women prisoners have totalled three in 1997 and 1998, four in 1999 and eight in 2000. Breakdowns in the form requested are given in the tables.

  Self-inflicted deaths by month 20001

  Brachial

  Eastwood Park

  Holloway

  New Hall

  Styal

  Total

  January

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  February

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  March

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  April

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  May

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  June

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  August

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  September

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  54W
  The three deaths at Eastwood Park, like those elsewhere, were, or are, being investigated to assess the adequacy of suicide awareness procedures with a view to implementation of action plans to address deficiencies. The numbers of self-inflicted deaths among women prisoners are relatively low but unfortunately rising this year. The Prison Service is reconsidering with Ministers its suicide/self-harm prevention strategy and an announcement will be made early in 2001.

  A. Self-inflicted deaths and rates for Eastwood Park Prison by month, 20001

  Month

  Number of deaths

  Rate per 1,000 inmates

  Rate per 100 inmates

  January

  0

  0

  0

  February

  0

  0

  0

  March

  0

  0

  0

  April

  0

  0

  0

  May

  0

  0

  0

  June

  1

  3.3

  332.2

  July

  0

  0

  0

  August

  0

  0

  0

  September

  1

  3.6

  364.9

  October

  0

  0

  0

  November

  1

  3.4

  335.6

  December

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  3

  10.1

  1,006.7

  1 As at 7 December 2000

  Notes

  1. The population figures are taken from end of month totals

  2. The total rate was calculated using the end of October total population figures

  B. Numbers of self-inflicted deaths in women's prisons in England and Wales 1997–20001

  Calendar Year

  Establishment

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Total

  Brachial

  —

  1

  1

  2

  4

  Bullwood Hall

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Eastwood Park

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Holloway

  —

  1

  2

  1

  4

  Low Newton

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  New Hall

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Risley

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Styal

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Total

  3

  3

  4

  8

  18

  1 As at 7 December 2000

  Note

  1999—one female prisoner died while in the custody of Prisoner Escort and Custody Services

  There were no self-inflicted deaths at any of the following women's prisons during the period 1997–2000; Askham Grange, Cookham Wood, Drake Hall, East Sutton Park, Foston Hall, Highpoint and Send.
  55W

  Self-inflicted deaths by month 20001

  Brachial

  Eastwood Park

  Holloway

  New Hall

  Styal

  Total

  October

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  November

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  December

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Total

  2

  3

  1

  1

  1

  8

  1 As at 7 December 2000

  C. Rates of self-inflicted deaths in women establishments in England and Wales, 1997–20001

  Rate per 100,0002

  Number of deaths

  1997

  112.1

  3

  1998

  96.6

  3

  1999

  123.2

  4

  2000

  246.4

  8

  1 As at 7 December 2000

  2 All women prisoners

  Note

  Population figures taken from annual averages

  Rate of self-inflicted deaths by month, 20001

  Rate per 100,000 (all prison inmates)

  Rate per 100,000 (all female inmates)

  January

  0

  0

  February

  0

  0

  March

  1.5

  29.5

  April

  1.6

  30.1

  May

  1.5

  30.2

  June

  3.1

  59.6

  July

  0

  0

  August

  1.5

  29.0

  September

  1.5

  29.4

  October

  0

  0

  November

  1.6

  29.1

  December

  0

  0

  1 As at 7 December 2000

  Note

  Population figures are taken from monthly totals

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the prohibition of foreign donations in the application of Schedule 15 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, to permitted participants to a referendum in Northern Ireland where an order is in force under section 70(1) of that Act to allow foreign donations to political parties participating in the same referendum; what discussions he has had with Northern Ireland political parties and others about them; and if he will make a statement. [141715]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The effect of any order made under section 70(1) of the Act on the foreign funding of a referendum campaign in Northern Ireland was extensively debated during the passage of the Bill. There have been no separate discussions between my Department and Northern Ireland political parties and others about this aspect of the special provision for Northern Ireland parties. During the consideration of the Bill in another place, we received two letters on this matter from Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
  56W
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to bring into force those elements of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 not already brought into force; and in particular when he proposes to bring into force(a) section 4, (b) section 10, (c) section 12, (d) section 13, (e) section 141 and (f) section 144. [141481]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We intend to commence a substantial part of the Act, including section 4 and Parts II, IV to VII and IX, on 16 February 2001. We propose to consult the Electoral Commission before coming to a final view on the timing of commencement of the Commission's general functions set out in sections 5 to 13 of the Act. Subject to the Commission's views, our provisional intention is to bring sections 10, 12 and 13 into force on 16 February, 1 April and 1 July 2001 respectively. We also propose to consult the Commission and the main political parties before a decision is taken on the commencement of the amendments made to the Representation of the People Acts by Part VIII and sections 141 and 144 of Part X. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated at Second Reading, 10 January 2000,Official Report, column 44, that the reduction in the qualifying period for registration as an overseas elector (provided for by section 141) would not be brought into force until after the next election.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to lay before the House a draft order under section 70(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; what consultations he plans to have with(a) Northern Ireland political parties and (b) other political parties prior to the draft order being laid; what representations he has received regarding the terms of the draft order; and if he will make a statement. [141480]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We intend to lay before the House a draft order under section 70(1) of the Act shortly after the Christmas recess with a view to it coming into force, subject to parliamentary approval, on 16 February 2001, that is at the same time as Part IV of the Act is brought into force. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland met with the six main Northern Ireland parties in February to discuss the special provision for Northern Ireland parties in what is now section 70 and plans to do so again in advance of the draft order being laid. This provision was the subject of extensive debates both in this House and in another place during the passage of the Bill. Outside those debates we have received no recent representations about the terms of the draft order.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how it is proposed that(a) political parties and (b) the Electoral Commission will verify to the standard required by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 that donations from

  57W
  individuals are from individuals registered on UK electoral registers at the time the donation is made; what discussions he has had with electoral administrators regarding the practicality of the proposed procedures; and if he will make a statement. [141478]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 November 2000, c. 111W]: I placed in the Library a paper by the Improvement and Development Agency setting out the proposed arrangements for giving both political parties and the Electoral Commission on-line access to all electoral registers in order to facilitate the checks which will need to be undertaken to comply with Part IV of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. In the period between 16 February 2001, when Part IV comes into force, and the roll-out of the proposed arrangements for on-line access, registered parties will need to make appropriate interim arrangements to check donors against the relevant local electoral register which will be supplied to parties free of charge. Both the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives have been actively involved in the consideration of the interim and permanent arrangements for providing parties and the Commission with ready access to electoral registers.

  Electoral Information
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on members of staff of the Electoral Commission who are members of political parties having access to confidential financial information relating to other political parties; if the Electoral Commission will disclose to political parties that members of its staff with access to confidential financial information about those parties are members of another political party; and if he will make a statement. [141477]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Electoral Commission was established on Royal Assent of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Commission is wholly independent of the Home Office and, more generally, of the Government of the day. Questions relating to the way the Commission carries out its statutory functions should accordingly be directed to the Chairman of the Commission once he has been appointed and, in the interim, to the Commission's Chief Executive, Roger Creedon. The Commission's address is:

  First Floor

  Trevelyan House

  Great Peter Street

  London

  SW 1P 2HW.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the interim solutions considered by his Department on access to the electoral register together with his estimate of the cost of each solution and the reasons why each solution would not provide value for money; and if he will make a statement. [141479]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We considered one interim solution put forward by the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA). This would have involved registration officers sending their registers (together with the monthly updates under rolling registration) to a contractor who would create and maintain a central electronic register. A second contractor would then have 58W
  provided access to the data to political parties and the Electoral Commission via a secure intranet or internet route. The key difference between this approach and the proposed permanent solution is that under the permanent arrangement access would be to the locally held registers, obviating the need to send copies to a central point and thereby ensuring the data are always up to date. The estimated cost of this interim solution was £440,000 a considerable sum for a solution with only a limited shelf-life.

  This proposed interim solution would have been a considerable IT project in its own right with all the attendant risk. In particular, there was no certainty that the necessary contractual arrangements could be made, the technical issues resolved and the data supplied in time to enable the arrangement to run from February.

  Fraud (Dome)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Fraud Squad has completed its inquiries about the Dome. [141407]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that this complex investigation has not yet been completed.

  Youth Workers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish an impact assessment survey of proposals to require vetting of volunteer leaders and workers with youth organisations by the Criminal Records Bureau. [141701]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I hope to do so before the end of February 2001. The assessment will cover the impact of the proposals on the voluntary and private sectors.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the annual cost to youth organisations which will arise from charges for vetting volunteer leaders and workers by the Criminal Records Bureau. [141700]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are currently refining our estimates of both the likely volume of demand from the voluntary sector and for the services to be offered by the Criminal Records Bureau, and the cost of providing these services. These factors will be taken into account in setting the fees to be charged by the Bureau, which will be announced as soon as possible.

  Police
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion and total amount of(a) total Government spending and (b) gross domestic product was spent on policing in each of the last five years; and what the planned proportion is of total Government spending in each of the next two years. [141710]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is set out in the table.
  59W

  £ billion

  Percentage

  Year

  Total managed expenditure (TME)

  Money GDP

  Police provision

  Police provision as a proportion of TME

  Police provision as a proportion of Money GDP

  1996–97

  343.6

  768.1

  6.8

  1.98

  0.89

  1997–98

  341.2

  815.8

  7.0

  2.05

  0.86

  1998–99

  339.4

  858.9

  7.2

  2.12

  0.84

  1999–2000

  341.5

  906.6

  7.4

  2.17

  0.82

  2000–01

  371.6

  950.0

  7.7

  2.07

  0.81

  2001–02

  394.9

  994.8

  8.5

  2.15

  0.85

  2002–03

  418.3

  1,041.8

  9.0

  2.15

  0.86

  Notes

  1. Police provision is total Government provision (police grant, special grant, capital grant, credit approvals and central Home Office spend and police Standard Sending Assessment).

  2. Figures for 2000–01 to 2002–03 are estimates.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in each police force and in total at the end of September; what the total was in March 1997; and if he will make a statement. [141711]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information about the number of police officers at the end of September 2000 is being prepared and will be published shortly in a Home Office Statistical Bulletin.

  Appeals
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the people whose cases have been referred to date by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to the Court of Appeal, indicating the amount of time elapsed between referral and the individual concerned being released on bail. [141675]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission has to date referred the cases of 106 people to an appellate court. Their names, and the date on which their case was referred, are set out in the table. Some of these individuals were dead, and others were not in custody, when their case was referred. The referral by the Commission of the conviction or sentence of someone who is in custody brings no automatic entitlement to bail. If an application for bail is made, it is for the court to decide whether or not it should be granted. No central record is kept of whether bail was applied for, and if so when, and whether it was granted, in these cases, and this information is not readily available.

  Name

  Date of referral

  Danny McNamee

  3 July 1997

  John Henry Taylor

  16 September 1997

  Mahmood Mattan

  23 September 1997

  Derek Bentley

  6 November 1997

  Patrick Nicholls

  18 November 1997

  David Ryan James

  18 November 1997

  George Keith Twitchell

  8 January 1998

  Raymond Cook

  8 January 1998

  Mary Druhan

  28 January 1998

  Clovis Gerald

  11 February 1998

  Michael Gilfillan

  17 February 1998

  Wallace Duncan Smith

  24 March 1998

  James Hester

  7 April 1998

  Forid Miah

  15 March 1998

  Yash Pal Kansal

  27 March 1998 and 30 June 2000

  Leslie Burke

  27 March 1998

  Michael Dunne

  9 June 1998

  William Gerard Gorman

  3 August 1998

  60W

  Name

  Date of referral

  Patrick Martin McKinney

  3 August 1998

  Katrina Moseley

  12 August 1998

  Edward Graham

  22 September 1998

  Donald Brown

  6 October 1998

  Anthony Millen

  19 October 1998

  Dominic Alan Fannin

  20 October 1998

  Graham Walker

  22 October 1998

  Stephen Craven

  23 October 1998

  Michael P

  23 October 1998

  Michael O'Brien

  29 October 1998

  Ellis Sherwood

  29 October 1998

  Darren Hall

  29 October 1998

  Ronald Brown

  11 November 1998

  Alexander Allan

  23 November 1998

  Christopher Maguire

  24 November 1998

  Derek A

  30 November 1998

  Brian Parsons

  2 December 1998

  Reginald F

  11 December 1998

  Robert Coleman

  17 December 1998

  Trevor Campbell

  21 January 1999

  Donald Pendleton

  2 February 1999

  Raymond Robery

  18 February 1999

  Ian Thomas

  2 March 1999

  Eddie Gilfoyle

  15 March 1999

  James Hanratty

  29 March 1999

  Patrick McCann

  31 March 1999

  Michael Davis

  8 April 1999

  Randolph Johnson

  8 April 1999

  Raphael Rowe

  8 April 1999

  Patrick Gaughan

  9 April 1999

  John Kamara

  26 April 1999

  Aaron Giacopazzi

  7 May 1999

  Chetan Popat

  17 May 1999

  David Ealand

  16 June 1999

  Frank Johnson

  21 July 1999

  John Haase

  25 August 1999

  Shane Shrimpton

  3 September 1999

  Deborah Henry

  21 September 1999

  Kenneth Togher

  27 September 1999

  Peter Fell

  29 September 1999

  Michael Brown

  29 September 1999

  Kevin Martin

  29 September 1999

  Anthony Taylor

  29 September 1999

  Bryan James Hemmings Clark

  28 September 1999

  John Brannan

  6 October 1999

  Bernard Murphy

  6 October 1999

  Joseph Otoo

  25 October 1999

  Michael Rowe

  29 October 1999

  Harold Johnson

  9 November 1999

  Robert Burton

  16 November 1999

  Richard Mclcahy

  17 November 1999

  Susan May

  19 November 1999

  Gerard Kavanagh

  10 January 2000

  Thomas Green

  13 January 2000

  Allen Smith

  25 January 2000

  61W

  Name

  Date of referral

  Peter P

  26 January 2000

  Cornelius Renny Shaw

  9 February 2000

  Mohammed Jamil

  1 March 2000

  Terence Quiddington

  1 March 2000

  John Christopher (Christy) Walsh

  27 March 2000

  Olbie Shaw

  28 March 2000

  Jan Christofides

  28 March 2000

  Scott Norman Tomlinson

  10 April 2000

  Gurbinder Singh Samra

  28 April 2000

  Thomas John Such

  30 May 2000

  William Garner

  2 June 2000

  Peter Ian Hakala

  5 June 2000

  Cheri Anne Looker

  13 June 2000

  Reginald Dudley

  21 June 2000

  Robert Maynard

  21 June 2000

  Kathleen Bailey

  21 June 2000

  Gerald Maloney

  26 June 2000

  Robert Doubtfire

  6 July 2000

  Anthony Steel

  21 July 2000

  Michael Magee

  25 July 2000

  Iain Hay Gordon

  25 July 2000

  John Snooks

  3 August 2000

  Alan Christopher Spragg

  3 August 2000

  Harold Williams

  7 August 2000

  Ishtiaq Ahmed

  24 August 2000

  Perry Wooster

  30 August 2000

  Alfred Nathan Bain

  6 October 2000

  Matthew Barry James Offen

  16 October 2000

  Dennis Bernard Underwood

  20 October 2000

  Dennis Francis Hayes

  24 October 2000

  Geoffrey Andrew Foster

  7 November 2000

  Stephen Leslie Downing

  21 November 2000

  Paul Cleeland

  21 November 2000

  Child Labour
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many companies were prosecuted for illegally employing children in each of the last 20 years. [141682]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Limited available information, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, on the number of prosecutions for offences under the Employment of Children Acts, is given in the table.

  Selected years only are given to reduce the cost of this answer below the level of disproportionate costs.

  Number of defendants prosecuted at the Magistrates courts for offences under the Employment of Children Acts1, England and Wales 1979,1984, 1989, 1994–1999

  Males

  Females

  Others2

  Total

  1979

  22

  2

  12

  36

  1984

  20

  3

  5

  28

  1989

  30

  4

  1

  35

  1994

  15

  11

  1

  27

  1995

  43

  31

  3—

  74

  1996

  7

  30

  3—

  37

  1997

  13

  26

  2

  41

  1998

  16

  53

  3—

  69

  1999

  34

  115

  3—

  149

  1 Offences under Children and Young Persons Act 1933, Sections 4, 18–21 (Section 18 amended by the Children Act 1972), 25, 26, 28, Children and Young Persons Act 1963 Sections 40(1)(a), the Education Act 1996 Sections 558 and 559 and similar provisions in Local Acts.

  2 Includes prosecutions of companies and other bodies.

  3 Nil return.

  Missing Children
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been reported as missing in each of the last 20 years. [141678]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Figures are not available to confirm the precise numbers of children reported missing each year since this information is not routinely collected in many forces. However, indications of the total number of children reported missing are available from a number of separate research studies, and estimates can be made on this basis. One study, published in 1992, estimated that 43,000 persons under the age of 18 were reported missing in England and Scotland in 1990. This would equate to a total number of missing children 'incidents' of 102,000, since some missing children disappear on more than one occasion. Repeat missing children is a significant problem. The vast majority of missing children reported to the police return home safely within 24 hours.

  On-going Home Office research indicates that between 65 and 80 per cent. of all missing persons reported to the police will involve individuals under the age of 18. This would suggest that in 1999, there were between 150,000 and 190,000 cases of reported disappearances of children throughout the United Kingdom.

  Parish Warden Scheme
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he received a bid from Boyd Valley Ward in South Gloucestershire to participate in his parish warden scheme; and what level of financial contributions was to be made by the parties concerned at the time when the bid was submitted;[141344]

  (2) what financial contribution was required from parishes participating in his parish warden scheme when the scheme was first introduced; and what change there has been to the level of contributions required. [141343]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Neighbourhood Wardens grant programme bidding guidance states that the Government would fund up to 50 per cent. of the cost of schemes. At the time when the bid was received on 7 July 2000, the estimated total cost of the funding for years one and two of the scheme to cover four parishes was £313,000. The bid was for a total of £156,550 worth of grants from the Neighbourhood Warden programme. Full match funding details were not provided by the four parish councils concerned.

  The schemes are currently working on their implementation plans with the help of technical support consultancy advice. The completed implementation plans are due in by 15 December. Until the completed implementation pans have been received I am unable to say whether the level of funding details have changed.

  Police Morale
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the level of police morale in England and Wales. [141401]
  63W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There is no single or precise measure of police morale. In any service one will find some people who are happy about their work and others who are less than happy.

  The number of people leaving a profession may be taken as an indicator of morale. Total wastage from the police service is very low. Figures for the last four years are given in the table. As total wastage includes ordinary retirements of officers who have completed 30 years service, the table also shows the number of voluntary resignations from the service.

  Number

  Total police strength at 31 March 19961

  126,901

  Total police strength at 31 March 19971

  127,158

  Total police strength at 31 March 19981

  126,814

  Total police strength at 31 March 19991

  126,096

  1 Full time equivalents

  Total wastage1

  Resignations1

  Number

  Percentage of total strength

  Number

  Percentage of total strength

  1996–97

  5,951

  4.7

  774

  0.6

  1997–98

  6,657

  5.2

  988

  0.8

  1998–99

  6,104

  4.8

  1,083

  0.9

  1999–2000

  5,948

  4.7

  1,236

  1.0

  1 Number of persons

  Comparative figures for the Civil Service are as follows:

  Number

  Total Civil Service strength at 1 April 19951

  474,880

  Total Civil Service strength at 1 April 19961

  458,660

  Total Civil Service strength at 1 April 19971

  439,310

  1 Full time equivalents

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Total wastage1

  Number

  43,680

  47,900

  35,070

  Percentage of total strength

  9.2

  10.4

  8.0

  Resignations1

  Percentage of total strength

  2.4

  2.6

  3.2

  1 Headcount

  Days lost to sickness may also be an indicator of morale. In 1996–97 the average number of days sickness per police officer was 12.80. This declined to 11.55 or by 1.25 days per officer by 1999–2000.

  Pay rates may also have an effect on morale. According to the New Earnings Survey, at April 2000 average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees in Great Britain were:

  £464.70 for non-manual workers in the whole economy

  £485.20 for non-manual workers in the private sector

  £428.80 for non-manual public sector workers

  £438.10 for non-manual workers in local government

  £499.30 for local authority teachers

  £541.80 for the police.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  People's Peers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council where people's peers will be placed in the order of precedence. [141540]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Those awarded peerages on the recommendation of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, like all peers, will take precedence from their rank, in this case as barons, and the date of their patent of creation.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council how many and what percentage of applicants for a people's peerage are to be invited for interview. [141541]

  Mrs. Beckett
  This is a matter for the Appointments Commission. However, the number will be substantially smaller than the number of applicants because the Commission has made it clear that it is likely to call for interview only those it is considering recommending for appointment.

TREASURY

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to exempt from stamp duty reserve tax collective investment schemes within individual pension accounts. [142493]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government plan to bring forward legislation in the next Finance Bill to achieve this exemption. This will exempt from stamp duty reserve tax transactions in certain classes of shares in open-ended investment companies where they are held as part of an Individual Pension Account. The exemption will also apply to unit trusts whose investors subscribe as part of their Individual Pension Accounts.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the(a) gross and (b) net effects on total Government expenditure in each of the next five years of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. [141373]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 provides the statutory basis for a resource-based system of parliamentary supply, as part of the long-planned move to resource accounting and budgeting (RAB) in Central Government. By measuring public spending more accurately and providing new incentives for Departments to manage their resource more effectively, I anticipate that RAB will bring about significant improvements in the value for money of public services over the next five years and beyond.

  Broadband Fixed Wireless
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for using the receipts of the auction of licences for broadband fixed wireless access at 28 GHz. [141656]
  65W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Allowance was made for the proceeds of this auction in the pre-Budget report projections of receipts. The Government intend to use these to reduce national debt.

  VAT (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent by the Treasury on(a) the Welsh Office in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99, and (b) the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales and National Assembly in 1999–2000; what is the planned expenditure by the National Assembly and the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales in (A) 2000–01, (B) 2001–02 and (C) 2002–03; and if he will provide the figures on a consistent basis with regard to resource accounting and treatment of VAT. [141378]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Outturn expenditure for Wales Departmental Expenditure Limit expenditure for 1997–98 and 1998–99 and estimated outturn for 1999–2000 was published in table 1.2 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2000–01 (Cm 4601) in April 2000. Expenditure 66W
  in resource terms for Wales Departmental Expenditure Limit expenditure in 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03 is published in table B14 of the pre-Budget report (Cm 4917) in November 2000; this table also includes outturn expenditure for 1999–2000 on the same basis.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the details of his calculation that a reduction in the national insurance lower earnings limit to £59.20 per week would cost £420 million. [142082]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimate was provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are awaiting national insurance rebates for the tax years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 and (e) 1998–99 and 1999–2000. [142080]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 22 May 2000,Official Report, column 383W.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before the commencement of business I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to make an official visit to Manchester where I will visit the courts and have meetings with the judiciary tomorrow, Tuesday 12th December, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Disability Discrimination Act: Exempted Employers
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many British firms are (a) covered by and (b) excluded from the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, just over 116,000 firms and other employers such as public bodies are covered by the DDA employment provisions. There are just over 1.2 million firms which are excluded as a result of the small employer exemption threshold. Over 75 per cent of disabled employees are covered, as most employees work for large employers.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response, but is she aware that there is no justification for excluding any firms from the employment provisions of the DDA because to do so simply enables them to discriminate legally against disabled workers, which cannot be right? Is she aware that the only feeble argument used by some small employers is that they will suffer unreasonable burdens? However, as my noble friend is aware, the Act specifically states that only reasonable provision should be made. Therefore that argument is absolutely bogus. Why cannot we include all firms immediately with no nonsense about phasing in?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am familiar with the strong feelings on this matter of my noble friend Lord Ashley. Everyone in this House is sympathetic to disabled people and opposes discrimination against them. However, we have asked the Disability Rights Commission to consider this matter. It is currently
94
giving us advice on how and when to lower the threshold further. It is right that the Government, having set up the DRC, should wait for that advice.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the reasons given in the past for exempting small firms no longer apply? For example, the quota scheme was replaced in 1995. Have the Government recently consulted the Federation of Small Businesses, because I understand that its views on this matter have changed?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that that is the case. My department has produced a good practice guide for employers which contains specific advice for smaller employers tailored to them. The Government want to listen to the views of employers, large and small, on this matter. However, if the Federation of Small Businesses is now happy to see the exemption removed, the Government will, of course, take that in to account.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it does not help to persuade private sector employers to increase job opportunities for disabled people if big public sector employers fail in their duties to them? Has she seen today's tragic announcement that Rehab UK's Greater Manchester Brain Injury Vocational Centre now faces closure in April, notwithstanding its huge success in enabling victims of serious road accidents and of the "yob" culture to return to work, because only three of the conurbation's 10 councils have agreed to pay their share of the cost?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government are aware of the excellent work that Rehab UK has carried out in Manchester helping the recovery of people who have suffered traumatic brain injury. As I understand it, the Department of Health is providing a grant for that organisation. It will be possible for it to bid for further funding from the New Deal for disabled people. I very much hope that it will do so. We shall consider the position with regard to local authority support, but, in the end, that is a matter for local authorities.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, can the Minister give any indication of the cost of the number of people who will be needed to impose this level of bureaucracy on this vast multitude of small companies?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is not a matter of imposing a level of bureaucracy but rather of bringing small firms with fewer than 15 employees within the employment provisions of the DDA. That should be capable of being achieved without bureaucracy. There will be some costs in relation to making it possible for people with certain kinds of disability to work in some contexts. However, the access to work scheme which is funded by the Government will provide extensive

95
financial support for small companies which are moving in this direction, as the Government hope that they will.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, do the Government agree that under the EU framework directive on employment they are required to eliminate the threshold? What plans do they have to do so?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. It has been agreed by all member states of the EU that eventually there should be no threshold of this kind in any member country. The Government, like all other member countries, are committed to putting this in to practice no later than the year 2006. However, as I said to my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke, further discussions are continuing with the Disability Rights Commission to decide the timetable to institute this change.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am sorry to come back on the issue, but we are talking about a minor measure to prevent discrimination against disabled people. Does my noble friend agree that to say that it imposes bureaucracy on the poor employers is to play nonsense with the English language and betrays a misunderstanding of what the Act is all about?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I entirely accept what my noble friend has said. As I have already said, I do not think that it is a matter of imposing bureaucracy; we are asking all firms, small and large, not to discriminate against disabled people.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, to clear the matter up, does the Minister agree that there is no point in having the regulations without them being monitored?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course we should monitor and make sure that people accept the changes, but disabled people would have access to the courts if the new requirements were not accepted.

National Lottery: Operating Responsibilities
2.43 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to ensure that new applicants to run the National Lottery will be able to provide, from the first date of operation, the 36,000 terminals required.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the award of the National Lottery operating licence and the terms of that licence are a matter for the National Lottery Commission. The commission has not specified the number of terminals under a new licence, but it will require the successful applicant to commit to a
96
minimum number of terminals and a wide geographic spread. The Government have given the National Lottery Commission a clear remit to ensure that there is no interruption in the smooth running of the National Lottery. The commission is confident that that will be achieved.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the commission will not be much more than a fig leaf of protection for the Government if anything should go wrong. Does the Minister agree that it would be a huge risk to change both the operator and the provider of the technology in one move? Does he realise how complex the operation is? There is the selection and appointment of the retailers, the purchase of terminals, their installation and testing, the training of staff and the establishment of a huge communications network. I am sure that the Government understand that any interruption or hitch would result in a lack of public confidence and the flow of funds to good causes being turned off.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree that the operation is very complicated. As the noble Lord rightly said, it involves a number of members of the consortium, the retailers and the public, whom I may call the punters. If we take his argument to its logical extreme, no change could be allowed in the operating consortium or the systems to be used. That would result in whoever got the contract first having it in perpetuity. I think that he will agree that there could be disadvantages in that.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the new operator has to install 30,000 terminals? I must declare an interest. I am a lottery operator, although I have no interest in the National Lottery. I am sure that, like all of us in the lottery industry, the Minister is aware that it is physically impossible to install 30,000, or even 20,000, terminals in the time that is left. If the present timetable is to be kept to, either the existing operator, which has already been told that it is not fit and proper, will have to continue for a period, or a new operator—I gather that the only one is Sir Richard Branson's organisation, which has never run a lottery before—will have to be up and running very quickly. I assume that Sir Richard knows that ours is the most complex lottery in the world. Are the Government going to allow the situation to continue?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that was a rather complicated speech rather than a question, or even two questions, which I am obliged to answer. I did not say that there had to be a minimum of 30,000 terminals; I said that it was up to the commission to require the successful applicant to commit to a minimum number of terminals. Clearly, the more terminals there are, the more likely it is that a successful applicant will achieve the best financial return to the good causes, which is the ultimate criterion for deciding who is to be the successful applicant. As to the changeover, as the noble Lord well knows, there are two applicants before the

97
commission, which will take a decision next week. If necessary, it may rule that Camelot will continue for a period to ensure a successful and smooth changeover.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I am a lottery player. Will the Minister ensure that the Government impress on the successful applicant the need for more transparency and clarity on the social classes that play the lottery and the amount that they contribute? It is very difficult to get those figures out of Camelot, but it is manifestly obvious that it is basically the working class who play the lottery and the good causes benefit from them. That should be borne in mind in future distributions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as a non-lottery player, I express my sympathy with my noble friend and my gratitude to him and all lottery players for their contributions to good causes. The social class of those who contribute to the lottery and those who benefit from it is a proper subject for social survey work. As the existing operator, Camelot could undertake such work if it wished to. It is not for the Government to do so.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I was pleased to see the Sydney Opera House built with lottery funds. I have long been a supporter of lottery funds and believe that they are preferable to higher taxation. However, can the Minister explain why even Camelot, by whom we were all invited approximately a year ago to see a presentation, would have to install totally new terminals if its bid were successful? I understand that whoever wins the bid will have to start with new equipment, and Camelot said that it could sell off its old equipment. Was that condition applied simply in order to create a level playing field for new contenders?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I love the Sydney Opera House, too. To that extent, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. It is true that, in order to ensure a level playing field, Camelot has been told that it will have to install new equipment. However, as its equipment is already at least six years old, I understand that a phased introduction of new equipment would in any event have to be carried out in order to keep up with new technology.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, are the Government worried about the fact that failure of technology associated with Sir Richard Branson, which has resulted in his company failing in its promises, has already led to fines of approximately £2 million in the United States? Does that concern the Government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, failure of any member of either consortium would be a matter of concern to the National Lottery Commission. I
98
understand that failures have occurred in almost all the equipment produced by manufacturers in many countries in the world.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, who will be responsible for disposing of the redundant terminals in an environmentally safe and satisfactory manner?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, refers to Camelot's terminals, Camelot will be responsible for their disposal.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, my noble friends are right to point to some of the chaos that has ensued this year while a new operator has been sought. Can the Minister assure the House today that the Government, as well as the commission, are confident that there will be no hiatus between the end of the operation of this licence and the effective running of the new licence for the lottery? Secondly, with regard to the date that the Minister mentioned in relation to a decision being made, can he assure the House that any decision on the lottery successor will take place while the House is in session and that the House will have the opportunity to comment on it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that the National Lottery Commission intends that a decision will be taken while the House is sitting. As to whether there will be an opportunity for a Statement, that is of course a matter for the usual channels and not for the Government. With regard to the issue of the extension of Camelot's contract, to which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred, and the issue of there being no interruption in the service, for their part the Government have given a clear remit to the National Lottery Commission. We understand that the commission is confident that there will be no hiatus.

Licensed Premises: Entertainment Legislation
2.53 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford The Lord Bishop of Oxford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 1964, members of the public count as "performers" if they sing on licensed premises; and, if so, how local authorities can enforce public entertainment licensing legislation in a proportionate manner that is compatible with performers' rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, Section 182 of the Licensing Act 1964 exempts licensed premises from the need to obtain a public entertainment licence where the entertainment provided consists of music and singing by not more than two performers. Whether members of the public

99
who sing on licensed premises count as performers is a matter for the licensing authority to decide, depending on the circumstances. Ultimately, the compatibility of this provision with the European Convention on Human Rights would be a matter for the courts to determine. As part of our proposed general reform of the licensing and public entertainment laws in England and Wales, we propose to do away with the Section 182 provisions.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his interesting reply and particularly for his last point about doing away with the section. However, does he agree that currently it is very strange that if a couple of pianists or a pianist and a singer are in a pub and a member of the audience gets up to sing along with them, they are liable to prosecution with quite heavy fines? Indeed, some local authorities have already threatened the owners of pubs with prosecution if they allow that to happen on their premises.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government have decided to reform the Licensing Act 1964 for the very reason to which the right reverend Prelate referred. Clearly we need more sensible, modernised laws in this field. I do not know of any authorities which have acted in the peculiar and perverse way to which the right reverend Prelate referred. I am sure that most local licensing authorities act quite reasonably. Of course, if the right reverend Prelate or other Members of your Lordships' House have knowledge of any particular difficulties or complaints, I shall be more than happy to pursue them and to ensure that fair and reasonable enforcement takes place in this field.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the Minister's Answer worries me. Is he saying that if a Welsh male voice choir which has performed of an evening in the local hall or chapel then goes into a pub and, after a suitable intake, believes in venting its good spirits in hymns or other songs, it is breaking the law in so doing?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General says that they should not go to the pub, having been to the chapel. I am grateful for that very good joke. I suspect that the issue also depends on whether one considers it to be entertainment. However, that is a rather more complex and vexed question. I would not expect any reasonable licensing authority to act in the manner to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not possible that the performers' unions will have an interest in this matter? If that is so and if my noble friend is
100
approached by Equity on the matter, am I right in saying that I can assure the members of that union that he will lend them an ear?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I may lend them more than one ear and, of course, I shall endeavour to be as helpful as possible.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is this not a perfect example of what, had it been put forward by the European Commission, would have been described as "Europe bans popular singers"? Therefore, will the Minister ask the Home Office to consider the matter carefully and invite the local authorities not to behave in such a silly manner?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right, and we are ahead of the game. We worked with the Local Government Association earlier this year and jointly published guidance to local authorities on how to act on these matters. We are working very closely with local authorities to ensure that fair enforcement is carried out.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister give the right reverend Prelate the assurance which he normally gives; that is, that if he provides the names of the pubs and so on, the Minister will investigate personally what is happening there?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, at this time of the year it would be a great pleasure personally to visit those pubs.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister referred to the Government as being ahead of the game in this matter. However, I do not recollect that licensing was mentioned in the Queen's Speech. Therefore, will any other measures be laid before us?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is not a matter for me to determine what will be put forward in other measures. Some aspects of the White Paper have found their way into the battery of measures that we are bringing forward to deal with anti-social behaviour. As we have said on a number of occasions, we shall legislate in this field when parliamentary time properly permits.

The Internet: Race Hatred Material
2.58 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to combat the dissemination of racist material on the Internet.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government condemn those who use the Internet to distribute race hate material. Provided that it falls within our jurisdiction, Internet material is subject to

101
the same laws as material distributed by other means. The Public Order Act 1986 deals with material which is threatening, abusive or insulting and intended to stir up racial hatred.
Last month the Home Secretary announced that the Government were making available £25 million to the police over the next three years to initiate the implementation of a national hi-tech crime strategy. That will enhance the capability of law enforcement to investigate crime more effectively where new technology is used. The Home Office is currently discussing with the Internet Watch Foundation ways in which the IWF can act on complaints by members of the public about racist material on the net.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comprehensive reply. However, is he familiar with the recent report of the racism monitoring unit of the European Union which states that over 2,100 websites on the Internet now promote racism and anti-Semitism and that a substantial number of them are based in the United Kingdom, including the notorious Blood and Honour Combat 18 website, which promotes Holocaust denial, incitement to racial hatred and the adoration of Adolf Hitler? Is he satisfied that the Internet Watch Foundation, to which he referred, has sufficient resources to do the job? Does he not feel that as the Public Order Act 1986 was introduced before the Internet was developed, there is a case for strengthening its provisions in this area?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am aware of the report. I have a copy and I have been studying it. It is very disturbing, particularly with regard to the development of Internet race hate material, as my noble friend said. We are satisfied with the way in which the Internet Watch Foundation works. We have had detailed discussions with it about this very sensitive matter. We are as alarmed as everybody else by the growth of such material. We are concerned, and we shall ensure that the foundation has adequate resources. We continue to support it to that end.
As I said earlier, we are providing additional resources to the police service so that it can improve the quality of enforcement in this area. That requires training and an understanding of the new techniques which are available and of the way in which the net can be used and abused.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister say what is the liability of service providers for racist and other unlawful material published on their sites? In view of the impossibility of supervising the immense amount of material which is put on a particular service provider's site, should not the courts be allowed to consider granting orders against racist and other material which would become binding on the service provider so that he had proper notice of it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is an extremely complex and technical area. I agree with the noble Lord that we need to pay careful attention to the
102
activities of service providers in this regard. Yes, there needs to be careful monitoring. We are always grateful when Members of your Lordships' House bring any particular sites to our attention. The police have a primary law enforcement role in that regard and we must ensure that they have the resources and support to carry out a very difficult job.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, will the Minister publicise a phone number or helpline to which members of the public can refer if they come across such material?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the best advice that I can give to people who are offended by this appalling material is to make contact with the Internet Watch Foundation or the police if they believe that a criminal offence is involved. The police are the primary law enforcement body in this instance. We should make sure that the police are doing the job they are there to do. We all have a vested interest, in society, in ensuring that such appalling instances of abuse of the Internet are drawn to public attention.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, much vile and offensive material is published on the Internet and organisations have been identified which are operating from this country, as the noble Lord pointed out. Why have no prosecutions been brought under the Public Order Act against those organisations?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there are some difficulties in the use of that legislation in this regard. The noble Lord makes a very useful contribution to the debate. Certainly, I shall want to look more closely at the statistics and find out why it is perhaps more difficult, with regard to the Internet, to use the Public Order Act in the way the noble Lord suggests. I have been advised that overtly racist organisations, like, for example, the BNP, have skilfully devised their own websites which travel close to the margins of legality but nevertheless manage to skirt round it and avoid prosecution. We should be aware of the difficulties.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on Tuesday, 23rd January, I am sponsoring a meeting in the Moses Room for the Internet Watch Foundation to explain to your Lordships exactly what it is doing? I hope that that will help noble Lords to understand the problem rather better.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am aware of that fact and, if I have the time, I shall certainly join my noble friend because I believe that the IWF does a very good job. We fully support its work and its efforts.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the

103
House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the European Council in Nice.

Parliament Acts (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to confirm the Parliament Act 1949 and other Acts and to amend the Parliament Act 1911. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Donaldson of Lymington.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.5 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by the Lord Graham of Edmonton—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I would like to begin by saying how much I am looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Morgan. Perhaps I may comment also that I believe that this may be a parliamentary first. In my experience, it is certainly the first occasion on which all six Front Bench speakers in a debate of this kind are women. So we are certainly making progress.
In opening this debate, I want to reflect on what this Government have achieved in their drive to raise standards, promote diversity and widen access in education. I shall also outline my department's legislative proposals; the content of the Bills coming forward from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; and the priorities for agricultural policy—which my noble friend will discuss at greater length when she winds up.
Our education system should enable all young people to reach their full potential regardless of where they happen to live. Since coming to power we have introduced a range of radical reforms to transform our education system into one that is fit to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
In our primary schools we have concentrated on "getting the basics right": every child should be taught to read, write and add up well. We set ourselves challenging targets for literacy and numeracy. This year's results show that we are well on the way to
104
meeting them. The percentage of children reaching level 4 or above in English has risen since 1998 by 10 percentage points from 65 to 75 per cent; and in maths, the percentage of children achieving level 4 is up 13 percentage points from 59 to 72 per cent.
We have made it our priority to reduce class sizes in the crucial early years when children must master the basics. Almost half a million infants were in large classes when we came to power. This has been reduced to as few as 30,000—exceeding the target of 50,000 by September 2000. We have backed up our policies in primary schools with an unprecedented increase in funding. Funding has risen in real terms by £410 a pupil since the election.
In our secondary schools we are setting new targets for 14 year-olds, supporting a real improvement drive in urban schools through Excellence in Cities and backing diversity with more specialist schools. Evidence from the recent performance tables shows that investment backed by targets is beginning to pay off. We are seeing higher than average improvement in specialist schools and Excellence in Cities as part of further GCSE improvements overall. Funding for our secondary schools has risen sharply under this Government by £360 per pupil in real terms since 1997. But the secondary sector has had to recover from cuts of £230 per pupil in the last three Budgets of the previous administration.
This Government recognise the importance of rural schools to rural communities. We have reduced the rate of closure of rural schools from some 30 a year in the previous
Rural schools are benefiting, as all schools are, from our drive to raise standards. But we are aware that small schools face special problems. An extra £60 million is being made available this year under the administrative support fund for small schools to reduce the burden of basic administration for teachers and heads in small schools, and an additional £20 million is available under the small schools' support fund to encourage small schools to pilot innovative ways of working collaboratively with others to overcome difficulties due to small size. These grants will be combined from next year, sustaining support for our smaller schools.
Higher standards in our schools can be delivered only if we invest in our teachers. Training salaries are delivering the first increase in recruitment for eight years and a threefold increase in senior teachers applying to be heads. There were over 400,000 teachers in post in January 2000, more than at any other time over the past 10 years.
Ensuring that all our young people receive a high quality education means that we have been firm on failure. As a result of our decision to introduce a two-year deadline for failing schools and the continued pressure of Ofsted inspections, we have seen the time that it takes to turn around failing schools fall from 25 months on average to 18 months. Over 600 failing schools have been successfully turned around since 1997. A further 122 failing schools have been closed and councils have put a further 25 through a fresh start.

105
We are also taking action to raise standards in the further education sector. The FE Standards Fund, introduced in April 1999, now totals £301 million over three years—£35 million in 1999–00, £98 million in 2000–01 and £168 million in 2001–02.
In our higher education institutions we have seen an overall increase of 6,000 full-time students being accepted for entry. The total number of students in HE has risen in each of the two years since we introduced tuition fees and our other student support reforms in 1998. There will be at least £425 million extra for higher education in 2001–02 compared with the previous year—a 5.3 per cent increase in real terms. The spending review settlement will allow progress towards our aim that by the end of the decade, 50 per cent of young people will have the opportunity to benefit from higher education by the time that they are 30.
Past low standards are reflected in the fact that as many as 7 million adults cannot read or write as well as an average 11-year old. We have set a target of reducing the number of adults who have literacy and numeracy problems by 750,000 by 2004. The number of adults participating in adult basic skills provision this year has gone up from around 250,000 to a little under 400,000.
Promoting diversity is central to our education agenda. We are gradually overcoming the historical low expectations of children with special educational needs and disabilities and confirming their right to attend mainstream schools where their parents want that and where it is appropriate.
The Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill, announced in the gracious Speech, will improve standards of education for children with special educational needs and introduce new rights for disabled people right across education.
Part I of the Bill takes forward the undertaking to legislate in the documents, Meeting Special Educational Needs: A Programme of Action in England and Shaping the Future for Special Educational Needs for Wales. Part II of the Bill addresses the education recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force that were made in its report in December 1999.
The provisions in the Bill will improve the existing framework for special educational needs in order to raise the achievement of all children with SEN. The Bill will strengthen the right of children with statements of SEN to be educated in mainstream schools where that is what parents want and where the interests of other children can be protected. It will support parents by requiring local education authorities to make arrangements for providing parents with advice and information and for setting up a means of resolving parents' disputes with schools or with LEAs. And it will make other changes to arrangements for identifying children with special educational needs and the SEN appeals process in order to help and support parents of such children.
The Bill will also give new rights for disabled people in education. It will lift the education exemption from Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act and place
106
new duties on schools, further and higher education institutions and LEAs in relation to adult education and the youth service. In Scotland, it will also cover community education secured by local authorities. Providers of education will be required not to treat disabled pupils and students less favourably, without justification, than those who are not disabled. They will be under a duty to make reasonable adjustments where disabled pupils and students are placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with those who are not disabled.
There will be an additional duty on LEAs and schools in England and Wales to plan strategically to increase physical access to school premises and the curriculum. The DRC will produce codes of practice to illustrate the new duties and rights.
On Friday my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment also announced in another place a rise in the SEN standards fund from £55 million this year to £82 million next year to provide information and advice services for parents, improved training for staff and support for children unable to attend school due to illness or injury and those in public care.
The new arrangements, taken together with our other initiatives for improving the SEN framework and creating comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people, are a significant step forward for pupils, students and adult learners alike.
I turn now from the business of my own department to the measures that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions proposes in the housing Bill. It will be the first housing Bill in this Parliament. It fulfils commitments that we made in our manifesto to tackle gazumping and to strengthen the protection available to people who are unintentionally homeless.
The Bill's proposals form part of a wider package of complementary reforms to help the 1.5 million individuals and families who buy and sell their homes each year. Those reforms will introduce a modern and more streamlined system for buying and selling homes. It will be easier, faster, fairer, more transparent and consumer friendly, with earlier certainty.
The proposals have been developed following detailed research and widespread consultation, as well as studies of experience in other countries. The Bill will provide for a pack of standard information to be put together by the seller or their agent. This pack will give prospective buyers vital information about the state and condition of the property that they want to buy. Alongside that, we shall introduce measures that do not require legislation.
Mortgage lenders and local authorities are being called upon to adopt service targets that will ensure that buyers and sellers receive a fast and efficient service. All the professions involved in the home buying and selling process are being encouraged to take full advantage of advances in information technology to speed up the process.

107
The proposals on homelessness in the Bill are central to our aim to offer everyone the opportunity of a decent home and so to promote social cohesion, well being and self dependence. Homelessness has fallen since 1996, but we are far from complacent. The Government are determined to strengthen the protection available to people who are homeless through no fault of their own and who are in priority need.
The previous government removed the duty on local authorities to find permanent housing for homeless families. The Bill will ensure that everyone accepted as being unintentionally homeless and in priority need will be provided with suitable accommodation until they achieve a settled housing solution.
Our proposals will require authorities to take a more strategic, multi-agency approach to tackling the causes of homelessness and the rehousing of homeless families. They will give homeless people and others in housing need more choice.
We remain committed to providing for the introduction of commonhold and for the substantial reform of residential leasehold. As the gracious Speech made clear, we expect to make further progress on that during the current session.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and ministerial colleagues from the DETR published a Bill in draft, together with an accompanying consultation paper, in August. A great many responses were received; more than 1,000 on the leasehold proposals alone. A number of these made valuable technical suggestions or pointed to issues which might need further consideration. We are considering carefully what changes to the Bill might be appropriate so that, as soon as the opportunity arises, improved proposals can be put before Parliament.
We are more than doubling the level of capital investment in housing which we inherited in 1997. By 2002–04, annual investment will have risen to £4 billion. That will help us to bring all social housing up to a decent standard by 2010 and improve the supply of new affordable homes. We have allocated £250 million over the next three years to help key workers buy homes in our major towns and cities.
The Government have significantly increased regeneration spending in deprived areas, boosted the role of the regional development agencies and announced a £1 billion tax incentive package to make our towns and cities better places in which to live and work.
We have also announced a package of measures to tackle the real issues which matter to people in the countryside, backed up by a £1 billion programme to improve rural services. We have announced that by 2003–04 there will be an extra £33 billion a year—£139 billion a year in total—for key services; education, health, transport, housing and criminal justice. More money is going to programmes which will help vulnerable households to be more energy efficient, save money and live in warmer homes. We have introduced a new home energy efficiency scheme in
108
England which will benefit 460,000 vulnerable pensioner and family households in the first two years. There are similar schemes in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. That will broaden the kind of help which can be given, including providing brand new central heating systems. We have developed an affordable warmth programme, in conjunction with Transco, to make possible the installation of efficient gas central heating systems and insulation in a million homes.
In recent weeks, we have seen millions of pounds-worth of damage caused to people's homes by the worst flooding in this country since the 17th century. A number of steps have already been announced to help people and local authorities to cope; for instance, improvements to the Bellwin scheme. We have provided an additional £51 million over four years for flood defence work in England and we are enhancing research into predicting and assessing the effects of climate change.
I want to comment on the safety Bill which will be drafted during this Session. Safety is a high priority for this Government and the Bill will take into account the recommendations of Lord Cullen. It will strengthen safety laws both in transport and in the workplace.
Every year about 400 people lose their lives in work-related accidents; more than 1 million people suffer some form of injury at work; and about 2 million people suffer ill health caused by work. No society can completely eliminate injury and ill health caused by work but we can do better. We are already doing better than, say, 30 years ago but we can and must do better still.
The Bill will also cover the full range of transport safety. It will provide for safer travel on the railways, in the air, at sea and on the roads. We are all too aware of incidents on the railways; for instance, the serious accidents at Ladbroke Grove and, more recently, Hatfield. We cannot forget the "Marchioness" disaster on the Thames and there has been recent publicity about alcohol use by aircrew.
The safety Bill will provide an opportunity to implement recommendations which come from Lord Cullen's wide-ranging review of rail safety and from Lord Justice Clarke's review of safety on the River Thames. It will also tackle alcohol and drug use by staff working on airlines and ships and it will set a framework for delivery of our commitments on road safety and meeting our targets in that area. For the first time in 25 years, we will bring forward a wide-ranging Bill to make Britain a safer place in which to travel and work.
I would now like to turn to agriculture. We all recognise the difficult issues which some sections of the farming community face. Farm incomes remain severely depressed; they are at their lowest level in 30 years. The Government are working hard with the industry and its customers in the food and retailing sectors to deliver a long-term strategy for modernisation. There is wide recognition that simple maintenance of the status quo is not the way forward. We need change at a European and national level and our agricultural strategy sets out how to deliver that change.

109
The strategy has involved two key initiatives; the rural development programmes and the action plan for farming. The England Rural Development Programme is the first major step towards the radical reshaping of support for rural areas to reflect the public benefits which agriculture provides and to encourage new and sustainable rural businesses and thriving communities. This seven-year programme includes substantial extra expenditure on agri-environment and farm woodlands schemes, refocused support for hill farming and several new schemes designed to encourage enterprise and employment in the countryside.
We opened the new schemes for applications in October and are pleased by the level of interest already being shown. We are making plans to maintain the impetus so that we can ensure the delivery of the environmental and economic benefits which the programme envisages.
The second initiative, the Action Plan for Farming, is also fundamental to our agriculture strategy. The plan was launched by the Prime Minister at the Farming Summit in March. It was backed by £200 million at the time, with a further £300 million secured through the spending review settlement to push the plan forward over the next three years.
The action plan concentrates on several key areas, which are: targeted financial support to help farm businesses restructure and improve profitability; measures to promote farm-based rural development and help with farm diversification; a concerted effort across government to reduce the burden of regulation on farming; and new initiatives to join up the food chain with increased levels of communication and cooperation between farmers and growers, processors, manufacturers and retailers.
We will also continue to take advantage of opportunities to secure reforms leading to a more economically rational common agricultural policy and with it a better deal for consumers, taxpayers and the environment. Change will not be easy to secure. A majority of member states are broadly happy with the CAP in its present form but there is increasing recognition that external pressures may force change. We will continue to build on the Agenda 2000 reform package and exploit opportunities to press for change. We have worked hard to develop strategic alliances with other reform-minded member states. Our wider policy of constructive engagement in Europe is making this process easier and ensuring that our voice is heard and not discounted, as I am sure it was under the previous Government.
BSE-related issues will continue to engage much of the Ministry's energies. Although the epidemic in the UK continues to decline in line with predictions, the measures in place are kept under constant review. In addition, in the face of a sharp increase in reported cases in other member states, the Government are continuing to play a full part in the discussions with the Commission, our European partners and other key stakeholders on Community-wide measures to control the disease throughout the EU. That was illustrated by our constructive engagement in the 4th December Agriculture Council.
110
I also want to mention the report of the BSE inquiry. The Government are now carefully studying all of the inquiry team's findings. Our response to the report will be published in the coming months and Ministers will update the House on progress before the end of the year. Through a package of targeted policy initiatives, this Government remain committed to responding positively to the many challenges facing the farming industry.
In conclusion, the Government are committed to building a modern, inclusive and competitive society. The programme which I have outlined today supports that aim.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the debate today covers education, the environment and agriculture. It will not be possible for me to address all subjects in the time available. Therefore, I shall leave it to my noble friend Lady Byford, who brings great knowledge to our debates, to deal with the concerns of the countryside and agriculture in particular. The only comment I add at this stage is that there is a conspicuous absence of specific countryside issues from the gracious Speech other than the inclusion of the Hunting Bill, which tells us a lot about the priorities of this Government in terms of parliamentary time and their disdain for a particular minority interest which happens not to suit their own prejudices. Is it true that this Bill is to be rushed through the other place by Christmas? If so, what is the urgency? Can the Minister give an assurance when she replies to this debate that the Parliament Act will not be invoked in the case of the Hunting Bill—which ostensibly is subject to a free vote in both Houses—and certainly not before the Bill has completed its democratic process through Parliament?
Whether or not we are responding to a pre-election gracious Speech, one thing is clear: this Session is unusual in terms of the number of Bills and for what has or has not been included. Can it be, for example, that the sections of the Utilities Bill 1998 dealing with the water industry, which in an atmosphere of absolute chaos were abandoned, or the promised Bill on adoption, or even the long-awaited capital allowances Bill, have been set aside to allow time for the anti-hunting and anti-tobacco advertising Bills? We shall await the outcome of the inquiry into safety on our railways and any legislation that may flow from it.
However, it is interesting to note that the gracious Speech refers only to "progress" being made on leasehold and commonhold reform. What exactly does this mean? Where is the promised Bill? I have here press releases all relating to comments by Nick Raynsford dating back to 1995. In November 1995, Mr Raynsford, who was then a shadow spokesman for the Labour Party, said:
"The Labour Party endorsed … An End to Feudalism, our programme for leasehold reform launched two weeks ago. We stressed the need for measures to simplify the procedures whereby leaseholders can buy the freehold of their homes … We also proposed a 'right to manage' so that leaseholders have effective sanction against corrupt or inefficient managing agents … The Government promised to help leaseholders but its legislation has

111
proved toothless and ineffective … In doing so it has betrayed leaseholders and it clearly now has no appetite to tackle the problems".
In January 1996, Nick Raynsford went on to say that the case for urgent action was overwhelming and the law must be changed. Later that month it was reported that Nick Raynsford had written to the then Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, John Gummer, urging him to take action following revelations in the Evening Standard. He offered his party's full co-operation to bring in quickly,
"a short, single purpose Bill to safeguard leaseholders from the threat of eviction".
On 2nd February 1996, it was reported that a request for immediate action had been made by Mr Nick Raynsford, Labour's housing spokesman, who offered the support of the opposition to a Bill. Again, on 6th December 1996, Mr Raynsford said that,
"Labour has consistently urged the Government to introduce commonhold legislation and has confirmed that it will not oppose a commonhold Bill … Labour in government will have no hesitation in introducing a comprehensive leasehold reform package, including commonhold legislation".
The first Commonhold Bill was published in 1996 by the previous government, with support from the present Minister, Nick Raynsford. Here we are four years on. We had a manifesto commitment in 1997, a consultation paper in 1998, a draft Bill in 1999—and still no Bill. This is a case of all spin and no delivery, and yet parliamentary time can be found for hunting.
The Bill to ease the process of buying and selling homes and to improve the protection given to homeless people will, if the pilot schemes are anything to go by, give rise to lively debate among your Lordships. Despite reports about satisfaction levels quoted by Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, there are many questions as yet unanswered. It is not at all clear just how a "seller's package" will eliminate the need for checks by the purchaser. There is evidence that the level of trust in such packages is insufficient to satisfy the purchaser, who in many cases will seek a further survey, thereby duplicating costs.
Trevor Kent of the National Association of Estate Agents has gone so far as to describe the whole idea of a seller's package as a "farce". It is also the case that the seller's pack will cost anything from £500 to £700. That money is to be spent upfront by the seller. In what way will any of this address the central issue of gazumping? Since 1997, home ownership has become less easy for would-be first time purchasers by the scrapping of MIRAS and the reduction in right-to-buy discounts for council tenants and support for shared ownership schemes.
112
As for helping the homeless, one is reminded of the words of the Prime Minister in March 1996 when he told a Labour housing conference:
"Labour will do everything in its power to end the scandal of homelessness [and] the waste of families sleeping in bed and breakfast accommodation".
However, since the Government came into office in 1997 there are 13 per cent more priority homeless people and the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has risen by 51 per cent. The report on poverty by the Rowntree Foundation, highlighted in today's press, reveals that more families live in poor households under the present Labour Government than under the previous Conservative government.
There are a number of Bills listed in the current programme that will place additional burdens on local government. I hope that the Minister is able to give assurances that any increase in responsibilities will be matched by increased funding. There is also concern within local government that funding is handed down by central government with conditions as to how it must be spent.
It was brought to my notice just a week ago that in presenting a policy committee report to full council, the leader of one county council said:
"I have pleasure in presenting the report of the inappropriately named Policy Committee. These are not our preferred policies; these are not our preferred budgets; and these are not our preferred priorities. The Committee should be renamed 'the Government Policy Implementation Committee'".
Although he was ruled out of order by the chairman of the council, a pertinent point had been made.
Like the Special Educational Consortium, we welcome the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill, although during its passage through this House we shall wish to explore each proposal in considerable detail. I was able to secure a copy of the Bill only today, which puts me at a slight disadvantage. I was the Minister in this House responsible for taking through the Education Act 1993, Part III of which dealt with special educational needs. In that Bill procedures were put in place to improve the identification of young people with special needs at an early stage and to make proper educational provision, with a presumption in favour of parents' wishes as long as the provision was consistent with the educational needs of those children. A special needs tribunal was also established to hear the grievances of parents who were not satisfied that their child was receiving education appropriate to his or her needs.
One of my concerns is the aggressive policy intention of the Government towards the integration of children with special needs into mainstream schools. Where it is appropriate, and consistent with the wishes of parents, mainstream schools will be the obvious choice. However, for many children it will not be the right decision and will cause much distress to children and parents alike. I recommend compulsory reading of the article in yesterday's edition of the Sunday Times by Melanie Phillips in which she says that,
"Classroom 'inclusion' is a shibboleth for many educationalists, for whom separate schooling of any kind is an ideological anathema".

113
Is the right of parents to state a preference for special or mainstream education for their children, if it is consistent with meeting the educational needs of those children, to be retained in the Bill? We shall also require assurances from the Minister that the system of statementing will not be diluted and will be exclusively concerned with the educational needs of the child. There may be scope to improve the efficiency of the system. But that should not interfere with the formal identification of learning disabilities and the educational provision required to meet the children's needs.
Conditions which most often present problems to the education service include autism, Asperger's syndrome and dyslexia. It is important that identification of affected children and access to appropriate education are improved. The Royal National Institute for Deaf People is concerned about an effective screening system for new-born babies. Can the Minister inform the House about the timetable for introducing the planned country-wide neo-natal hearing screening system which the RNID believes will make it much easier to intervene with support before language and communication difficulties take hold?
The need to modify buildings in schools, and in the further and higher education sectors will take time and will be costly. The Government have made over £200 million over three years available for that purpose. However, local government will need to be kept fully informed of its additional duties under the Bill and will look to the Government to include it in discussions about the drawing up of a new code of practice and implementation of the proposals.
The Minister will know, as I learned when I was at the then Department for Education, that this House takes an intense interest in those issues and is able to bring much enthusiasm and expertise to bear on our debates. We can look forward to a lively, but always constructive, debate which I trust will result in a better deal for people with disabilities.
The gracious Speech promises other major Bills in secondary education. I remain puzzled. Why is it necessary to have yet more legislation for more specialist schools, urban school reform or even city academies—legislation exists to do all those things—or could it be that the Government have other plans? Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position.
If there are to be further major education Bills, it would help if the Minister could give us the timetable for their introduction into this House or another place and what they are designed to address.
I should like at this stage to pay a very warm tribute to my noble friend Lord Harris of Peckham. Over many years he has made a significant contribution to education. His involvement in the creation of city technology colleges was truly pioneering in providing education for young people in inner-city areas. He is now to make a major contribution to the development of a city academy, which is a city technology college in all but name, in his home town area of Peckham. In addition to that, and in response to the tragic death of Damilola Taylor, my noble friend is to help to build a community centre in Damilola's name.
114
The gracious Speech makes reference to changes secured in the law during the past Session of Parliament. I, too, have reflected on some of those changes. In particular, I recall with profound dismay the Government using the Parliament Act on the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, which makes it legal for the first time ever for buggery to be performed on schoolgirls and schoolboys of 16 and 17. That Bill was not supported publicly. It was a Bill that was subject to a free vote in both Houses. Even more of a constitutional outrage is that the Parliament Act was used before the Bill had completed its passage through both Houses. I know that I speak for my noble friends on these Benches, and I suspect for other Members in this House, when I ask the Government not to regard that as a precedent to be repeated.
I am disappointed also not to see any reference in the gracious Speech to strengthening the abuse of trust clauses. Having supported the lowering of the age of consent for homosexual acts, the Government accepted that there are categories of people in positions of trust over children, and that they should be subject to particular legal constraints. However, there were glaring omissions from the list; for example, part-time teachers, some youth workers and, in particular, personal mentors. There are 20,000 personal mentors being established by the Learning and Skills Act. Those are people who will almost certainly work one-to-one with some of the more vulnerable of our young people, but they will riot be subject to the abuse of trust sections of the Act. I hope that this can be dealt with by the introduction of another Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill.
We learned from the media today of a measure not flagged up in the gracious Speech: that the "morning-after-sex" pill is to be sold like sweeties over the counter. The Government really cannot wring their hands about the levels of promiscuity or about the early age at which young people are sexually active while at the same time using the Parliament Act to lower the age of consent and to legalise the act of buggery on children of 16 and 17; or, perhaps, is the message that it really does not matter what you do so long as you do not get pregnant?
Education is said to be the first priority of the Government. Much has been done. I am reminded that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. On that basis I am delighted that many of the reforms initiated by the previous government are in place and have been developed: rigorous inspections of all schools by Ofsted; regular assessment and testing of children's work with published results; better information to parents; improved curriculum for teacher training colleges with an emphasis on literacy and numeracy; and the development of specialist schools and city technology colleges, now called city academies.
However, there the flattery ends. Grant-maintained status was abolished in favour of a massive rise in central bureaucratic control. Grammar schools and sixth forms remain threatened. The DfEE continues to hold back at national level unprecedented sums of

115
money. Funds to support endless schemes have been established, for which heads and their teachers have to spend precious time bidding, often unsuccessfully.
Education action zones, on which untold sums of money have been spent, remain a mystery in terms of what they have achieved. Trying to get information about any objective assessment of their progress from Ministers is nigh on impossible. I have been asking questions for the past 18 months. I have asked also how much private money has been contributed to each action zone but to date to no avail. Despite the constant reference to extra funding, which is double and even triple counted, schools are not seeing their core budgets rising. We all know that there are some local authorities which tend to hold money back. One only has to read the excellent report published today by Nick Seaton of Real Education to know that. However, central government and the DfEE in particular bear the greatest responsibility for denying schools their rightful entitlement.
The level of violence in the classroom is on the increase. The Government's policy on exclusions makes the situation very difficult for teachers. I recently visited a primary school that had exhausted every possible strategy to deal with a disruptive pupil. As a last resort the head, with the support of governors, decided to exclude the pupil permanently. However, the headmistress is under enormous pressure to reinstate the pupil. That cannot be in the interests of the other children in the school or in the interest of the excluded child.
Three weeks ago on television the Secretary of State, Mr Blunkett, said that the staffing situation in our schools had almost reached meltdown. That was only days after the Minister in this House claimed in answer to a Question from me that there was no crisis in teacher recruitment. Parents and teachers would have welcomed from the gracious Speech a programme to free schools from bureaucratic control, the freedom to receive and to spend more of the total DfEE budget, and to be granted more control over their affairs at a local level. That is certainly what I and my noble friends would have supported.
3.49 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, from these Benches I thank the Minister for her broad and wide-ranging introduction to the debate. As she said, the agenda set for the debate, covering, as it does, education, the environment and agriculture, is wide and has relatively little coherence. Others on these Benches will cover the issues of the environment, housing and agriculture. For my part, I should like to use the opportunity to dwell on educational issues, which are an important part of the gracious Speech and of the agenda which the Government have set themselves.
As the Minister made clear, the one specific Bill on education in the gracious Speech is the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill. It will be introduced in this House and its Second Reading has already been set down for Tuesday 19th December.
116
We welcome the Bill. It will implement the proposals put forward in the 1998 White Paper, which set out a programme for action on meeting special educational needs and has been long awaited. It is not a field in which I have specialist knowledge. I am not even the special educational needs governor in the primary school where I am a governor. But many in this House have a great deal of knowledge of these issues and I shall be a learner from, as much as a contributor to, our debates on the Bill.
My understanding is that the Bill will introduce a number of new responsibilities and obligations on what are now termed educational providers—the schools, colleges and universities—not to treat those with special needs less favourably than those without such needs. It will require those establishments to make "reasonable adjustments" to "policies, practices and procedures" in order to do so. In practice this means that in many cases substantial changes will have to be made both to the physical buildings to make them "access friendly" for the disabled, and, perhaps even more importantly, to make due allowance for teaching methods and procedures.
The Government have put money aside to meet those obligations—£200 million over three years, I gather, in respect of teaching requirements and a further £170 million to help with access expenditure. Is that enough? It is immensely important that there is enough funding to meet the needs. Research has shown that educating all children together, including those with special educational needs, can be of mutual advantage provided that sufficient support is given to those with special needs. But those of us who have been school governors and have sat in observing or helping with classes know only too well how those with special needs can also demand disproportionate time.
For example, in its briefing on the Bill, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People refers to the need to train ordinary classroom teachers to understand and cope with deaf children. Yes, yes, but where will our already over-committed teachers find the time for such training? It is not just a question of meeting the costs of such courses but of the money to buy in supply teachers and extra classroom support; and, in the present circumstances, of finding such teachers. In the primary school where I am a governor we have had a vacancy for such a classroom support position for two terms and we have had no applications.
Once again, therefore, there are two key issues for the achievement of the Bill's aims: resources and capturing the hearts and minds of the teachers. The Government came into office three-and-a-half-years ago preaching "Education, education, education". It is no secret that from these Benches we shared those priorities. Indeed, at times we almost felt that they had been stolen from us. It has long been our perception that many of the failings of modern Britain, whether one is talking about the productivity gap or the "yob" culture, stem from failures in our education system and that we need a wholesale revolution to turn things around.

117
Nor is it a secret that had we been in government we would have done things differently. We argued from the start of the Government's term of office that education expenditure needed to be increased and that if necessary taxes should be increased to pay for what we saw as an investment which the country could not afford not to make—and to make quickly and immediately. We argued also that capturing the hearts and minds of teachers was equally important and that that could not be achieved by a regime of constant blame and criticism of the teaching profession.
Nor on these Benches would we meekly have allowed the Treasury to dictate priorities and stick for two crucial years to the seriously inadequate Conservative budgets of the mid-1990s.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Does the Liberal Democrat Party still stick to the idea that there should be a specific rise in income tax in order to finance education?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we are of the opinion that there is a case for raising income tax by one penny in order to provide an extra £3 billion for the education budget.
Nor would we have allowed the flawed Ofsted regime of constant carping and blame to undermine the morale of the teaching profession in the way that it has. The chickens from the long years of under-investment in education are now coming home to roost. Yes, at long last we are seeing resources put into repairs and maintenance. But still too many schools, when visited in this new monsoon climate we seem to be enjoying, have buckets in classrooms to catch the drips coming from the ceiling.
We face an increasing crisis of teacher shortages. The age profile of the teaching profession, like that of nursing, means that many will be retiring in the course of the next 10 years. Others are leaving because they are just finding the pressures too great; and we have not been recruiting enough to fill the places that are vacant. Yes, the Minister has told us that we have more teachers in place than ever before; but if we going for smaller classes in primary schools and in secondary schools, we need more teachers. We cannot do without more teachers. The recently released figures on teacher recruitment show that, in spite of all the blandishments being offered, graduates are just not opting for the teaching profession.
Why? It is actually not a question of pay. Ask any teacher and you will find that their main complaint now is about the bureaucracy imposed on them; plans to be written, targets to be set, and then reports to be prepared on how you have achieved those tasks; and in between you have to get on with teaching. If you are a primary school teacher, you are lucky if you have one free period from teaching each week. As with the medical profession, many teachers have traditionally come from families where one or both parents are teachers. It is there that we are now losing out. These children observe the lives their parents lead, and vote with their feet. I am delighted to see the advertising campaigns that are being run to attract teachers. I am
118
glad that Chris Woodhead has left Ofsted so that we can at last see a regime that is more supportive of teachers and their efforts. I hope to goodness that between them these measures will bring in more teachers because we have a real crisis on our hands.
Years of under-investment in education also shows through at the national level. It is now well known that in 1997 we were spending less of our GDP on education—4.5 per cent—than in 1979. What is less well known is that, thanks to following Tory spending limits, the figure fell in the years 1998 and 1999 and only now, with the Comprehensive Spending Review money beginning to come through, is it starting to rise. Education, education, education; yet the Government allow the percentage of GDP spent on education to fall.
It is not as if we were high up in the league tables anyhow; and it shows through in other ways. Last week a new league table came across my desk—the OECD International Literacy Survey—in which Britain is ranked 11th; with Sweden, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, Canada, the US and Hungary, in that order, ranked above us. Perhaps most shaming was the fact that over 20 per cent—more than one in five adults in this country—have literacy and numeracy skills insufficient, in the words of the survey,
"to cope with modern life".
In other words, their skills are insufficient to read the label on a medicine bottle and understand what it means. That is an indictment of our education system. We perceive it as a legacy not of poor teaching but of many long years of under-investment in education.
To do them justice, this Government have begun to turn things around. They are now belatedly putting more resources into education, although whether they are putting in enough remains a moot point. The emphasis on smaller class sizes and numeracy and literacy in primary schools is welcome, although we are sad that class sizes in secondary schools have risen over the same period.
We are glad to see the emphasis on early years education and, at long last, the recognition that we need to pay more attention to the further education sector and the development of vocational skills. But this, too, requires adequate funding. Funding both in this area and in higher education is still seriously short.
I conclude with a few words on the issue of vocational skills. One in live adults in this country—7 million people—are what is termed functionally illiterate. This helps to explain why we have a "yob" culture. Members on the Conservative Benches in this House yearn for the return of grammar schools, but they should remember that this was an education system which gave a splendid education to the top 20 per cent of the age range—indeed, I was one of those who benefited from it. However, the system wrote off the other 80 per cent. It put academic education on a pedestal and afforded only a low status to vocational education and allowed what at one time had been a vision of technical schools to wither on the vine. To too great an extent, I believe, this remains the case today.

119
In its final report, the National Skills Task Force made it clear that Britain faces a chronic shortage of people with what are called level 3—the equivalent of A-level—vocational training and skills. If we look at Britain's educational profile today, we are currently encouraging more and more young people to pursue academic A-level courses and go on to universities, but we still have too many leaving school at the age of 16 and not enough undertaking vocational courses and going on to further education and training. There is a great gap between those achieving only at level 1—bare numeracy and literacy—and the increasing numbers going through to academic degree level qualifications at level 4. If we compare ourselves with those higher up the literacy league tables, we see that we, in contrast to other countries, have far too few students achieving qualifications at level 2 and level 3.
The great challenge to education for the coming decade is to fill that gap, to get the yobs off the streets, into training and thus trained for proper jobs. It is no good laying down curfews or even, if I may say so, providing Connexions mentors to chase them up and counsel them at the ages of 16 and 17. That is treating the symptoms, not the causes. We lose these children from the school system at the age of 10, 11 and 12 rather than at 16 and 17. The access issue in Oxford arises mainly because there are too few pupils from homes in social class 5 who even achieve the required qualifications.
As with the issue of disability, reversing these trends requires a revolution, one in both resources and attitudes. But if we are to reverse those trends in illiteracy, which underlie Britain's yob culture, and to build, as the Minister said in her speech,
"a modern, inclusive and competitive society",
it is a revolution that we shall have to make happen.

Business
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, before we move on to the Statement on the meeting of the European Council in Nice, 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.

European Council, Nice
4.4 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I shall make a Statement on the European Council which took place from 7th to 10th December. A copy of the conclusions has been
120
placed in the Library of the House and a copy of the Nice treaty will also be deposited as soon as a final version is available from the Council Secretariat.
"This summit was the culmination of a year-long conference called to deal with issues on which agreement could not be reached at Amsterdam three years ago. Agreement was essential to open the door to the enlargement of the European Union—the goal of successive British governments.
"An agreement was reached in the early hours of this morning which removes all remaining institutional obstacles to enlargement. It is extraordinary to think that a few years ago those countries in central and eastern Europe were still under the communist yoke of the old Soviet bloc. Today, there is the real prospect of uniting western and eastern Europe for the first time in generations.
"The primary objective in the negotiation has therefore been successfully accomplished. But there were also key British interests. Our first priority was to get more voting strength for the United Kingdom.
"The agreement reached increases the weight of Britain's vote. It raises the threshold for QMV up, when the EU will be 27, to over 74 per cent of votes. It adds two further tests: any proposal must have at least a majority of states on side, as well as crossing the 74 per cent threshold; and a new population threshold at 62 per cent of the EU is introduced. So the three biggest countries will continue, even as the EU enlarges, to be able to block together. This now can be placed alongside the changes in Britain's financial contributions.
"Ever since we joined the EU, Britain has made a far greater proportionate contribution to Europe's finances than France or Italy, despite, until recently, being a slightly smaller economy. By 2006, on the assumption of only six new member states, we shall be making a net contribution roughly equivalent to France and Italy for the first time in our membership.
"Secondly, on defence, the European Council agreed the arrangements for European security that we have negotiated over the past two years. It was made plain, first, that European defence would operate only when NATO chooses not to be engaged; secondly, that it be limited to peacekeeping, humanitarian and crisis management tasks; and, thirdly, that, as the text puts it, the commitment of national assets to any EU-led operation will be based on 'sovereign national decisions'. Collective defence will remain the responsibility of NATO. The next step is for the two organisations, the EU and NATO, to agree on the necessary arrangements. Any significant operation will require NATO assets and any such operation will be planned at NATO by the planning staff at SHAPE. This underlines the EU's aim to develop a strategic partnership with NATO. So here, too, Britain's essential national interest has been protected.

121
"Thirdly, we have retained unanimity where necessary and extended qualified majority voting where necessary.
"Of the articles that move to QMV, 11 are appointments or changes in rules of procedure. One of these is important—the nomination of the Commission president, where it is essential that, in an EU of 27 or 30, one small state cannot block the right appointment. Nine of the changes deal with freedom of movement, where we have an absolute right to decide whether to take part, thanks to the protocol we secured at Amsterdam. The remainder are primarily about the efficiency of economic management and the single market, where majority voting is in the national interest: financial management of the EU budget, industrial policy and trade in services. That means new markets for British financial services and the jobs and prosperity that go with it. And within these articles we have kept unanimity where we need it: unanimity for harmonisation in anti-discrimination measures, unanimity for passports, unanimity for anything to do with taxation and social security.
"However, there were areas where it would not have been in our interests to agree to qualified majority voting, in particular for taxation and social security. As we undertook to the House, these matters will remain subject to unanimity. In the field of justice and home affairs, the special protocol we agreed at Amsterdam continues to mean that we decide where to join in co-operation in our national interest; for example, in dealing with problems of asylum. On all these issues we said that we would protect the national interest and, contrary to the dire warnings of the party opposite, that is exactly what we did. The House will note with some amusement their claims now that these issues were never under threat.
"In an enlarged European Union there will inevitably be issues where some member states can move ahead faster than others. It is in Britain's interests, as one of the leading partners of the European Union, for that to be possible. We have secured conditions for this co-operation which fully safeguard the single market, prevent discrimination in trade between member states, cannot conflict with existing agreements and are open to all. In the field of foreign policy, the common strategies of the Union will continue to be set by unanimity. Any cooperation between groups of member states has to be consistent with a prior agreement reached by all and is subject to national veto if necessary. These enhanced co-operation agreements will not apply to defence—another key British objective secured.
"On numbers of Commissioners, up to 2005 unchanged, except for one for any applicant country. Then from 2006, one Commissioner per country up to a maximum of 27, from its present 20, with agreement to reduce numbers in 2010, following a review.
"Since the Amsterdam Summit of three-and-a-half years ago, we have tried to rebuild British policy in Europe, to get the best out of Europe for Britain
122
while shaping Europe's future. On each occasion we were told that it was impossible; that Britain versus Europe was the only game in town. At Amsterdam, we were told we could not protect our borders. We did. Two years ago, in Berlin, we were told we could not protect the British rebate. We did better. We put Britain's contributions on a more equitable footing for the first time. Then, at Lisbon, we were told Europe could not accept the agenda for economic reforms. It did.
"Earlier this year, in June's summit, we were told we could not win the argument on the withholding tax. It is won. The rest of Europe is now going to adopt exchange of information, not a new tax, as the way forward.
"Finally, here on defence, we were told we could not improve Europe's defence capability —a vital NATO as well as EU interest—without undermining NATO and that we would be isolated on tax and social security. We secured all our objectives without it even being suggested that we were an obstacle in the way of enlargement.
"It is possible to Fight Britain's corner, to get the best out of Europe for Britain and exercise real authority and influence in Europe. That is as it should be. Britain is a world power. To stand aside from the key alliance—the EU—right on our doorstep is not advancing Britain's interests, It is betraying them.
"Enlargement will now happen. British interests were advanced. But we cannot continue to take decisions as important as this in this way. This is not a criticism of the French presidency, which did well in immensely difficult circumstances. But the ideas for future reform in the EU which Britain put forward a few weeks ago are now essential so that a more rational way of decision-making is achieved. This too is a debate in which we should be thoroughly and constructively engaged. And we will be.
"The Europe that this Government are striving for is one of nation states with their own traditions, cultures and special interests, working together in their own interests and in those of Europe as a whole. That means, on the one hand, making common decisions at a European level where that makes sense and, on the other hand. making decisions at a national or regional level where that makes sense. It means embracing all the countries of Europe, east and west, in a way that would have been unimaginable throughout most of the troubled history of our continent. It is a goal which moved forward in Nice. I commend it to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, I have been asked to reply from these Benches. Straightaway, I thank the noble Baroness most warmly for the usual clarity and eloquence with which she has repeated the Statement. Perhaps I may

123
also add a word of thanks, through her, to the officials, who must have ended the summit at some godless hour this morning. They must have worked extremely hard after a very uncomfortable weekend—both physically and intellectually—to cobble something together. They usually get forgotten and I should like to add a word of thanks to them.
Before I come to my questions, does the noble Baroness accept that we on this side are totally committed to enlargement and to the bringing together of a Europe of free and independent states, for which so many British citizens, including the relatives of many people in the House, fought and died? I hope that that is not in question—although, unfortunately, I have seen it questioned in some quarters.
Was the Nice Summit really about enlargement? Was it really and truly the only trigger required for the enlargement process to go forward? Will the Nice agreements, such as they are, speed up enlargement by a single day in practice? If the aim was enlargement at Nice, why on earth was there not discussion about the common agricultural policy, which everyone knows is by far the biggest block for the applicant states in joining the European Union? It is a problem, particularly for the Poles. Why was there not discussion about easing the acquis communautaire burden, which is causing enormous difficulties for Hungary, the Czech Republic and other applicant states? Why was there not any suggestion that the applicant states should become members now, as has been suggested in some quarters, in order that they may share in the future shaping of the Europe of which they will be part? None of these matters was brought forward, which raises the question of whether enlargement was the primary aim.
We on this side have no difficulties with the proposal for a single Commissioner or, indeed, for Commission reform. It is badly needed. The Commission has an expansionist tendency which is long overdue for curbing. In my personal view, the Commission reform should have been much more radical. But we are happy with that.
We have no particular difficulties with the weighting of votes, although clearly it caused a lot of problems at Nice. I must confess to personal unease—and it is personal—that we should perhaps be not speaking up as strongly as Britain used to for the smaller nations of Europe. There seems to be a danger that we could now get a line up between the small nations and the big ones and that this quarrel could upset the whole equilibrium of the whole European Union.
Nor are we worried about flexibility, provided that it is kept under restraint and that there is a veto ultimately on that flexibility or enhanced cooperation. I am not clear from the Statement whether that veto is still in place. Perhaps the noble Baroness will tell us in a moment.
As to QMV extensions, we are constantly told that 80 per cent of all EU issues are covered already by QMV. I think it is reasonable to ask why we want
124
more. I know that the answer will be that Britain has to get its way and we will have to push through more decisions once the Community is enlarged. But the truth is that the CAP has been under QMV for years, and that has got us nowhere in terms of opening up the markets that we want or obtaining the reforms of the CAP that we want.
There is a deeper question. Why is it so unquestionably good that the flood of controls and regulations from the centre should always be made easier to manage and smoother? Some people of a democratic turn of mind might question whether it is sensible always to be aiming for a bigger and better sausage machine to turn out more laws and controls. Is streamlining really the best way to democracy? The American founding fathers, for example, took the opposite view. They thought it was more important to block executive power in an overweening form. Perhaps we should think about that occasionally.
We are, of course, glad that taxation is protected by unanimity—that is, indeed, if it was ever threatened in the first place. I understood that the whole issue was non-negotiable. I cannot quite see why, if it was non-negotiable, it is a great victory that it has not been negotiated.
But surely 80 per cent is enough. Indeed, many people would say today, in an age which is against centralisation, that 80 per cent is too much. What about taking things the other way, away from the centre? What happened, for instance, to subsidiarity? What happened to the dream of returning powers to nation states and ending the relentless centralism, of which, so the Foreign Secretary keeps telling us, Maastricht was supposed to be the high water mark? Is it not the truth that Nice has not been primarily about enlargement but about the passion for further integration, which many of us doubt is the best way to the kind of stable and democratic Europe that we want to see?
The charter of fundamental human rights seems to have evaporated from the Statement. I should like to know what has happened to it. We have many worries about it becoming mandatory, but it seems to have received no mention in the Statement.
As to the plan for a new IGC in 2004, is that not the next step in the integration process? It is difficult to understand why the Government seem to be in denial about all these glaringly obvious developments.
In regard to defence, I note what is said in the Statement, but it does not seem to answer the fears expressed by Secretary Cohen in his speech the other day. Is there or is there not to be a separate command structure? Is there or is there not to be a separate operational planning system and separate headquarters for the new European force? If so, are the Americans right that, if there is separation, it could be a catastrophe for NATO? Are the claims of Ministers that the USA is not worried still true? If Mr Cohen's speech is anything to go by, they appear to be flatly and disgracefully inaccurate. I know that the House will debate this matter later in the week, but there are a lot of obscurities to clear up.

125
We do not like the trends towards more central power, on the bogus excuse that they are needed for enlargement, of which too much of the acrid Nice discussions seem to be part. We do not believe that these trends are in the interests of either Britain or the wider, more open and democratic Europe that we want to see and work for. Quite honestly, we do not know whether we are being told the full truth by the Government and its "spin" experts about NATO or anything else. We believe that the British people are entitled to many more answers than they have yet been offered about what is really going on in the EU and the direction in which it is being taken.
The Government keep saying that the summit has been a "victory" and a "success". To misquote King Pyrrhus, if we have any more such victories, the EU will be in very deep trouble indeed. This treaty takes our Europe in the wrong direction. If that is not obvious now, it soon will be.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We have heard an interesting response from the noble Lord, Lord Howell—one very different from that given by his leader, Mr William Hague, in another place. Only half an hour ago, I heard Mr Hague twice use the expression, "three more major steps towards a European superstate". I was glad that the noble Lord used no words of that kind. Indeed, only once did he refer to "integration"; and the phrase used by his leader in another place, "the ratchet of integration", was repeated. The noble Lord made a thoughtful contribution. I can agree with some of his remarks: for example, his reference to the UK championship of smaller states, which was not very apparent in the communique or in the events of last weekend.
There is no ducking the plain fact that—clumsily, even imperfectly—Nice has delivered on the main issue before it; namely, enlargement. "Enlargement will now happen" is the phrase used by the Prime Minister in the Statement. Indeed, it will; and Nice put the seal on that. My heart does not sing, but I welcome the achievement nevertheless.
On the question of the size of the Commission, I think all of us would have preferred it to be the present size or possibly smaller. There is a great deal to be said for a Commission of 12 or 15 members. I believe it was my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth who said in an earlier debate in this House that, realistically, the number of members is likely to be 27. If that is the case, so be it; we need not argue too much about it.
On the question of votes and qualified majority voting, it is very difficult to find a balance between the large nations and the small ones. As I have implied, I am not quite so enthusiastic as the Prime Minister about the three largest nations effectively continuing to have a veto; but so be it. A balance has to be found, and I do not quarrel too much with the solution reached at Nice.
As the Statement makes plain, Nice has also delivered on the matter of the rapid reaction force. In looking at some back papers the other day, I reminded
126
myself that it was in 1950, at Strasbourg, that Winston Churchill called for a European army—and that led to a four-year debate on the European defence community. The idea was abandoned; however, all of us who have been involved in either European affairs or defence affairs over this half century know that there has been a continuing debate on how to keep the United States engaged in Europe through NATO and at the same time the need for Europe to make its own contribution to its defence. If there were not so much partisanship on this issue at the present time, the outcome would be judged by many to be a fair one. For that reason, there would be some satisfaction with what has happened at Nice.
One part of the debate which underlies the tone of the Prime Minister's remarks today is the question of Britain's interests. It sometimes seems to be implied that Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community for the sake of the rest of Europe rather than because it was in Britain's best interests. But the important question—which should have been confronted at Nice—is not what might be the short-term interest of any country but what is in the long-term interest of us all. The formation of the European Community was an historic development. Britain's decision to join was an historic change of direction. We should recognise that, even if some battles are lost in terms of our immediate self-interest, the benefit historically can be a great deal more and will compensate for any short-term concessions. I get a little tired—although I understand why—of heads of government coming back to their countries claiming that there has been a great victory for their country and for themselves. I wish that they would sometimes come back and say, "It's been a great victory for European union and for our working together on political as well as economic affairs".
Referring to the weekend at Nice, the Prime Minister said that we cannot continue to make decisions this way. All of us must have some sympathy given the time that he spent there and the ups and downs of the discussion. But this may well be the new diplomacy. This is, after all, open "covenance", openly arrived at—which some were talking about almost a century ago. Three or four days of hard work, with all the uncertainty that was involved, is a small price to pay for the outcome, if the outcome is of the kind that we have seen on this occasion.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a number of related questions. First, there is a reference in the Statement to the period before the Nice Summit when there were discussions with the applicant states. What has been the reaction of the applicant states to the outcome of Nice; and do they feel that there is now a suitable platform for further entries? Secondly, much to the surprise of many of us, there is no reference in the Statement to a further IGC in 2004. Where has that proposal gone? I understood that it was referred to by the Prime Minister in a statement that he made shortly before his departure. Thirdly, on the question of enhanced co-operation, the anxiety of many of us has been that it will lead to a two-tier European Union. The Statement refers to conditions that have been

127
agreed, which, as I understand it, will impede the possibility of that developing. Will the Minister say a little more about what the conditions are that will prevent that undesirable development?
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their reaction to the Statement. I join the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in congratulating those people—among them the officials on planes, in the Foreign Office and in Downing Street—who have worked so hard to produce the information that we have before us and which I have attempted to convey. However, I say in advance that the final text of the treaty, for example, is not yet fully available. Immediately it is, a copy will be placed in the Library. I shall try, as I hope I always do, to be as helpful as possible to noble Lords; however, this may be an occasion when I may have to say that I shall write to them rather more often than I customarily care to do. That is not because of lack of information prepared for me by officials but simply because everything has been, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, rather scrambled together on the basis of events that took place at four or five o'clock this morning.
I welcome the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that he and Members on the Benches behind him are totally committed to the principles of enlargement. The Nice treaty, like the negotiations, is entirely directed to that end in order to achieve greater security, political stability and prosperity for this country and indeed the whole of Europe. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that there was a slight difference in tone between what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said and what Mr Hague said in another place. I entirely welcome the tone adopted by the noble Lord.
On the specific questions raised by the noble Lord, I very much welcome his constructive approach to the reform and size of the Commission and to the number of Commissioners from each individual member country.
He asked about the reweighting of votes and whether by 2004 any of the applicant countries would be present to take place in a subsequent IGC. I can confirm that that has been agreed and will take place in 2004. The noble Lord will also know from the statements made by the Prime Minister in Nice this morning that it is hoped and expected that the applicant countries that are able to do so will be at the table in 2004 to take part in that IGC. Therefore, I hope that that question has been answered.
It is right, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, that some of these matters should be more widely referred to the national parliaments. That was part of the burden of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's address to the Warsaw Stock Exchange earlier in the autumn, when he mentioned what he hoped would be an increasing role for national
128
parliaments in arriving at these decisions and in at least being more actively involved in the discussions leading to them.
The noble Lord raised the question of qualified majority voting. I am sure he will be aware that this country is pleased that QMV has been adopted in some areas—for example, in the greater extension of trade and particularly in the area of financial services. Another specific example is the professional movement across the European continent of people with particular skills in that area.
The noble Lord also asked about the charter. That was not mentioned in the Statement because the Government's position, which was that this was a political declaration, was adopted easily and early in Nice and, therefore, was not regarded as of headline value for the Statement that was made in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, raised the question of whether anybody from the applicant countries had commented on what had happened at Nice and seen that as opening the way for enlargement. By way of example, I quote the Polish Prime Minister, who this morning said that it is exceptionally favourable to Poland, and that enlargement by 2004 at the latest is very good news. A significant quotation that I have from a particularly important candidate country is that the Union, in his view, is not putting off enlargement.
The noble Lord also raised the question of the IGC, which I have mentioned. The point that he made about the question of smaller countries has been acknowledged by the UK. In the context of our national position, it was important to achieve the first enhancement of our own voting rights within the EU since we joined. That, of course, puts us in a comparatively stronger position. It also meets some of the arguments about the way in which other changes to the Commission might have diminished the authority of this country, without necessarily causing any of the problems referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers.
On the general overview of what happened, I draw to the attention of noble Lords, and specifically to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, the points made by my right honourable friend in his speech to the Warsaw Stock Exchange, in which he referred to a different way of doing business within the European Union, which would, for example, perhaps require an agenda for European activity to be tabled by the individual countries—and indeed by the Commission—to be reviewed annually. That would perhaps reduce some of the necessity for the rather extended, frenetic, and under-the-spotlight negotiation and consideration that has taken place in the past few days. I am sure that the noble Lord, as a parliamentarian, welcomes the point that I made a few moments ago about the enhanced role for European parliaments in a different type of working. I believe that those are the significant points, involving a more considered way of doing business, on which my right honourable friend sought to insist.

129
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, questioned whether this matter was regarded as a game to be won. My right honourable friend made it clear in the Statement that he did not want Britain's engagement with Europe always to be regarded as Britain versus Europe. He would prefer it to be seen as part of a more generally enhanced arrangement.
On the European defence union, the simple answers to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, are, "No, no, no". I quote what was said by the Prime Minister in Nice this morning. He said:
"The conclusions make absolutely clear that NATO is the cornerstone of our collective defence, that European defence in the circumstances where NATO as a whole decides not to be engaged, is limited to the peacekeeping and humanitarian tasks, and it is only where the sovereign decisions of each individual country is taken in respect of each individual mission. That is now absolutely clear".
I hope that the noble Lord will agree.
With regard to the potential for contrasting aims as between this country and the European Union as a whole, I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that the summit has demonstrated that, if we continue to take the leadership that we have taken, we can protect our vital national interests and advance those national interests in the European Union. The emphasis is as much on the second part as the first.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I shall not detain the House too long. The Select Committee will meet tomorrow and will no doubt ask many more questions of Mr Vaz than time permits today. However, it is probably fair to say that when we take the report from your Lordships' Select Committee on the IGC, it will emerge that the committee will feel pleased about the progress that has been made in respect of a number of points. Particularly in relation to enlargement, the road blocks that stood in the way following Amsterdam seem to have been cleared.
Perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House about the number of Commissioners. We recommended that, if possible, the number of Commissioners should be reduced to below 20. However, that was said with little hope of achievement at this stage. I note from the Statement that, once the figure reaches 27, there is an agreement to reduce the number in 2010. Will the noble Baroness indicate what mechanisms are envisaged to ensure the rotation of Commissioners? The rotation of Commissioners will mean, of course, that countries from time to time will have no Commissioner at all. Is there a general agreement that that should be the situation?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for welcoming the Statement. I am also grateful to him for saying that he believes that the Select Committee will welcome some parts of this treaty. That is very important in terms of your Lordships' scrutiny.
With regard to the number of Commissioners, the detail has not been finalised. It may be that a further indication will be given following subsequent
130
meetings. The principle is that after the EU reaches 27 members, the Commissioners will rotate. As I understand it, that principle would enable smaller countries, which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, was concerned would perhaps not get their fair share of the cake, to be involved. Of course, it would mean that there would be occasions when the larger countries might not have a Commissioner for the whole of a presidency. That is one of the reasons why there was such concern to reweight the voting in a way that would enable the larger countries to retain their potential for a veto.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, we must await a copy of the revised draft of the treaty, about which, as was rightly said by my noble friend, we have to be patient. But the Statement begins and continues with a fundamental error. It begins with the most obvious and fundamental error; namely, that a copy of the presidency conclusions has been placed in the Library. I believe that we would all agree that one cannot judge a statement without having the presidency conclusions. There is a copy of a document purporting to be the presidency conclusions in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office—the trouble is that it is dated 8th December and the authors are COREPER, who wrote it on the second day of the conference. In other words, it does not relate to the conclusions reached on the fourth or fifth day, depending when one begins counting. Therefore, it is virtually worthless and empty. All we have heard thus far is the Statement repeated by my noble friend, which, inevitably, cannot be particularly comprehensive.
Having laid out that rather fundamental, preliminary point, perhaps I may take up the very important surrender of the veto, which needs to be emphasised. That is the vital provision about enhanced co-operation, which enables a vanguard group to go ahead without unanimity towards that ever-closer union that a number of our continental friends undoubtedly wish to achieve, whatever our reservations may be. The veto—the unanimity rule—that we previously held on that provision—namely, that it could not go ahead unless all the other parties agreed—has gone over the whole area of the treaty of economic union of the EC. It has also gone on that pillar which deals with home affairs and justice. It has been retained only in the pillar that deals with foreign policy and defence. That is a major surrender and a matter of some considerable concern.
I put to my noble friend the Minister the hope that a more serious presentation of what has been lost in this attempt to carry forward without success—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that he is taking an undue amount of time with his remarks, given the number of noble Lords who wish to speak on the Statement?
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, in that case, I shall complete my sentence by saying that this has been a failed attempt to carry forward what should have

131
been the joint aim of us all; namely, the extension of the European Union to take in the eastern European applicants.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his final remarks about our acceptance of the need to extend and enlarge the European Union. I can only apologise to him for the state of the supporting paperwork. I had hoped that I had made the position clear, although, obviously I had misspoken—indeed, it appears that my right honourable friend may have misspoken—in terms of the opening remarks of the Statement regarding the final version of the presidency's conclusions. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I have had some doubts about the way in which some of the conclusions already existed on paper. Indeed, as I pointed out, the treaty is not yet available.
On the question of enhanced co-operation, I shall write to my noble friend when full details are available. However, I believe that the right of veto on any system of enhanced co-operation, under whichever pillar, is still available. The question is how that is presented to the Council. It was previously a matter of it being automatically referred, but I understand that it now has to be positively proposed by different members of the Council, depending on the particular pillar in question. I shall write to my noble friend in that respect.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm what she said to my noble friend Lord Howell; namely, that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will be purely declaratory? I say that because the document to which the noble Lord, Lord Shore, referred specifically says that the question of the charter's force will be considered "later". Is that just an example of the document that has been placed in the Library being wrong?
Further, perhaps I may warmly welcome the retention of the veto both on taxation and on social security. I refer the noble Baroness to the fourth from last paragraph of the Statement, which says that the Government had been warned before that they would be "isolated" on the question of social security. Can the noble Baroness confirm that Britain was in fact totally isolated on the question of social security? Indeed, Britain was the only country that did not want harmonisation of social security. Does the noble Baroness also recall that the Prime Minister said before the election that he would never allow Britain to be isolated again? Can she confirm that it is only because the Prime Minister has abandoned the naivety of that approach that we have achieved this successful outcome?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do not wish in any way to concur with the noble Lord's view of the Prime Minister's motives, or, indeed, skills in achieving this outcome, but I am grateful for his congratulations on what has been achieved. When my right honourable friend speaks of being isolated in
132
Europe, he speaks about being isolated in circumstances where we do not succeed in achieving what we wish to achieve and appear to be acting entirely against the interests of ourselves and of everyone else.
On the question of the charter of rights, I can tell the noble Lord that it was proclaimed as a political declaration. The reference to the issue being looked at later means that it would be reconsidered in 2004 in the context of the new IGC. But that would be a review without any prejudice to the outcome. Any change would always require unanimity. As the noble Lord knows, it is certainly not the intention of this Government to see it as anything other than a political declaration.
Lord Roper: My Lords, I am pleased, but not surprised, at the progress that was made at Nice on defence. However, there is one phrase in the Statement which I hope the noble Baroness can further elucidate. It reads:
"The next step is for the two organisations, the EU and NATO. to agree on the necessary arrangements".
Can the noble Baroness tell the House whether that agreement will be more likely to come about now that proper provision has been made for the non-EU members of NATO, such as Turkey, to play a full part in the arrangements? Can she say what the timetable would be for such an arrangement? Further, can we have an assurance that the European Union will not become operational in its military activities until such an agreement with NATO has been reached?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am happy to tell the noble Lord that the answer to his final question is yes; that will be so. However, I am afraid that I do not have information regarding the possible timetable. But, certainly, as far as concerns Turkey, that will obviously be a help.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend the Leader of the House aware of the wide welcome that there is on this side of the House for the Prime Minister's endeavours at Nice? He has managed to combine two imperatives by getting the enlargement agenda firmly on the rails, while at the same time protecting essential national interests. As regards enlargement, is my noble friend in a position to confirm that the agreement reached at Nice in this respect reaffirms the timetable of the end of the year 2002 as being a feasible date for negotiations for enlargement to be concluded, and that, therefore, applicant countries could have aspirations of participating in the next round of the European elections in 2004? To that end, there are still important decisions to be taken, not least the one referred to by the noble Lord. Lord Howell; namely, the whole question of CAP reform.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's accurate assessment of the way in which the Prime Minister conducted these negotiations and achieved the dual ends to which he

133
referred. On the position of applicant countries, we shall certainly be ready by the year 2002 for that to take place. However, as I believe I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, although it says in the Statement and in the supporting documents that we hope, for example, that those countries that are in a suitable position will be able to be at the table in the 2004 IGC, their participation in the European elections is not specific. But, again, if further information of greater detail becomes available, I shall write to my noble friend.
When replying to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I am afraid that I forgot to reply to his point about the common agricultural policy. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Tomlinson for reminding me of that omission. Of course, the noble Lord is right: the CAP is something that we, as a Government, would very much wish to see changed and reformed. Indeed, that is something for which we have been working for some time. However, as noble Lords will be aware, it was not on the agenda at Nice. It was not a case of failing to deal with the matter. It may be regarded as a rather inappropriate omission, but it was not a failure. The Government have been engaged in working on the issue for a very long time.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether there was a debate about the so-called "constitutionalisation" of the treaties during all these discussions—that is to say, their re-drafting in a form that will make them more comprehensible both to the expert and to the ordinary citizen? If the answer is yes, can the noble Baroness say what the Government's attitude towards this possible development might be?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot help the noble Lord as regards whether that matter was discussed at Nice. However, as he is probably aware, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister mentioned in a speech in Warsaw that in enhancing communication between the European institutions, whether they be the European Parliament, the Commission or the Council, some greater clarity in some of the documents and the rules and regulations relating to the Commission would be helpful. In that regard he specifically mentioned the treaties being made, as it were, user friendly. Therefore I am sure that I can say without fear of contradiction that, although I do not know whether the matter was discussed at Nice, it is something of which my right honourable friend would certainly be in favour.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that far from being "mugged" at Nice, as was widely predicted by the Opposition, the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister emerged with Britain's interests intact? Have not the discussions at Nice resulted in a wider, more democratic Europe than was envisaged in the past? Will this House and the House of Commons have an
134
opportunity to discuss in detail the text which has been adumbrated at Nice by the Government and which we understand will be placed in the Library in due course?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am happy to confirm to my noble friend that the treaty in its full form will be placed in the Library of the House. I hope that that will occur not in due course but by tomorrow morning. That may be an optimistic assumption, but it is the one I have been given. I agree with my noble friend's comments as regards the way in which the Government and, indeed, the UK have emerged from the discussions at Nice. It confirms the Government's position that it is in Britain's interests to play a leading part in Europe and in the development of Europe. That will be in the best interests both of this country and of Europe as a whole. On the question of another debate, I understand that there will be a debate on the European defence aspects of the treaty later this week. Further debate, as I always say, is a matter for the usual channels.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder whether I can press the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on two questions put to her by my noble friend Lord Howell which I think, with respect, she has not quite answered yet. I appreciate that she has admitted the fact that the common agricultural policy was not discussed at Nice. But would she go so far as to agree that enlargement of the Community is actually impossible until reform of the common agricultural policy takes place? That does seem to be an important block on all these glorious achievements towards enlargement with which, of course, some of us do not agree. Many of us feel that the applicant nations, being the new democracies and the emerging economies of eastern Europe, really only need access to the market which is denied them and defence through NATO.
But be that as it may, my second question concerns the aspect of defence. I do not know whether the noble Baroness saw a leader in The Times—I believe that it appeared on Saturday—which quoted the very last paragraphs of the annex or protocol which is to be attached to the defence agreement, as I understand it. That made it absolutely clear that the defence force is planning independent EU control of military action. It ends by stating that it will communicate with NATO in a form appropriate at the time. Since this is a matter which seems to worry the American Secretary of State, Mr Cohen, and others in the American administration, can the noble Baroness be absolutely clear as to whether that annex is in place and will be signed up to, or what is the status of the defence initiative?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord says that I admitted that the CAP was not discussed at Nice. That was not due to some failure, as it were, of the Government or of anyone else to insist that it was tabled. It was not on the agenda and was never intended to be on it. As I said in my rather belated answer to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, it is something which the Government take seriously in the

135
context of general reform of the European Union. I do not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in saying that enlargement without CAP reform is impossible. It is obviously an important element in that regard and, as I said earlier, it is a matter to which the Government continue to give important emphasis. However, as I say, it was not on the agenda at Nice.
On the question of defence, my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, who is seated beside me, prompts me to say that many of the details will be relevant to the debate on this subject which is to take place on Thursday. When we talk about the Americans' concerns we must emphasise that Mr Cohen said that if co-operation and collaboration between NATO and a European rapid reaction force were badly carried out it would be of concern to the Americans. I am sure that no one, let alone my noble friend Lady Symons or her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence or, indeed, anyone in Europe or in the Pentagon, wishes it to be badly carried out. Therefore, as is so often the case, I do not share the noble Lord's apprehension.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that the Promenade des Anglais in Nice is appropriately named given that the Government have walked all over the Euroscepticism of at least some of the flâneurs on the Benches opposite? Does she further agree that the universal support for that British initiative of a rapid reaction force nicely exemplifies the Government's positive approach of being in Europe but not running away from it?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, looking at the clock, I am tempted to say yes and yes. I am not sure that I can respond to my noble friend's "franglais" or to his aphorisms. However, both seem to me to be correct.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech.
4.57 p.m.
Debate resumed.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, it was somewhat disappointing that there was little or nothing on the environment in the gracious Speech, particularly on climate change, although I am glad that the Minister referred to that in her opening remarks.
The recent heavy rain and flooding in many parts of the country remind us that our present climate is extremely volatile. November saw the heaviest rainfall since records began. The effect of this climate change overseas is truly devastating. As we know, Mozambique was particularly badly hid by floods earlier this year while 1998, for example, was the hottest year on record. Flooding of the Yangtze River
136
displaced 56 million people and 26 million were made homeless in Bangladesh. Hurricane Mitch killed 18,000 people.
All the evidence points to the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as the main culprit. Due to bubbles of air being trapped under polar ice, we are able to know how much carbon dioxide was around in the air over the past 400,000 years. It is possible to show from these records the relationship between the amount of carbon dioxide and global temperature. New Scientist reported only a couple of months ago that,
"Levels of CO2 are now well on the way to those found in the Eocene period when the world was ice-free and England was a steaming mangrove forest".
Over 80 per cent of this increased carbon dioxide has come from industrialised societies over the past 150 years, yet it is developing countries that are suffering the most from climate change, as will future generations. All this highlights the tragedy of the recent failure of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change at The Hague and the need for Her Majesty's Government to continue to work at reaching agreement.
At Kyoto in 1997, industrialised nations signed a protocol agreeing to reduce their emissions from 1990 levels by the period 2010–12. The reduction target varies slightly for different countries. For the European Union, it is 8 per cent. The targets are relatively modest when viewed against the recommendation of scientists that we shall need to reduce global emissions by 60 per cent in order to stabilise concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and avoid the most serious of possible climate change impacts.
The purpose of The Hague meeting was, of course, to see whether the Kyoto protocol could be ratified and hence implemented by appropriate legislation in each country's Parliament. Unfortunately, as we know, no agreement was reached.
At The Hague, the faith groups had three particular concerns. The first was international emissions trading. Under the Kyoto protocol, industrial countries whose emissions will be higher than their targets can purchase credits from those whose emissions will be lower than their targets. Some, such as Canada, Japan and the United States, are anxious to purchase credits from sellers such as Russia and other eastern European countries. Russia now emits about 30 per cent less carbon dioxide than it did in 1990, but that is the result not of energy efficiency action, but because the economies of those countries have collapsed since the 1990 base year. Such an emissions trading system will not have a concrete benefit for the atmosphere in terms of actually reducing emissions that would otherwise have been produced. The principle of environmental integrity will be compromised.
The second concern was the clean development mechanism, which is a trading system that allows richer industrialised countries that invest in cleaner technologies in poorer developing countries to earn

137
credits for the carbon dioxide emission savings. There is a concern that such projects will include energy produced by nuclear reactors, which raises huge issues of safety and disposal.
Thirdly, there is the question of so-called "carbon sinks". It is true that sinks such as forests, soils and vegetation store carbon, thus removing it from the atmosphere, but that is problematical for a number of reasons. Forests are not permanent removers of carbon dioxide. For example, the carbon is rereleased into the atmosphere when the trees die or forests burn. Applying credit from carbon sinks against reduction targets lessens the amount by which emissions have to be reduced, hence diminishing the pressure to make the longer-term changes in industrial and consumer practices and the technical innovations in energy systems that are needed to move us away from a fossil-fuel-based economy. Unfortunately, some countries, such as Canada and the United States, argue that they should be allowed to meet much of their reduction target through the use of sinks, as well as including sinks in the so-called "clean development mechanism".
All the major religions are active in working to protect the environment. They believe that faith communities have a special contribution to make in this area. There is now a formal Alliance of Religions and Conservation, which has gained the support of a good number of faith groups and their leaders worldwide. They will continue to press for real reductions in carbon dioxide, particularly in the developing world.
What about the position of Her Majesty's Government? A clear strategy has been published. The UK climate change programme includes policies that could cut UK greenhouse gas emissions by 23 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010—almost double the legally binding target. Although that is less than the 60 to 70 per cent globally that may be necessary in the long term, it is a welcome target. What plans are there for monitoring the achievement of that target and when do the Government envisage issuing a report on progress?
What has happened since The Hague conference to achieve international agreement? As I understand it, the United States will have great difficulty meeting its target. It will certainly require drastic action. As I have already said, the Americans are trying to offset the real emission reductions that they should be trying to achieve by the use of flexible mechanisms. Again, as I understand it, the majority of European countries are unwilling to allow so much of their target to be offset in that way, but Mr Prescott was willing to go much further to meet the American position.
It is reported by sources close to the United States delegation that the final gap between the United States and the European Union amounted to only 0.25 per cent of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide. However, that needs to be seen in perspective. In the United States, 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person is released into the atmosphere. That compares with only 2 tonnes per person in China, 1 tonne per person in India and less than 0.18 of a tonne for many African countries. Although flexible agreements were allowed
138
as part of the Kyoto agreement, it would not be right for the United States and other developed countries to forgo making real reductions in emissions and gloss over what is happening by using some of the flexible mechanisms that I have mentioned. There is particular doubt about the intentions of the United States on the various subsections dealing with forests.
Is it possible to say how far there is a common mind among the Europeans and between Europe and the United States? I hope that none of us needs convincing that this is a crucial issue for the future of the planet—for our grandchildren and great grandchildren, and even more pressing for the present children of those in the developing world, who are suffering even now from global warming. It is vital not only that we achieve the targets that we have set ourselves, but that Europe and the United States agree on real reductions, not just paper ones.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, I call for the traditional indulgence of the House for a maiden speaker. All maiden speakers recognise this as a moment of unbridled terror for all novices, as it was for Disraeli, whose maiden speech, Greville told us, "degenerated into ludicrous absurdity". It is worse still for one who is not only no Disraeli, but a total political novice. My last vaguely political speech was made such a long time ago that at the time the Labour party was led by Mr Hugh Gaitskell.
Since then I have spent my time as a historian—perhaps not in a helpful way. I have written in particular about the career of David Lloyd George, who ended up as an Earl, but whose observations about the House of Lords would strain the conventions of impartiality of a maiden speech. I then went on to write about Kier Hardie, who was even more hostile. He was a republican and would not have been in favour of a Queen's Speech at all, let alone a debate on it.
However, this occasion gives me the opportunity to thank everybody in the House of Lords, not only the Members of the House, but the staff, the attendants in the Chamber and others, for the great courtesy and kindness that they have shown me. The mystery of this House is a matter of tone and style. The deep civility that is evident to newcomers and novices is greatly appreciated.
I have spent most of my time as a university teacher and sometime vice-chancellor, so I shall focus on education, which, as we have heard, is central to the Government's public agenda. Perhaps it has been so since the famous Ruskin speech 24 years ago by my noble friend Lord Callaghan, about whose life I was privileged to write.
I particularly welcome the initiatives that my noble friend Lady Blackstone mentioned on higher education, stressing its importance and its centrality not only to our knowledge economy, but to the moral economy that underpins it. There is to be a considerable increase in expenditure—nearly

139
£1 billion in the next three years, we are told. That will be enormously valuable to a supremely civilising and empowering force in society.
Congratulating the Government on their enthusiasm and support for higher education does not strain the conventions of impartiality of a maiden speech, because governments of both parties have played a major part in the considerable development of education, about which I am very upbeat, perhaps unusually.
The 1990s has been the greatest period of growth in higher education in this country since the Robbins report all those years ago. It is right to think of higher education as an essentially bipartisan issue. The Open University was initiated by that famous lady Jennie Lee and saved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher.
I was a vice-chancellor in the late 1980s, early 1990s. Legend has it that this was a time of confrontation between university teachers, many of them on the Left, and a Conservative government. Although I sit on these Benches, I have to say that that was not my impression or experience. I found it a stimulating, liberal time. It was somewhat bewildering. Secretaries of State for Education changed almost as rapidly as managers of the England football team—although they were all British. It was a time of great liberation. The mere fact of expansion was enormously stimulating and a great source of hope to those of us in the university profession.
Another important factor was the reduction of constraints, in particular financial constraints, on what universities could do. It was possible to be far more innovative and managerially enterprising as a result of that process. However, it left problems. The Government's approach is dealing with many of the problems that remained. In my experience as a vice-chancellor, it was a very uncertain enterprise. The funding horizons seemed to change rapidly. We have a clearer, more distinct and definable horizon over the next few years in the light of what we heard in the public spending review. I believe that the fact that it was to a great extent unresourced expansion is also being dealt with. The next process will be to deal with the problems of specific groups, in particular the fact that the uptake by mature students, so central to the process of lifelong learning, is in some difficulties at present. I take great comfort from the experience in and knowledge of that area of my noble friend Lady Blackstone.
I also welcome the fact that the pay of those in the higher education profession—it has been appalling for many years—shows some signs of improvement. It was always a great matter of embarrassment when appointing university staff at all levels. The fact that we now have extra funds earmarked for the recruitment and retention of staff is valuable.
On that basis I believe that the prospects are hopeful. In what is an expensive area of public provision we now need a conceptual breakthrough to recognise that our universities and other institutions are equal in status but diverse in their roles. In time
140
that will mean the diversity in their roles being extended into diversity of funding. It is clear that there is variation between universities which retain, for example, specialised graduate schools and those concerned with raising the skills of young and mature people in inner cities or former mining areas. The funding mechanism may have to be appraised.
My other points may be more germane to what we have just heard about the Nice conference. Higher and further education are linked with two other aspects of government policies, both of which I strongly welcome: devolution and relations with Europe. We have had devolution in Scotland and Wales. It is about much more than the machinery of government. It is a fount of social power. I hope that it will lead to the higher education sector of this country playing the kind of role undertaken by universities, technical institutions and so on in other parts of Europe. For example, universities and scientific specialist institutions in Baden-Wurttemberg have been central to development of that part of Germany. That has been the mainspring of the regeneration of Western Germany. Germany is a federal country. We are not a federal society. However, I hope that in Scotland, Wales and the regions of England that kind of initiative can be taken: that devolution can be a motor for change. For example, it would be valuable to see regional initiatives for higher education from Scotland, Wales and the English regions directly to Brussels rather than being emasculated by central government.
Finally, Europe seems an enormously liberating area for higher education in this country. That ties in with the encouraging news that we have heard from Nice. The connections in research activity between our universities are a tremendous success story, heavily based on Europe through European-based industrial companies, government departments, charities and international agencies. Perhaps I may refer to the range of activities in which the real academic Oxford (about which one does not always hear) has engaged. It is noticeable that Oxford, Cambridge and other British universities are extraordinarily successful in achieving funding from the framework or other aspects of the EU. The figures for the EU as a whole are 18 per cent and 27 per cent for Oxford. No doubt they are equally promising for other universities.
In Wales, we had our own local initiative of a different kind. The Motor scheme linked Wales with Catalonia, Lombardy, Rhones-Alpes and Baden-Wurttemberg. It enabled institutions at university level to collaborate: to do things in their own territories and in relation to eastern Europe—for example, in connection with technology transfer. It is a somewhat attractive thought for a Welsh-speaking Welshman that the English language was considered to be a useful asset of Wales.
We have heard from Nice about the high politics of Europe. Indeed, Europe is often presented in a very negative way, but as regards education, technical and other factors it seems enormously beneficial. The concept of Brussels is positive and exciting for many of us in education. I hope, therefore, that the

141
Government's policy in this area can be seen as a whole. It appears to me a success story. Our universities are often unfairly derided. In fact they have enormous international prestige. They are one of the features of the United Kingdom which are universally hailed as of extraordinary high quality. They seem central to our society, almost comparable, as Shelley said of poets, to unacknowledged legislators of mankind. I thank your Lordships for your courtesy.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am sure that all present in your Lordships' House would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, on his excellent maiden speech. Following the noble Lord makes me feel rather like the proverbial dustcart after the Lord Mayor's Show. The noble Lord is festooned with academic honours, all of them earned in a truly academic way, whereas mine, as a chancellor of a university, merely came up with the rations, so to speak. The noble Lord will be a great addition in your Lordships' House to those who can speak with authority on the subject of education. As noble Lords heard, his recent appointments include that of Senior Vice-Chancellor of the University of Wales, and now as Emeritus Professor of that same university. His Welsh roots run deep and his publications, indicating this, are numerous, as well as indicating a vast knowledge of history. We welcome wholeheartedly the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, to our deliberations and look forward to many of his speeches in the future.
Before I begin my own contribution to the debate on the gracious Speech, perhaps I may beg the Minister's pardon and the indulgence of your Lordships' House if I am not in my place for an hour or two from now onwards. I have a previous engagement at a government reception at Lancaster House to celebrate the launch of the Disability Rights Commission's first campaign, "Actions speak louder than words". The exact time of my return will be governed by the eloquence—some may say, verbosity—or otherwise of the speakers, and I can only hope for the best. However, the Disability Rights Commission seems to be a suitable platform for the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill about which I wish to speak.
Following the debate on the gracious Speech last year, I welcomed proposals for a new piece of legislation to extend disability rights in education. This year, I am delighted to see that those proposals have already begun their passage through Parliament, even as we continue the debate on the gracious Speech.
With the Second Reading a little over a week away, I shall save more detailed comments until that occasion. However, I express my support for the principles enshrined in the new legislation. I believe that we are all familiar with the soundbite, "Education, education, education", already quoted today—one of the Prime Minister's key, if somewhat repetitive, political messages. I am delighted that disabled children will now get a share in that priority.
For too long, parents have struggled to obtain the best education for their children with disabilities. Battles with bureaucracy, poor levels of student
142
support and discrimination have meant that disabled children have received an inadequate service. There have been some blatant eases of discrimination against young people with learning disabilities, of whom society's expectations are often appallingly low. Such cases must be dealt with.
However, often discrimination is not pre-meditated; it arises out of a lack of planning, imagination and resources to develop the right infrastructure in which disabled children can flourish. New money, if used properly, should go some way to tackling the resource problem. New legislation should provide the impetus for improvements, and a new code of practice should offer a practical guide to the law, leaving less to imagination and chance.
No doubt there are some interesting debates ahead of us on the detail of the Bill, and feelings are likely to run high on a subject about which many noble Lords feel strongly. Therefore, I believe that we are fortunate to be able to draw upon the expertise of the Special Educational Consortium.
Many of us will agree that we want rights for all those who may be in danger of being discriminated against. Those rights should be fully enforceable so that improvements are made to our education system. Many will also agree that parents of disabled children should have a greater choice over their child's education, whether their preference is for a mainstream or a special school, and that obstacles should be removed to mainstream schooling where parents want it. The challenge is to refine the letter of the law in order to create a workable system to achieve those goals.
Having worked last year on the Learning and Skills Act, I feel that this legislation provides an important piece of the jigsaw in the post-16 field. Again, it will be critically important to examine the legislation closely so that those proposals synchronise with the lifelong learning agenda. I am pleased that the post-16 disability consortium will also be available to advise in this field.
In rounding off, I restate my support for the intention to extend disability rights to education and to remove obstacles for those who want to take up a mainstream place. Those are two measures for which disability charities, including Mencap, and even the Government's own Disability Rights Task Force, have fought long and hard.
Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I was dismayed to see the article in yesterday's Sunday Times by Melanie Phillips under the extremely unkind, untrue and unhelpful heading:
"Children who give schools a vested interest in failure".
Over 1.5 million children will be affected directly by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill. Very few are "disruptive and disturbed youngsters", contrary to Melanie Phillips' belief that such a dismissive description applies to all. It is the fundamental right of all disabled children to enjoy the same choice in education as any other child. Inclusion is not simply an ideology but a means of meeting the wider needs of all in society.

143
To move from lifelong learning to the subject of lifelong caring may seem something of a quantum leap, but I hope that the Minister and your Lordships' House will permit me to make such a jump, brief though it may be. My concerns may affect many disabled people who will have been able to take advantage of some of the excellent provisions in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill but who will still be living at (and possibly working from) home with elderly parents.
I have had some correspondence with the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, about the Government's helpful but incomplete response to the Royal Commission's report on long-term care. There appears to be no protection for the disabled son or daughter who is not immediately able to stay on in the home once elderly parents have had to go into residential or nursing care—but who may be able to come back once the support package has been arranged.
Large sums of money may have been spent by the appropriate authorities on training facilities or further or higher education for such a disabled person. Considerable additional expenditure will be involved in the complicated process of moving them from place to place, even though they may be gainfully employed. That seems to me to be both financially stupid and morally wrong. I trust that the Government will take all that into consideration when they implement their response to the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care of the Elderly, as promised in the gracious Speech, together with concerns which I have already expressed, particularly in respect of people of any age with cognitive impairment.
However, all that is for another day. For now, I rest my case and look forward to the chance afforded to all of us to make further provision against discrimination in the world of education for literally tens of thousands of disabled people, whether children or adults. This could well prove to be one of the most constructive and humane Bills brought before your Lordships' House in the present Parliament. I wish it well.
5.27 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I find it both sad and depressing that not once in the gracious Speech did the word "agriculture" occur. What sort of message does that send out to all those who labour long and hard both to produce the food that we eat and to conserve our wonderful countryside?
It is particularly galling at the present time when the vicissitudes of nature and the consequent effects on agriculture seem to be even more marked than at any time that I can remember in the past. Only this morning I drove over the Downs and thought for one moment that a catastrophe had occurred, such as the Great Flood at the time of Noah. The wonderful green valley lying north of Arundel and south of Petworth and Pulborough was one great lake. It was pretty to look at, I grant you, but just think of the consequential
144
loss of income and genuine human hardship faced by those farmers—the farmers who do not even get a mention in the gracious Speech.
The gracious Speech is strong on house purchase, reducing opportunities to dispose of stolen vehicles, the transparency of export controls and, of course, the future of hunting with dogs, as my noble friend Lady Blatch has already pointed out. I listened avidly when Her Majesty delivered the gracious Speech and then looked at the printed word, but nowhere could I find a word on agriculture, horticulture, food production or farmers' incomes. In addition, there is not a mention of the common agricultural policy and whether the Government might have any progressive, sensible, constructive proposals as to how the CAP should be reformed, as reformed it surely must be.
I grant that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred to agriculture at the tail end of her 24-minute speech in this debate. However, there was absolutely nothing new—no hope for the farmers whose incomes she admitted are "severely depressed" and at their lowest for 30 years.
When I heard that, I wondered whether, if it were any other sector, the Government would be so sanguine, so nonchalant, so detached and so conspicuously uninterested in the concerns of the sector as not to give it even a passing mention in the gracious Speech. Can we imagine the reaction if the Minister had been referring to incomes of teachers being at their lowest for 30 years or if the Minister responsible for the health service in this House were to refer to the fact that the incomes of doctors and nurses were at their lowest for 30 years? We all know that in that case, there would be no lack of concern. But it is no wonder that farmers feel beleaguered and they do not have too many alternative prospects of employment.
I dwell on this point for a further few moments and on the conspicuous absence of the words "agriculture" or "farmers" from the gracious Speech. I guess that one could come to the conclusion that the usual channels, or whoever decides the allocation of subjects to be debated during the debate on the gracious Speech, neither listen to it nor edit it. Otherwise, why do we have a specific mention of the word "agriculture" as a topic for debate today?
The gracious Speech contained one sentence to the effect that,
"a Bill will be introduced to increase the effectiveness of the power to reduce regulatory burdens by removing inappropriate and over-complex regulation",
and that gave me a pointer to what contribution I might make today.
Last month the Better Regulation Task Force produced a report entitled Environmental Regulations and Farmers, which I have absolutely no hesitation in recommending that anyone who is connected with or interested in agriculture should read. As an aside, it has the considerable merit of being concise—some 39 pages, some of which are only half pages of print—very readable and packed full of serious analysis and thoughtful recommendations. I am told that the report

145
was largely written by our colleague the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. He is to be complimented. I dare say that that report will be subject to analysis and comment when we come to the Second Reading of the proposed Bill, but I thought that in this debate I should like to draw attention to one of its more important recommendations.
Ever since I became involved in the food and agriculture sectors of this economy, some 24 years ago, there has been a tension between food and agriculture. As in any tension situation, one "side" was in the prime position at one stage and the other "side" at another stage. Tensions create dynamism and are not always destructive but, when unforeseen external circumstances occur, the tensions can become pretty ferocious and a battlefield is constructed. I fear that that has been the case between the food and agriculture sectors for a long time. Of course we now have a third sector in the equation—catering.
One department of state is responsible for these three competing, almost feuding, sectors—MAFF. I am not a MAFF basher; it has enough enemies and critics, particularly in the wake of the BSE report. Going off on a tangent for a minute, I ask the Minister, why was the only immediate action following the publication of the Phillips report on the BSE situation the announcement that a First Civil Service Commissioner would be investigating whether any disciplinary action should be taken against civil servants named in the report? MAFF civil servants have never been top of the popularity stakes; they have been pilloried relentlessly during the past few years due to the various food scares, the GM crops issue, BSE and other very serious matters. But we should not forget that our Civil Service is world-renowned as being of the highest integrity; the people there work extremely hard and going in with seven-league boots to trample all over them in the attempt to find a scapegoat for BSE is not the way to encourage other people to join our Civil Service.
In the Better Regulation Task Force report there is a Recommendation 20, which states:
"MAFF's existing role as sponsor of the catering and food manufacturing industries should be re-examined to avoid conflicts of interest".
This is what I should really like to home in on:
"MAFF's role as sponsor of agriculture should be clarified and sharpened. This role should include: representing agricultural interests to policy-makers in other Government departments; co-ordinating advice from different specialist agencies, and considering grants for environmental plans; communicating new government policies to farmers; and reinstating the regional panels as a genuine voice for farmers and other rural interests".
The analysis points out that MAFF needs to re-emphasise its role as the sponsor of farming. I do hope that the Government will take note of this. Farming so badly needs a period of respite from being seen as the magnet or target of all criticism. Farmers working as individual units, geographically quite isolated, battling against the elements, have little time to press their case. It is my belief that they are seriously underestimated as regards the work they do, in all weathers, to ensure that there is a daily—in the case of milk—supply of fresh product of the highest quality to
146
feed the rest of us. True recognition of their worth and their needs is always likely to be befuddled so long as the three sectors of farming, food and catering are lumped together. I hope that the Government will do something about sorting out where the emphasis in MAFF should be.
So few of the Great British public have any concept of the work that farmers do and, strange as it may seem, they have no concept either of how efficient the sector is. The Government seem to be endorsing that lack of knowledge by concentrating on the negatives and acknowledging the existence of a life outside the cities only by referring to "hunting with dogs". Incidentally, I hope that some cognisance will be taken of the fact that there will be some £3.37 million potential cost to farmers for the removal of some 400,000 carcasses of dead sheep and cattle if hunting with dogs is banned. That is just another factor in the equation.
I am not suggesting that there is any predetermined malice towards agriculture in the minds of this Government, but there does not seem to be much interest in it either, judging by the content of the gracious Speech.
The Better Regulation Task Force's report that I have already referred to makes a case for better communication between MAFF and the farming community. That is specifically directed at the need for new regulations to be explained to farmers so that they can understand the implications of what they mean to them. I think that a case could be made for better communication between MAFF and other government departments and the Government as a whole so that the cavalier attitude so prevalent today could be banished.
Farmers need a single-minded, focused ministry to look after their needs and to produce proposals for reform of the CAP based on the knowledge of how agriculture really works. I hope sincerely that we shall never again see a gracious Speech which so studiously avoids one of the most important sectors in the life of our nation.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, it is inevitable in the debates that take place on the gracious Speech that we must talk on apparently disparate subjects which are grouped together. This leads to a degree of discontinuity in debate. Perhaps it may be possible for the usual channels to order our affairs a bit better the next time round. My noble friend Lady Sharp mentioned this in her important speech.
The right reverend Prelate spoke on the environment and referred to the global aspects of climate warming. I should like to refer more specifically to the UK position. I do so because there have recently been published two important documents on the subject. The first is entitled Climate Change—The UK Programme, which was published by the Government only last month and is an admirable document because it fully covers the subject. It deals with the matter ab initio, looking at the

147
whole issue of climate change and then analyses the position in the UK and the various measures now being taken and their prospects of achievement. The other document, which was issued in June, was entitled Energy—The Changing Climate. That was produced by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
As we are aware, the Government have accepted demanding targets for the reduction of emissions in the UK. They have accepted and, indeed, hope to go beyond the targets set by the European Union on general greenhouse gas emissions. They have also set a very demanding target specifically for CO2 emissions in the UK. Those targets are to be achieved by the year 2010 in relation to the levels in 1990.
The government document to which I referred is, on the whole, fairly optimistic about the prospects of achieving the targets. The document produced by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution is rather more doubtful as to whether they will be achieved.
In view of those publications, it seems to me that this is an appropriate time briefly to review the position. Let us consider what has happened in the past 10 years. There was a main change in the way in which electricity is generated in this country from coal-fired stations to gas-fired stations. Having spent a large part of my working life in the coal industry, I have mixed feelings on the subject. Nevertheless, that is what happened. As a result, a substantial reduction in emissions was achieved. Relatively less was achieved elsewhere.
That process cannot be repeated; it is a one-off. In subsequent periods it will be much more difficult to achieve the levels of emissions reduction that were achieved in the 1990 to 2000 period. The particular difficulty faced by the Government is that the whole economic environment, the market place, is moving in the opposite direction. With improved living standards and a buoyant economy, the tendency is to use more energy and not less. Therefore, measures will be required that go against market trends. That is always difficult. Sheer admonition will not do. There has to be positive action by using either fiscal or regulatory measures.
The government document on climate change indicates what is proposed. There is no doubt about the seriousness with which the Government regard this issue. However, I am doubtful whether, against the market trends, it will be possible for the government targets to be achieved in the period 2000–10 and I have even graver doubts about the period beyond 2010 because in that period there will be a progressive decommissioning of the nuclear power stations. They will have to be replaced and for the moment it would be idle speculation and wishful thinking to believe that renewable energy can take on the whole of that burden. In the timespan concerned, that would not be possible. Therefore, there is likely to be a further revival in fossil fuel burning in power stations in one form or another. That makes it even more difficult to achieve emission reductions in the period from 2010 onwards.
148
How should the problem be dealt with? I believe that the framework that the Government have established is adequate. I suggest that within that framework there should be a number of what I would describe as focused initiatives. I shall mention a few that may help to achieve the sort of levels of emissions savings that are implied in the targets.
First, I shall deal with the climate change levy. As your Lordships are aware, the levy has been imposed in order to make a charge on industry and on business to the extent that they use energy so that the less that they use the less levy they will have to pay. That is a perfectly proper thing to do in this situation. However, the difficulty with the levy is that, while it is likely to yield around £1 billion or more—it is not clear precisely how much it will raise—the amount that will be recycled for energy saving purposes will be only about a third, £300 million. The rest will go towards reducing national insurance contributions. That is a worthy endeavour, but I do not see how that is related to the problem of dealing with climate change. In fact, it may have the reverse effect. Companies that will have to bear the bulk of the levy are those known as intensive energy users. Their spend on energy is considerable but their manpower has been kept to minimum levels. The people who will benefit from the national insurance rebate will be those who are labour intensive and who use little energy, such as commercial and public establishments. There is little logic in this situation. Therefore, I would ask the Government to think again about recycling much more. I would like to see the totality of what is raised on the levy recycled for purposes of stimulating energy efficiency.
Secondly, I turn to combined heat and power and renewables, both of which are strongly supported by the Government. They have set the target of reaching substantial increases in each of those sectors by the year 2010. That is fine, and the Government have taken a number of measures in order to bring that about, but—this is the point that worries me—the policy has not been thought through entirely.
With the new electricity trading arrangements (NETA) that, as presently indicated, are likely to come into effect in March of next year, there will be certain mechanisms called "settlement arrangements" that will jeopardise the position of those who produce energy of an unpredictable nature. The purpose of the new electricity trading arrangements is to stimulate producers to balance their sales books and, if they have spare energy or they have to buy in energy at the last minute, to penalise them. It would be difficult, say, for a wind farm which could not estimate in advance how the wind will blow, to be able to judge exactly how much energy it will produce and how much it can put under contract.
In the case of CHP and renewables the Government should look at the situation as a whole and ensure that no particular part of their policy will weaken another part.
To turn to another issue, the Government have recognised the importance of fuel poverty. Recently a

149
Bill called the Warm Homes Bill, which has now been enacted, passed through the House. That commits the Government to eliminate fuel poverty in the next 15 years. In the debate on that Bill I said that the period of 15 years was too long and that it should be 10 years. I believe that the Government now accept that 10 years should be the objective. If that is so, and because there are between 4 million and 5 million homes in fuel poverty in this country—people who cannot afford enough fuel to keep warm because it eats up too large a part of their income—the number of homes in that category that have to be dealt with every year is between 400,000 and 500,000 over the 10 years. At the moment, under the various schemes that the Government have introduced, the number of homes dealt with is 200,000 per annum, so a major additional effort will be required.
There are a number of other areas where I believe that there ought to be focused initiatives in order to buttress endeavours to achieve the emission reduction targets. I want to conclude with one in particular that affects security of supply. We have been through a period in which we have generally not been short of energy. But we do not know how long the gas reserves in the North Sea will last and where we will get our gas when those reserves become depleted. And as regards price, we have recently seen the extreme volatility with which international fuel prices behave, with oil prices rising from 10 dollars a barrel to more than 30 dollars, and with gas prices rising from about 12p to 28p per therm.
Against that price volatility and uncertainty of long-term supply, we must do something about having a satisfactory diversity on which we can depend. That is where my old friend the coal industry comes in. If we want to have an adequate diversity of dependable supply, we must make sure that coal plays its part. But it can do so only if we put more effort into clean coal technology. Coal burnt under those new technologies could reduce substantially the amount of emissions. In order to encourage that and to get it moving, we must include coal in the clean fuel obligations. There must be something to help it forward. Just as there is a renewables obligation in the recently enacted Utilities Act, there should be a clean coal obligation.
There is already on the drawing board and ready to receive planning consent a major project for 400 megawatts for clean coal technology at Kellingley colliery in Yorkshire which could be of great importance. It is ready to go forward if a market obligation can be put in place.
I have indicated some ways in which the Government's endeavours to achieve their emission reduction targets can be buttressed by what I have called "focused initiatives". There should be many more such initiatives. The task ahead, particularly beyond 2010, will be horrendously difficult and we should not mince words about it. Therefore, the framework that the Government have established should be supported in a number of areas in which specific and tangible results can be achieved.
5.52 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, to prove the noble Lord's point, I shall not follow him down that interesting road, but in another piece of discontinuity perhaps I may turn to education. First, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, on a tour de force. He is not only a distinguished historian but an historian of Wales and the Labour Party. The fact that he has remained friends of both says a great deal for his abilities as a historian. He wrote a seminal work on the role of Wales in British politics, which as noble Lords will know is no slim volume. We look forward to his writing himself into that script. He is rather a poacher turned gamekeeper, which will probably be my last reference to either agriculture or the environment. I apologise.
I am delighted that the educational priority of this Session is special educational needs and I am pleased that a Bill will be introduced in this House next week. It is about one form of educational inclusion; it is about reducing barriers to learning. I would like to focus on other ways of reducing barriers to learning and promoting social inclusion.
In 1997, the Government gave education their highest priority—and quite rightly so—and they gave a high priority to challenging and setting ambitious targets in education—and quite rightly so. There was a great deal to put right and much ground to make up. Their priorities have been absolutely right. They have started with the youngest and focused on the areas which have fallen so far behind and where most action was needed. We have seen the results in the new funding for repairs, the new technologies, the training of teachers and, above all, this week in their strategies for literacy and numeracy, which are clearly working.
Those achievements are due to our teachers. I sincerely hope that we have moved into an era where it is more common to praise teachers than to diminish their achievements. That is the foundation of all we hope to achieve. I hope also that we shall be able to look to a time when the classroom is a place of creativity; when young teachers will be able to use the many qualifications they hold, particularly in the arts, in order to bring all forms of art alive to young children and to create the artists and audiences of tomorrow. I hope also that we shall give more support to young teachers in the classrooms. I believe that sometimes they feel isolated.
However, what has been achieved must be set against what has still to be done. There is a great deal to be done and I am pleased that we are focusing on secondary education, particularly the most vulnerable age group between 11 and 13. The hardest challenge of all is to raise the self-esteem and motivation of children and families for whom education has been a disappointment. We need to encourage them to learn and to go on learning.
If we are to raise standards at Key Stage 3, and if we are to keep pupils engaged with school, we have to pay far more attention to the transition period between primary and secondary education. Research suggests

151
that about 30 per cent of pupils have regressed in maths a year after leaving primary school. We all know, because the diagnosis exists, that these are the years when students lose confidence and parents lose contact with schools and when the gap in performance between boys and girls widens. The excellent headteacher, Michael Marland, said that those are the years when the "silent applause" of peer groups for bad behaviour overwhelmed the positive praise of any teacher.
One of the most successful initiatives in recent years—and one with which I am proud to have been associated—was the setting up of summer learning schemes. They began in 1997 with literacy. There were then 50 schools, and this year the number was 2,300 across a wide range of abilities and across the curricula. I hope that the Government will aim to put those schemes in front of as many children as possible. They not only bridge the gap between primary and secondary education but they give families and children enormous confidence that when they start school they will know the curriculum, their new teachers and the schools. They also boost basic skills. They are an extremely important innovation and I hope that we will build on them successfully in the coming years.
Secondly, we need to think again about how we can help children and families who have little hope in education itself. In that respect, I would like to see the Government make more systematic provision for "family learning". It is a relatively new term and sometimes it is used confusingly. Disadvantaged children face many additional obstacles in their journey through school. Alex Clegg once said that about 39 differences separate children in disadvantage from other families, of which 18 relate to their family circumstances. Such children are likely to suffer not only from poor health, poor housing, poor environments and poor family circumstances but their parents do not read to them and often do not talk to them, they have no books in their homes, they have little help for extra-curricular activity and are less likely to do things out of school.
I welcome the Government's serious commitment to raising adult basic skills and to the University of Industry, for example, which will have a profound impact on the way people learn throughout their working lives. But how do we help adults who are struggling to help their children and, indeed, themselves? Many parents and carers would do more but they do not know how. They do not read well enough and are not confident with computers. They would help their children with homework if they knew how.
There is no shortage of know-how; there is a great deal of good practice. Schools and local authorities up and down the country invite families into schools after school hours and at weekends to show them how to help their children but also to help them improve their reading and computer skills. The family is treated as a whole unit for the purpose of learning. Therefore, there is no shortage of ideas or good will; there is only
152
a shortage of systematic provision. In that area of education, as in every other, we need to make good practice common practice. That kind of practical help can make the difference between children succeeding in schools and joining the ranks of the disaffected, the disruptive and, ultimately, the disappeared.
The Government have made a good start by putting achievement at the top of the social inclusion and education agendas because the two are inseparable. Above all, in the coming year I should like the Government to make implementation of the report of the Social Exclusion Unit Schools Plus, published in March, a priority. As to that report, the Government have been very modest. It exemplifies one of the most radical and exciting developments which sets this Government's record apart from that of any other; namely, their commitment to deal not only with the basics in schools but the fact that children spend four-fifths of their time out of school.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said that we must get the yobs off the street. The development of out-of-school learning programmes is not a simplistic answer to that but is one solution. The report recognises that the lives and learning opportunities of many children outside school are deeply unequal and impoverished, with dire results. It puts very practical options in place so that in future in deprived areas in particular schools can work more closely with communities. The report also recommends that young people should have an entitlement to out-of-school learning activities. Above all, it signals that learning does not stop in school when one is 16 or 60. It is part of a raft of initiatives gathered together under a new national framework of study support.
The New Opportunities Fund has put £180 million into one quarter of all primary schools and a half of all secondary schools in this country to develop innovative and imaginative schemes which are linked to school development plans, so there is a direct impact on their achievement. Much of that investment is in schools in disadvantaged areas, both rural and urban, and homework and computer clubs, as well as breakfast clubs, community partnerships with arts and sports, and even farming clubs and environmental clubs, are blossoming. Investment in partnerships with the voluntary and business sectors must continue because there are still far too many children in this country who go to school hungry and distracted, leave school with nowhere to go and have no space, support and peace and quiet in which to do their homework. These children never visit a library, museum, gallery or theatre and are the most likely to get into trouble and the least likely to achieve. Research shows that and teachers know it. That is why teachers and the many volunteers who support them are prepared to put in extra time, for which no praise is high enough.
In this context I am bound to reflect on the fact that one of the most poignant aspects of the tragedy of the death of Damilola Taylor was that he had just left the computer club in his local library where he felt safe and valued. He had gone there because he wanted to do better. Out-of-school clubs and activities do not reach every young person; perhaps they never will, but we

153
should try hard to ensure that they reach as many as possible. For that reason, the report of the Social Exclusion Unit is so important. The report helps us to see what learning as well as communities may look like in future. I hope that at the next election the Government will stand by their triple priority of education, education, education and may even broaden it to learning, learning, learning.
6.4 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, in my contribution to today's debate on the gracious Speech I wish to focus on housing matters. We learn in the gracious Speech that legislation to ease the process of buying and selling homes and to improve the protection of homeless people will be brought forward, and that progress will be made on the purchase of freeholds by leaseholders and on commonhold. That is disappointing, especially in view of the much more comprehensive housing Green Paper of recent months and the fact that, when I was a Member of another place, I listened to the Opposition spokesman, now the Minister responsible for housing, and looked at the promises of the Labour Party in its previous election manifesto.
After three and a half years of this Government progress on housing matters has been slow. So far there has been only slow progress in reducing the numbers who die or suffer because their homes are damp, cold or otherwise in poor condition. Slow progress has been made in ensuring the provision of affordable homes for all. There has also been slow progress in ensuring that financial help is given to people to acquire and keep their homes. We have had no national deposit scheme or real help with mortgages for those who lose their employment or are in low paid jobs.
I return to the gracious Speech. I believe that everyone welcomes the attempt to speed up the buying and selling of homes, to make it a much more predictable process and to do something about gazumping. However, there are many, including myself, who are concerned that one pilot, which did not even reach its own target by a considerable margin, should be the basis of legislation. In Bristol's very buoyant housing market only 67 sales with sellers' packs were achieved out of a target of 250. What is more, in the pilot the packs were free. We know that that will not be the case in future: sellers may have to pay several hundred pounds for the packs. There are others who are concerned about the legal problems which may surround sellers' own surveys. There is bound to be much more comment, especially from these Benches, when we see the details put forward by the Government.
Fortunately, I have never been homeless. Homelessness often destroys lives, certainly breaks up families and prevents people from taking part in their communities and leading meaningful and fulfilling lives. Therefore, I welcome the proposals to give more help to homeless people, particularly vulnerable groups. At present, there are many groups who are not eligible for support and help; in particular, young
154
single people. However, if such proposals are to be effective there must be sufficient resources so that local authorities have the wherewithal to provide the extra care and support needed to enable vulnerable people to sustain their housing, which is a concern of the Local Government Association. As to that, at the moment one has in mind the many people whose homes have been destroyed by floods. I welcomed the earlier statement by the Minister that the Government were concerned about this matter and were considering how people could be helped. However, one is aware that the formulas to provide money to local government are often insufficient, particularly for small local authorities. Flood defences have been built around my house not to protect it but to protect local business. The flood defences were built simply because millions of pounds would be lost if a particular business disappeared; they had nothing to do with my particular house.
If we are to help more homeless people we need a greater supply of affordable housing. Across all sectors there is a lack of such housing, particularly in London and the South East. More money has been provided by the Government. Today, we heard that there would be further investment to bring houses up to standard. However, many homes are not in good condition. Although we have heard today that there is to be more investment in affordable homes, over the years new build social housing has dropped and the stock has been severely eroded by the right to buy.
There was no mention in the gracious Speech of measures, which were heralded quite clearly in the housing Green Paper, to assist key workers, particularly nurses, teachers and the police. Recent events have highlighted the lack of police in London, often because officers cannot afford to live there. I welcomed the Minister's indication this afternoon that there would be a further announcement about that. It may assist if we can hear a little more about that this evening.
Another big area of concern which has not been mentioned is the scandal of empty homes. I believe that this should be a priority in view of the shortages. Perhaps I may demonstrate the scale of the problem. In England 250,000 homes, equivalent to a city the size of Sheffield, have been empty for one year or more. In London there are over 114,000 empty homes at any one time. That is more than the entire housing stock in the City of Westminster. Approximately 40,000 homes have been empty for one year or more in London. That represents the equivalent of half the entire housing stock in the boroughs of Harrow or Islington. In the South East, where pressure is perhaps the greatest, there are an additional 95,000 empty homes, of which 30,000 have been empty for one year or more.
I am particularly disappointed that there are still no proposals to scrap the anomaly that means that VAT is charged on refurbishment but not on new-build. The present situation is irrational. It does not support the wider sustainability agenda. Report after report has highlighted the good sense of changing the situation;

155
for example, the reports of the Empty Homes Agency, the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.
I welcome the fact that the Government recognise the appalling state of some of our housing, but there is little financial help to bring properties up to standard. There are not enough penalties for people who leave properties empty for long periods. Part of the problem with empty properties is the need to improve the standard to make them fit to live in. I should like to see a duty placed on all local authorities to have a proper empty property strategy.
There are currently 3 million families living in poor condition housing. In the private sector there is a huge variability of quality with those least able to exercise choice often being left in the poorest quality housing. That leads me to perhaps my greatest disappointment: the Government have failed to live up to their promise of licensing houses in multiple occupation. That was promised by the present housing minister during the passage of the previous Bill. I spent many hours listening to his promises in the previous government. It was promised in the 1997 Labour election manifesto, and it was heralded as desirable in the Green Paper. I was part of a lobby from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Homelessness and Housing Needs to the Minister. I have some inkling why that was not in the gracious Speech. It is because there will be changes to the building regulations and many believe that the licensing issue should go hand in hand. That is not a sufficient excuse. The numbers going into temporary housing—it is just that type of housing that we are talking about—have been rising. That is perhaps one of the biggest disappointments for many in the housing world.
I return to building standards. The Government have tackled, and continue to tackle, some of the worst homes with regard to energy efficiency. My noble friend Lord Ezra has already mentioned this matter. The Government promise that they will try to end fuel poverty in 10 years or so. But they continue to put off raising standards of new-build through building regulations.
Lastly, I turn to leasehold reform. Promises were made by the present housing minister for root and branch reform. Once again we have been disappointed by the proposals which so far have been put forward. I was heartened this afternoon by the Minister saying that the Government will listen to the consultation and they will make changes, because, by golly, the people who have fought that campaign over the years really do want to see some changes.
There will be many who will be disappointed at the small number of measures on housing outlined in the gracious Speech. It seems that I am not the only disappointed noble Lord today. In response to the
156
Green Paper the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors said:
"We recognise that considerable work had to be undertaken in preparing this Green Paper. We are, however, concerned that these proposals have come so late in the Parliament, as there is now only limited time to progress these initiatives prior to the next general election".
It gives me no pleasure to say, how right they were!
6.15 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I feel privileged to be able once again to take part in the debate on the most gracious Speech, although, as an ardent supporter of the monarchy and Parliament, Her Majesty's Government ought to be ashamed of its contents.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, I, too, was saddened that yet again there was no mention of agriculture in the gracious Speech. The only thing that could be remotely related to the environment, despite the recently published rural White Paper, is the Bill to ban hunting with dogs.
Ten days ago, less than five miles away from this royal palace, a 10 year-old boy was brutally murdered. Yet the Government want to waste parliamentary time debating fox hunting.
Farming is in its deepest crisis in living memory. Every sector has been hit. Milk farmers are getting just 10 pence per litre. Cereal farmers are fortunate if they get £60 per tonne when 20 years ago they were receiving £100 per tonne. I wonder how the noble Baroness the Minister would feel if she was earning nearly half what she was 20 years ago. At £1.71 billion, the estimate of total farm income shows a fall in real terms of some 29 per cent on the level of £2.4 billion last year. Compared to the level only five years ago of £6.07 billion, total farming income has now fallen by over 70 per cent. Farm incomes this year are at their lowest level for over three generations—I repeat, three generations—and in reality many farming families are making virtually no personal drawings and have been forced to stop investing in their farms.
Total income from farming has fallen from £7 billion in 1973 to £1.7 billion this year. What can be done? The noble Baroness will not be surprised when yet again in your Lordships' House I make a plea for biodiesel, especially as Her Majesty's Government are rightly committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is worth repeating the Pre-Budget Report of 8th November. That stated:
"In the longer term, the challenge will be to achieve cleaner, greener road transport. Ultimately it will be for industry to rise to the challenge of developing profitable alternative fuels and related technologies. Therefore, in the run-up to Budget 2001, the Government will invite British industry to develop proposals for practical alternative fuels. Following consideration of these proposals the Chancellor will announce major reductions in duty rates for the most promising environmentally-friendly alternative fuels".
We have come a long way. But, if I may, I would like to indicate just how real a contribution farmers could make towards solving our road fuel problems. We have some 5 million cropping hectares in the United Kingdom. Currently about 10 per cent is used for oilseed rape. About three-quarters of that is used for

157
cooking oil. Most of the balance is exported—here I must declare an interest as I export all my oilseed rape—to France, Austria and Germany where they make it into diesel. Why do we not do the same? There are no husbandry reasons why the area of oil seeds should not rise to nearly 1 million hectares. By comparison, we grow nearly 2 million hectares of wheat; and land which will grow wheat will certainly grow oil seeds.
After taking away the area needed for our cooking oil, we could be left with 550,000 hectares for fuel oil production. Yields of oil are presently around 1.4 tonnes per acre, but with the best possible practice and with more money spent on research and development we easily ought to be able to achieve a yield of 2 tonnes of diesel per hectare. That would be over 8 per cent of the 15 million tonnes of fossil dery we burn each year. I believe that this House must encourage the Chancellor to give such tax derogation—as he as already done for gas fuels—as it will enable British farmers and British entrepreneurs to create this most useful new industry which, above all else, is environmentally friendly.
I turn to the environment. With the countryside already on its knees, as I tried to demonstrate earlier, the Government's prioritisation of a hunting Bill is a scandalous abuse of parliamentary time. The Government have stated that they are neutral on the issue and yet have said that they will consider invoking the Parliament Act. While the Bill contains options for MPs to choose between on a free vote, it is laughable in the face of the huge, bigoted, illiberal majority on their Benches.
The Government have introduced and published this Hunting Bill while debate on the Queen's Speech is still in progress. No other government Bill has been given such priority. A politically astute government would be using the coming Session surely to address real issues that matter to people. To give priority to the question of hunting shows a total lack of seriousness where the other legislation announced in the Queen's Speech is concerned and a casual disregard for health, education and crime. It is no exaggeration to suggest, as did The Times editorial on 7th December:
"It is a reasonable wager that this measure will attract more heat and use up more parliamentary time than any other aspect of this prospectus".
This misuse of parliamentary time must presumably have an underlying cause. It has been shown that a promised hunting ban does not have a significant effect on electoral turn-out or results. One recalls therefore the donation by the political animal lobby of £1.1 million to the Labour Party in recent years. This must now mean that we have cash for legislation.
While time is being wasted debating hunting, the Prime Minister has acknowledged that the NHS will be in difficulties yet again this winter. Moreover, public transport continues in chaos and rural Britain is in severe crisis. Despite promises in the rural White Paper, there is nothing in the Queen's Speech for rural communities. For example, there is a desperate need for a Bill on food labelling to ensure that Britain's farmers are competing on a level playing field. Why
158
was not such a Bill in the Queen's Speech? Why were not so many other important issues needing legislation covered in the gracious Speech?
Have not priorities and indeed civil liberties gone completely out of the window? Surely we ought to be focusing on the real issues facing the nation. Ordinary people I meet cannot believe that hunting is top of the parliamentary agenda. Criminal offences are up by 190,000 on last year and last week the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police made a plea for a further 3,000 officers. What do the Government do? They introduce a Bill to ban hunting with dogs. And if a Bill to ban hunting did get Royal Assent, how many more officers would be required nation-wide to enforce it?
There is a widely reported rumour that schools within our capital will shortly be on a four-day week. What do the Government do? They want to introduce a Bill to ban hunting with dogs. Public transport is in complete chaos over the entire country. And, my Lords, what is the Government's response to all these issues? A Bill to ban hunting with dogs.
It is painfully obvious that Her Majesty's Government are unable to distinguish between what is essential and what is not. I would strongly urge them to drop this ludicrous Bill and concentrate on the real problems facing the nation. I have in the past supported this Government, and most especially when they were in opposition, but I now fear and feel that they are misguided, misdirected and out of touch.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Layard: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Morgan on his wonderfully enjoyable, elegant and interesting speech. My noble friend spoke about higher education, which is one of Britain's success stories. I want to talk about lower education, which, unfortunately, is not. More specifically, I want to talk about the education of the less academic half of the population, which has been an area of scandalous neglect for many decades.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, quoted the international figures for literacy. To reinforce what she said, I shall quote those for numeracy. In Britain, 22 per cent of 16 to 25 year-olds, when they go to the shop and pay £2, cannot calculate the change which they are owed from that simple transaction. In Sweden, the comparable proportion is 5 per cent, and in every major continental country the proportion is under 10 per cent. The same difference emerges if we look at levels of qualifications. In Britain, 45 per cent of the workforce have no serious qualifications equivalent to good GCSEs or above, whereas in Germany the proportion is 17 per cent.
The effects of these disparities are exactly as we would expect. First, we have a more unequal society, with more unequal wages than on the Continent, dragged down by the less well educated tail. Secondly, the average which results for wages and productivity is substantially lower than it is in Europe north of the Alps. For example, if we compare ourselves with Germany—the Chancellor is always doing that—our productivity and wages are roughly 20 per cent lower.

159
Why is that the case? Perhaps I may do a simple calculation which I did the other day. Let us suppose that we paid the same wage as we now do for each level of skill and qualification but that our workforce had instead the skills and qualification levels now found in the German workforce. What would happen to our wages? They would be 13 per cent higher; that is to say, we would have closed two-thirds of that productivity gap between ourselves and Germany. Furthermore, if we had a bigger skills base, we would attract a higher level of investment. As noble Lords know, we have a low investment rate compared with the Continent.
It is no wonder that the Government think that education matters. But is the Government's strategy for dealing with the problems of the less academic half of the nation up to the magnitude of the task? I increasingly think that it is and I would say that there are three main tasks to be tackled. The first is schools, although we have also to think of the earlier stages mentioned by other noble Lords. We have seen an extraordinary change in our primary schools through the school literacy and numeracy strategy. My noble friend the Minister gave the figures. I shall not labour them, but when I quoted those figures the day before yesterday to some American colleagues, they were completely astonished that such a change could be achieved by effective government action. It is a remarkable achievement.
I move on to the post-16 stage, by which time surely everyone should be literate and numerate. We should have a system which allows every person to experience the pride of having and exercising a vocational competence. Our present system dismally fails to ensure that. For this age group, the greatest task facing us is to build a truly effective system of vocational education which can attract the people who are not interested in A-levels. We constantly discuss A-levels and degrees but we do not discuss sufficiently the needs of the other half of the population, who are constantly neglected.
Over the past 20 years the history of the vocational education and training sector is tragic. Until 1980 we at least had a national system of apprenticeships. Although it covered only a limited proportion of youngsters, those who qualified through it acquired two things: they had learnt the tricks of the trade and they had also, through day release, acquired some knowledge relevant to their occupation or industry. That knowledge was externally examined through bodies such as the City and Guilds Ordinary National Certificate and so forth. In other words, those youngsters were treated as though what mattered were not only the operations they performed in the workplace but also what they knew, how they thought and their ability to analyse the problems that they faced.
Tragically, under the previous government the apprenticeship system was allowed to atrophy. The national industrial training boards, which had set standards, were scrapped, to be replaced by local training and enterprise councils. The theory was held that flexibility and responsiveness to the needs of
160
vocational education should be the overriding requirements, rather than a clearly established set of national standards for each industry. We replaced the old-style and well-tried qualifications which had comprised a good deal of learning away from the job with national vocational qualifications which were examined only in the workplace. Even numerically, the result was a failure. The new system did not increase the number of people who acquired the new forms of qualification and we did not see the intended flourishing of vocational learning; indeed, we saw stagnation. Between 1985 and 1996, we saw very little increase in the number of young people achieving vocational qualifications, while the number of young people who acquired A-levels or university degrees doubled. Once more, that group gained while the other group did not. Today we still have a situation where nearly 40 per cent of 19 to 21 year-olds acquire no qualifications worth the name. To engage that 40 per cent is one of the greatest challenges facing our country if we wish to achieve a productive economy, an equal society and an end to the yob culture, as was mentioned earlier.
I believe that some among that 40 per cent could be induced to continue in full-time education. The system of educational maintenance allowances now being piloted will help to promote that. However, surely a great many from the group would be interested in further learning only if they were able to earn money at the same time. The Government have therefore committed themselves to a major expansion of apprenticeships. That is extremely important, but it should be done only on the condition that the quality of training will be better than that which they have inherited. It is proposed that, even after the age of 16, we should ensure that the skills of communication and numeracy are improved off the job to the point that an individual with the necessary aptitude and who had acquired enough knowledge in this way might be able to proceed to degree level work. We should not produce a system with a dead end, such as a new form of secondary modern education.
This area of education will present one of the major challenges to the next Parliament. We need to build up a high quality apprenticeship system so that a youngster who does not wish to pursue full-time education beyond the age of 16 would have the right to an apprenticeship place, provided that he or she had attained adequate entry qualifications. If young people at the age of 13 could see such a system in place to which they could aspire, if they worked hard for the succeeding three years, we would be able to dispel much of the cynicism that develops at that stage of life. We would see more of the motivation, discipline and seriousness that are to be found among young people in, for example, Germany.
For those aged between 16 and 21, such reforms are key, but it has already been pointed out that millions of adults have already missed out, including the 7 million illiterate adults of working age. I had the privilege to serve on the Moser committee, which investigated the problem and proposed a bold strategy to seek to halve that number by 2010. The Government are currently in

161
the process of launching a strategy to follow up those proposals. Major funding will be provided, but we shall still face a massive problem in mobilising effective demand and organising an effective supply of skills to meet it. Everyone in society who wishes to succeed will need to address this problem, in particular as it affects those with whom they work or live.
A key stimulus to demand will be the system of objective national tests, which are to be made available in a manner rather like the driving test. An individual could verify his or her own literacy and numeracy and provide that evidence to an employer. That will provide a powerful stimulus to demand. However, it is crucial that many different sectors of society should help to stimulate demand. Employers should feel a sense of responsibility for developing literacy and numeracy among those of their workers who do not have the requisite skills. The Employment Service should be responsible for ensuring that the millions who pass through the benefits offices are helped. Primary schools encounter parents with problems in these areas. Finally, community organisations and media drives will provide effective means of creating demand. A massive effort will need to be made if the scheme is to succeed.
A massive effort will also be needed on the supply side. The Learning and Skills Council will be charged with ensuring that the systems are in place, along with LearningDirect, formerly the University for Industry, which will provide online services in 2,000 learning centres, and, it is hoped, more over time. We should congratulate the Government on their efforts to launch such a major national crusade. They have drawn attention to a situation which, quite frankly, has remained hidden in the past. It is easy to know nothing about it, in particular if one does not wish to do so. The problem is now being brought out into the open and action is being taken to combat it.
I should like to stress that, for economic success, numeracy is at least as important as literacy. A great deal of research evidence is available to support that. For example, all things being equal, a person with a mathematics A-level will earn 10 per cent more than is the case for any other A-level. As a nation, we are not strong in numeracy. We are the only civilised country where a student may enter university not having studied mathematics beyond the age of 16, and it shows. The situation must be changed. A-level students are now encouraged to sit two AS-level papers in addition to the standard three A-levels. It is highly desirable that maths should be included as one of those. It is excellent that, through the QCA, the Government are working on a new "use of maths" AS-level paper which will meet the needs of those who are not too keen on maths, as was the case for me at that age.
Finally, I should like to say a word about universities. The noble Lord, Lord Morgan, pointed out many of the improvements the Government are bringing about, in particular as regards extra funding and teaching. However, I should like to comment on research. There is a major puzzle in the world economy. Per hour worked, Europe to the north of the
162
Alps is as productive as the USA, but nearly all the great innovations emanate from that country. Many reasons have been suggested, such as the influence of the enterprise culture in America. However, one factor which is often overlooked is that the world's five top research universities are all situated in the United States, along with most of the best 10 institutions. The reason for that is that top research centres are far better financed in the US than is the case in Europe. For that reason, we should very much welcome the Government's science initiative being established jointly with the Wellcome Foundation.
I should also like to point out that the comparison between the USA and Europe is at least as dire in social science as it is in natural science; indeed, the position may be even more serious, because social science is more country-specific than natural science. It is unhealthy for us to import so much of our social science from the United States. Many, at least on this side of the House, suffer when they encounter American-style arguments that they feel to be inappropriate. I hope that the Government will take seriously the international comparisons which show how badly British social science performs relative to the USA. We are talking about an area of intellectual dominance. It is an area where Britain could lead Europe and rival the USA, but that would require more diversity between universities, as the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, said.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying that I believe the Government have put together a very good programme for tackling our terrible weaknesses in the education sector. I should declare an interest as a part-time consultant to the DfEE. I believe that we now have in the Secretary of State, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister the greatest trio of educational reformers that our country has seen since the war.
6.41 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am envious of noble Lords who have a Bill falling within their remit in the gracious Speech. It is much easier to talk about what is in the gracious Speech than what is not. I do not like to be negative but, unfortunately, the Government have tempted me into going down the road of talking about what is not in it by publishing the rural White Paper so shortly before the Queen's Speech.
It is a great disappointment that no legislation has come about as a result of the long-awaited White Paper. I agree that the end result looks good—there is much in the White Paper that is good—but action is desperately needed to back it up. It promises the countryside new money but it fails—and the Queen's Speech continues to fail—to address the questions that already hang over government actions, or lack of them, in many areas of rural life.
Noble Lords can easily think of examples. The future of rural post offices and the so-called universal bank is still in the air, with more closing every week. My noble friend Lady Maddock referred to rural housing; that will still suffer the same pressures as it

163
has suffered over decades, with small cottages becoming ever less affordable. The Government have still not defined what is "affordable" in rural areas, where a one or two bedroom cottage can cost as much as £100,000. The definition of "affordable" is critical because wages are so low and house prices are so high in many of our smaller settlements.
I am conscious that the Minister who is to reply has responsibility for MAFF, not the DETR, and I intend to address the remainder of my remarks to those issues upon which she may be able to comment more directly.
Perhaps I may start with an example of a big contributor to the rural economy—a growing sector which addresses the other government target of encouraging more people from different backgrounds to take part in activities in the open air—that is, fishing. In 1994, when the last survey was carried out, a total of 2.9 million people regularly took part in angling. On average they spent about £1,000 each—game anglers spending a little more than coarse anglers—making a total spend of about £3.3 billion. It is big business. Most of it is home business; it is not reliant on overseas tourists who may be put off by the strong pound.
The business is mentioned in the White Paper in less than 100 words. The White Paper refers to the excellent review which was carried out and which is available to your Lordships as the "Salmon and freshwater fisheries review". It is not only about angling but about the conservation of habitats, the pressures on the freshwater environment and the fish that live in it. It also looks at the contribution that fishing can make to the rural economy.
The review contained many recommendations, including several that urgently need primary legislation. I am sad to say that the only action to date—contrary to a firm recommendation in the review to increase the money available to the Environment Agency—has been to cut the grant given to the Environment Agency for fisheries work from £4.7 million last year to £3.2 million this year.
Can the Minister confirm that at least fisheries development will qualify for the rural development grant? When does she expect that the legislation recommended by the commission will be brought forward by the Government?
Perhaps I may now touch on the expected hunting with dogs legislation. I am sure that we shall debate at length the options—I hope that the legislation comes to this House with all of the options intact—but we must also consider its importance to the rural economy. In terms of direct jobs alone, Burns estimated that between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time equivalent jobs could be affected. We must also consider the indirect dependence of jobs in pubs, hotels and all the various aspects of hunting.
I hope that we will be at least consistent. Most activities which involve animals are, to some extent, questionable in welfare terms, whether it is keeping them for meat production or racing them for sport. We have until now adopted an evolutionary approach to
164
these issues in this country. This has enabled improvements in animal welfare to be undertaken with the agreement of those involved. It has meant that people in this country have worked together so that we have one of the best records on animal welfare in the world. I hope that we shall continue with this way of working when we come to consider the hunting with dogs legislation.
I turn now to some of the other critical areas of legislation that the Government have chosen not to include in this Session. The gracious Speech does not mention any legislation suggesting a reform of local markets. There is much talk in the rural White Paper of market towns as hubs for rural activity. That is good; that is how it should be. That, of course, is how those towns developed a purpose in life. But the reason that the Government and local authorities must now spend money and energy helping market towns is that such communities have often lost their markets—which consisted of local producers selling their splendid fresh produce every week—and gained only a supermarket in exchange.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that a vibrant local market is a hive of discussion, planning, exchange of information and a place to meet friends for a gossip—all the things that make the local world go round. It brings trade to local cafes, pubs and smaller shops. Very importantly, it keeps local money in the local economy. It links people with the food that they buy and with the farmers who produce that food.
The legislation surrounding markets—where they can be held and who may promote them—is arcane. We want a network of farmers' markets to rival that which France has managed to retain. We want the way in which EU regulations are applied to producers and abattoirs to support a healthy rural economy.
My noble friends Lord Mackie and Lord Geraint will ask the Government about regulations and charging with regard to abattoirs, but the crash in numbers of small and medium size abattoirs has weakened the rural economy of livestock- producing Britain. It is no good the Government talking about regenerating market towns if they are to become the sole preserve of chutney makers. Chutney is there to accompany ham and cold beef. The network of smaller specialist slaughterhouses and cutting plants is as vital to the regeneration of many rural areas as anything else the Government may provide.
Of course, the £8.7 million which has been announced for that industry is very welcome. At the same time, unless the Government address the situation very rapidly, the regulations which are still strangling the industry—and, indeed, the new consideration of the pithing regulations—are likely to undo much of the good the money will bring.
Another omission from the Queen's Speech was legislation to address the pressing need for an agricultural ombudsman. Ombudsmen exist for other areas of life; why not in agriculture? I do not believe that MAFF should be the judge and jury. Indeed, looking at the result of the recent case of a farmer who successfully appealed to the European Court because

165
his IACs payments were—in Europe's view— wrongly assessed by MAFF, which refused him money for set aside, if an ombudsman had been in place, it might have saved the Government the money that they are now likely to have to pay out.
An ombudsman would, first, provide a service to farmers that they should rightly expect. Secondly, it might prevent this and successive governments running into more difficulties over inaccurately assessed payments. Do the Government intend to bring forward a proposal for an agricultural ombudsman?
I listened carefully to comments from the Conservative Benches. I should like to state clearly that I do not believe it right for Conservative Members to lecture the Government on the state of the agricultural industry. Under the previous government, for years, there was a drastic lack of take-up of European funding for rural development. Unfortunately—although it was perhaps unforeseen—they presided over the BSE crisis. Also, they did little to promote market towns, local markets, or any of the issues to which I have referred.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I appreciate that there were some months when farm incomes went down and our government could have claimed some agri-money. But to say that that happened over years is ridiculous. At that stage farmers were very much in profit. Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to clarify her statement slightly.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I shall clarify my statement. The previous government presided over the scene-setting that has led to much of the collapse of the infrastructure of rural England. I make no apology for saying so. Rural shops and post offices, and the way in which farmers work, were all—would the noble Baroness like to intervene again?
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I do not want to keep intervening, but the noble Baroness has not responded to my point. She has moved on to another issue.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am in the 10th minute of my speech. However, perhaps I may add that I stand by my statement that the previous government did not take up the European money that was available and did not promote agri-environmental schemes. Indeed, they did not talk about reform of the CAP in a constructive way so as to make our European partners take action to further the kinds of schemes that those on the Conservative Benches are now promoting.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, (although to a rather lesser extent) I was surprised at the lack in the gracious Speech of follow-through on the rural White Paper. However, I am afraid that experience suggests that the chance of a recommendation in a White Paper being carried
166
through into action reasonably speedily is in inverse proportion to the length of the paper and the number of recommendations it contains. The rural White Paper is a long document setting out many recommendations that are useful—if they are carried out.
Our debate on the White Paper almost two weeks ago was like one of those rare moments of sunshine when the storm clouds rolled back, the rain ceased, and, just for a few moments, mankind's faith in the future of rural society was restored. It is a matter of some regret that with the gracious Speech, and in particular the advent of the Hunting Bill, we are in the same stormy environment that the rural communities feel they have been in for some time, and the storms are developing. It is sad that we shall be obliged to devote a good deal of time and energy to discussing that particular subject.
In my youth, I spent many happy days in the saddle, and many in the hunting field. The occasional portrayal of people who hunt as bloodthirsty, wealthy gentlemen or even worse bloodthirsty children, is unreal. In my experience, most do not go to see a fox hunted and killed. They go for something immensely different. Hunting gives ordinary people the immense privilege of riding across land that is not in their ownership in a way that is often challenging. That experience would not otherwise be available to them. That is the motivation of the vast majority who go hunting. In order to achieve that privilege, the master of hounds knows that he has to kill some foxes; that is the reason he is there. But the reason people from all walks of the community are there enjoying the hunt is the privileged access to open countryside, which will disappear completely if and when hunting goes. It is a fascinating idea that the police are so overwhelmingly under-employed that a whole group within society could become part of the criminal fraternity. It is absolute nonsense. As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, our priorities are in danger of going seriously adrift.
It is not as though the fox is a poor, sweet, innocent, little animal. It is well classified in law as vermin. The fox is a cunning and cruel killer—as are almost all the animals that are defined as vermin and not a few others that do not presently fall within the classification. I suspect that the fox would probably have a better understanding of hunting than the average member of the Government presently appears to have. Those in the countryside will feel, once again, that they are being done down.
Let us consider the rural man's attitude to livestock. I happen to be a farmer, and it must be borne in mind that a farmer spends his life rearing animals in order to kill them before they reach maturity. It is a fact on which society lives and feeds, and we forget it at our peril. Against that background, rural men have difficulty in understanding the problems that arise in urban communities as a result of animals being neglected, unwanted arid deserted—abandoned pets which have to be put down in such numbers that we

167
regularly see advertisements telling society that "pets are for life, not for Christmas". Some strange attitudes and inconsistencies are involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has covered very well the agricultural aspects of the rural White Paper, as has my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. There is another aspect to the White Paper. The facts are well publicised and there is no point in repeating them. We should, however, be clear that the agricultural industry—certainly in the grain-growing areas—is adapting quickly to the change in circumstances. The quickest way to illustrate the point is to state what has happened to a successful medium-sized estate that I heard about last week. (The difference between "small" and "medium" is multiplying almost every year.) The estate employed eight people. The owner finally said that "enough was enough"; he has ceased to farm his land and has put it under contract. In a remote rural area, six jobs have gone immediately. That process will be repeated and repeated. I know of one agricultural unit run by two men and a part-time labourer, farming over 3,000 acres, immensely heavily capitalised, and they are still only just in profit. For most of rural England, the future is a desert, except where there is stock, and stock will retreat to areas where grass grows well.
There is another context to the rural White Paper. On the day before we debated it, the other place discussed the annual revenue support grant decisions. That Statement was not taken in this House because of the immense pressure of the Government's legislative programme. Those figures are of very specific interest in this particular context. if one studies the current allocations of funds, strips from them the changes in methodology that have taken place since 1997 and does a recalculation to bring the expenditure up to current levels, one finds that between £600 million and £700 million have moved out of the shire areas. That is a very large sum of money. It impacts on all services in the shire areas—rural, education, social, fire, transport services, and so on—which, in turn, impact on the viability of rural communities. That places a different perspective on what is happening in the countryside. It also puts the rural White Paper in a very different perspective.
Even an above average revenue support grant settlement, as in the case of my own county of Essex, does not necessarily imply, because of the circumstances of a particular authority, that council tax charges will stay within the parameters that the Government appear to consider they should. Unless it makes some fairly dramatic policy changes, my own county, in the circumstances that apply there, will have to consider a council tax increase of in excess of 12 per cent for the coming financial year. Of course, the setting of a council tax charge is a decision for the county council to take. It will do its best in the circumstances. However, year on year, with constant policies, the consequence of what is happening in just one county—I could illustrate many others—will be very serious indeed.
168
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is correct. Numerous very serious issues affect many sectors of our society. Those issues require our attention. Yet Parliament as a whole is to spend a great deal of time—I suspect that we in this House may spend more time than will the other place, as procedures there can be expedited—debating a Bill to limit the control of vermin.
7.4 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I also very much regret the absence from the gracious Speech of any mention of the environment or agriculture. I warm particularly to what my right reverend friend the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said about the environment and to what a number of noble Lords said about agricultural issues. I make the charitable assumption that, because they had only recently published the rural White Paper, the Government believed that there was no need to include it in the gracious Speech. However, it would have been nice to have had an indication that they take the White Paper seriously and are minded to introduce further necessary legislation to implement some of its proposals. In many ways, it is an excellent document. It is wide ranging and imaginative in what it says about rural life and the regeneration of rural communities. Everyone must applaud the Government's objectives to create a living, working, protected and vibrant countryside, to use the four adjectives in the White Paper.
I want to concentrate on agriculture, without implying a lack of appreciation of some of the other good measures that are covered by the White Paper. If I spend more time on questions and criticisms than on praise, it is not meant to imply that there is not much to be thankful for and to commend in the White Paper, in the England Rural Development Programme and in the Action Plan for Farming, which the Minister mentioned in her introduction to today's debate.
A genuinely prosperous and inclusive rural community depends absolutely on the continuing viability of farming. Healthy, balanced rural communities, the maintenance of a good landscape and a rich biodiversity all depend on the land continuing to be farmed in some active way—not necessarily in the same way as it has been farmed, in many places very intensively, for the past 30 or 40 years, which has in fact created a good deal of environmental damage.
That brings me immediately to what I believe is the most important unresolved tension in the White Paper. Much encouragement is to be gained from the specific commitment, in Chapter 8 to food production:
"Farming is important. It supplies most of our food. It directly employs 600,000 people. It contributes £7 billion each year to the UK economy. It is. and will continue to be, the bedrock of the UK food chain".
That sounds splendid. Would that it were true or likely to continue to be true. But there is an unacknowledged, and certainly unresolved, tension between the twin objectives of encouraging farmers to become more competitive and more responsive to market signals so that our agriculture is better able to

169
compete in a global economy and telling them that they must expect to receive more of their income not from producing food but from managing the landscape.
I wish that the White Paper had attempted to point the way to the right balance between these objectives, which may, of course, vary from place to place and from sector to sector. This needs to be spelt out so that farmers know where they stand. What are they to attempt to do, and what are they to be paid to do, apart from producing food? For a Government who are not shy of setting targets—for example, in reducing NHS waiting lists, freeing children from poverty or raising educational standards—it is regrettable that there is no attempt to suggest in the White Paper what proportion of our food needs should be met by our own farmers or, more specifically, how we are to raise the present, pathetic, meagre figure of 30 per cent of organic purchasing met by UK producers. How can we raise that figure? To what target do we aspire? Specific figures may be impossible, even undesirable, but aspirational targets would be helpful and would encourage farmers who feel battered and further threatened by globalisation and the ruthless power of the supermarkets. That is the first, fundamental, philosophical question mark over the Government's intentions for farming, as expressed in the rural White Paper. The excellent initial section on food needs to be fleshed out and needs statistical support.
Nevertheless, there is much to applaud: better training for farmers, especially in business skills; the concentration (in appropriate cases) on direct selling; new encouragement for non-food crops, especially energy crops, in respect of which I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said; the prospect of integrated farm inspections to save time and paperwork; and increased resources for countryside stewardship. However, the latter announcement, which fits extremely well with a shift towards agri-environment schemes, is not, in my experience, entirely welcomed by farmers. They are ambivalent about countryside stewardship. It requires capital up front. Many farmers are now completely without financial resources and, therefore, unable to take advantage of the very scheme that would benefit them in the long term.
Countryside stewardship is too inflexible, with rates of payment too low to achieve some of the most desirable environmental objectives. For example, in the Wye valley in Herefordshire we have lost most of the historic, unimproved river grassland meadows to potato growing, which offers irresistible, short-term profit to hard pressed farmers but has meant that a precious and virtually irreplaceable habitat has been destroyed simply because the countryside stewardship incentive was not enough to swing the balance in favour of the environmentally sustainable and ecologically desirable form of farming. Soil run-off into the River Wye, which is an SSSI and a candidate site of SAC (special area of conservation), has done further serious environmental damage.
170
I believe that countryside stewardship payments need to be more generous, as do the hill farm allowance payments for farmers in the more remote upland areas. Yes, we badly needed a change from the headage payments that encouraged over-stocking, over-grazing and poor animal welfare, but if the hill farm allowance is not set at a higher rate than that proposed, hill farmers will be driven out of business, despite the fact that they constitute in the words of the White Paper,
"a very significant part of the rural social fabric".
If the countryside stewardship and hill farm allowance schemes are to work, as I believe the Government intend they should, they must be further developed and some more carefully calculated and targeted benefits have to be offered, at least in some places and for some people.
I should like to express a very warm welcome for an outcome that many of us campaigned for over a long period; namely, the £8.7 million mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in the current year to help small and medium-sized abattoirs, which play such a vital role in rural areas in supplying specialist markets in particular, notably markets that offer good returns for farmers and very good food for the public: organic meat, farmers' markets and specialist breeds. There is wonderful news. Charges will now be on a headage not on a throughput basis. But—the Minister knows what is coming—that most welcome move has been disastrously sabotaged, at least in the case of the small abattoirs, by the decision to implement the second stage of EU Commission Decision 2000/418/ EC on specified risk material to ban the process of pithing from 1st January of next year.
Most noble Lords sitting in the Chamber this evening probably know what pithing is, but just in case that is not so, perhaps I may explain the process. When cattle are killed, they are first stunned by firing a captive bolt into the brain. However, if left in this state, involuntary thrashing of limbs often occurs. This can be extremely dangerous, as the violent limb movements are unpredictable and can cause injury or even death to slaughtermen. Pithing is an old-established technique for stopping these movements of the animal by disrupting the nervous tissue. It is achieved by passing a wire rod into the brain at the point of entry of the captive bolt stunner. The use of pithing can be avoided if slaughter premises are of sufficient size to allow the installation of a hoist, so that the animal can be lifted above the point at which the slaughterhouse staff are in danger.
The banning of pithing is based on concerns that in over 30-month-old cattle there is a theoretical possibility of BSE material entering the blood supply of the animal during the pithing process. However, in the United Kingdom, no animals over 30 months of age are entering the food chain. It is the opinion of the Government's advisory committee on BSE, SEAL, that there is no current need, on grounds of food safety, to ban pithing in the UK. That view is shared

171
by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), which has actually said that,
"there is no reason to change the common UK practices of stunning and pithing during the slaughter of cattle".
There is very good reason to fear that if the ban on pithing is implemented small abattoirs will close. They do not have the space to install hoists, or the money; or, indeed, even the time to obtain planning permission. They dare not risk injury to staff from involuntary kicking of the stunned animal. What is urgently needed is a moratorium from the ban for UK processors where no animal over 30 months old is slaughtered for human consumption.
The OTMS arrangements were costly and difficult to introduce, but they are now in place. I do not believe that there is any demand from United Kingdom farmers for their repeal. If other European Union countries want to slaughter older animal for human consumption, by all means let them ban pithing: but let our small abattoirs be exempt and continue this practice. It poses no risk to human health and actually has animal welfare benefits, because it prevents the possibility of the animal that has been stunned regaining consciousness before it is slaughtered.
I apologise for dwelling on this matter, which is not entirely pleasant in some ways. But it is matter of great concern to many small farmers and to all organic producers. The European Union ban threatens many livelihoods in my diocese. I beg the Minister to take the matter most seriously.
Finally, and very much more briefly, there are some sad omissions from the rural White Paper that many of us had hoped to see, including some set out very persuasively in the Manifesto for Rural Britain produced by the Rural Group of Labour MPs in April of this year. For example, please can we have a retirement scheme for farmers who want to leave the industry but cannot afford to do so in present circumstances? This is a pressing problem. I met someone yesterday who is in that exact position. He is wretchedly miserable because he simply cannot do it without the sort of help that is on offer in many other European countries. I have in mind help not just with marketing but with food processing, so that farmers can benefit from the added value that is at present going to someone else.
There should also be support for young people who want to enter the farming world—believe it or not, there are such people. They understand consumer demand, marketing and the environment in a way that many of the older generation simply do not. The United Kingdom is the only member of the European Union that does not offer help of that kind. Changes to the "leader + programme" of help for small-scale, innovative rural development projects, which is an excellent programme, must not be restricted to areas that can muster a population of 10,000 people within a local action group area. Some of the best and most valuable of the earlier leader projects were based in areas of very sparse population. The proposed change is most unwelcome.
172
Why is there no mention of the economic and environmental benefits of minimum tillage farming, which ought to be much better known and more practised? Why no mention of the need to introduce a rational debate about genetically modified foods? However, I was glad to read in Farmers Weekly, which I assure noble Lords I read as assiduously as I read the Church Times, that the Minister recently announced a government initiative in public relations to try to explain what is being attempted with the GM food crop trials. That is a matter that desperately needs attention. Many farmers have been impossibly harassed and intimidated over this matter.
The rural White Paper is a good document. It represents a huge leap forward in terms of integrated thinking and planning for rural Britain. We are grateful for that fact. However, as I have tried to show, it leaves many farmers disappointed and deeply frustrated. Morale and confidence are crumbling and despair is setting in. Many noble Lords have mentioned that and I know it to be true. I hope that the Minister will have heard about these disappointments and frustrations which, despite the toughness and tenacity of most country people, are very real. I also hope that the Government will respond to them—ideally along the lines that I have set out this evening.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate. He knows far more about agriculture than I do, even though I have farmed for years. I greatly enjoyed his speech. I am most grateful to the Bishops' Benches because they are the last bastion of protection against all those able women, who make poor creatures like me feel so inferior.
I, too, believe that the Hunting Bill is a little out of place when we consider the troubles with which we are faced at present. The case against it has certainly been put very well. It is right and proper to talk about cruelty to vermin, if there is such cruelty. But, in hunting, the fox is either killed or it gets away. We do not hunt in Aberdeenshire or in Angus, but we do not like foxes, so we shoot them. There was an occasion when I came out worst in such an argument. My granddaughter, who was raised in London until the age of seven, came to stay with us. One day she marched into the house, stood upright before me and asked, "Grandpa, did you shoot a fox?" I said, "Yes, dear. I shot a fox". She then asked me why I did so, to which I replied, "Darling, foxes do a lot of harm. They kill pheasants". She responded, "So do you".
I may have lost that particular argument, but I have shot a number of foxes in my time. However, I have also missed them. I have even hit them and wounded them. That is regrettable and something that we must stop. Hunting is not in the same category.
The hatred of hunting does not rely altogether on concern for animals but more on jealousy of people who ride about on horses. I have never hunted on a horse, but I have been to a meeting at which I was poured a sherry which I greatly enjoyed while others

173
went off on horses. I think that the Hunting Bill is irrelevant. I hope that sensible members of the Government—there are plenty—will manage to restrain their more ignorant or prejudiced fellows.
Although agriculture was not mentioned in the gracious Speech, the Minister responsible in this House for agriculture will reply. Plenty of material has been thrown at her. I hope that she will reply to it. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford referred to small abattoirs. The inspection costs of a small abattoir were £17,000 in 1996 but £38,000 in 1999. Such costs overtake the profits of a small abattoir. How much will a small abattoir benefit from government measures? Without the small abattoirs, long distances have to be travelled to the larger abattoirs—and that makes a tremendous difference.
The White Paper on the countryside programme is right about housing. We must do something about affordable housing in the countryside which is rented by people who want to work there and can afford it but which is then purchased by the children as the tenants become older, and sold on. We need some form of restriction on that. Such sales occur everywhere and result in the disappearance of farms. It is a waste of money. People want to work in the countryside, but cannot afford to live there.
The Government, in particular agriculture Ministers, face two major issues. First, the common agricultural policy has been destroyed by the fact that whatever the Commission imposes to stop overproduction, the Council opposes on the ground that the farmers of France or Bavaria would suffer. The Government have to fight that attitude. While we reach a competitive standard in this country—we are rapidly doing so to the detriment of the countryside—everyone knows that when farms form a unit, fewer men are employed.
There needs to be marketing and organisation of the major products. My noble friend Lady Miller was right to say that countryside markets are useful but they are not a major factor when dealing with the produce of competent and efficient farmers. For that, one needs an organisation which will handle the enormous power of the supermarket chains. No one is more subject to loss of profit and the driving down of returns than the primary producers. They need some organisation.
Secondly, the common fisheries policy is in a state of crisis. With regard to the catching of cod, an enormous drop in fishing hours—probably total prohibition—will be required. The Council, and I hope our Ministers, must agree that they will stand the cost which, to the fishermen, will be great. It is a major issue. If nothing is done, without doubt there will be no cod in the North Sea.
These are problems which face the Government. They are facing up to some of the agricultural problems, but there are major problems with regard to the fisheries policy. I have great admiration for the Minister. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will be able to answer in a positive manner.
7.26 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I was encouraged to note that education featured once more in the gracious Speech. Education has always been the means of upward mobility for people from the Caribbean who are the descendants of slaves. I propose to highlight the exclusion of black boys from schools which is proving to be a special educational need in my community.
Exclusion from school is a socially disabling phenomenon. The black community submits that it has been used against black children in schools with amazing success. The prison population reflects that submission. Much of the research available appears to blame the victim rather than address the institutions. The major shortcomings of attempts to educate and evaluate black youngsters are attributed to the cultural norms and imperatives which operate in the black community and are seen to be different from those of the white community. The primary substance of this contention asserts that such a thing as black culture and the black experience exist and have historical perspectives which extend to those whose parents came from the Caribbean.
It has been further asserted that the influences of black culture render black children proficiently different from whites in some very specific ways. We deny this. In truth, historically, the basic foundations of the two cultures have always been diverse but it has never prevented the growth of some very brilliant and able citizens from the Caribbean. They are well balanced and can be found in every walk of life—musicians, doctors, lawyers, politicians and even the higher philosophers of this world. The question is: what is happening in British schools? Who takes care of the differences? How are the differences reconciled to create the citizen? Who emphasises the right of the child to show feelings of love and hate? The two are not separated. The child must recognise early in life that he can both love and hate. What is needed is help and support in order for the child to tune in or tune out of things which concern him at that age.
Excluding a child fails to deal with his needs at the most vulnerable time of his existence. In one London borough alone, I was told that 400 children are out of school in any one day, and two-thirds of them are black. Black children, like all children, need to be taught and educated. It is imperative that the methodology, processes and procedures that are buried in the cultural aspects of one's being be considered at all times. They must be educated and counselled within the vein of their culture if we are to change the present figures of exclusions.
Much of the data that is available on the subject of school violence is unreliable and creates a false impression as to the causes and cures of the problem. Contrary to the public impression created by the media, the facts do not support the contention that our schools are battlegrounds where it is unsafe to send children due to brutal assaults on teachers as well as extortion and burglaries. The notion that schools are less safe than the communities in which they are

175
situated is not supported by facts. This is not to say that these phenomena do not exist. They are present but they have not completely taken over the school system. I urge noble Lords to act to prevent this ever being the case.
We should not try to pass the buck. We are all responsible, if we continue to change our laws simply because some people do not wish to obey them. We as adults will deny our duty to the future citizens of our country. Children must be made to relearn respect for persons and property and be made aware of sanctions before the act of defiance itself. We need to tell them in advance that there will be penalties for certain actions. We need to tell them that even in the early days of primary school. We owe it to all children, not only to the privileged few.
I should like the Minister to assure the House that greater attempts will be made to ensure recognition in the form of resources given to supplementary schools to assist with the problem of school exclusions so that children will no longer roam the streets with nowhere to go and no one to turn to because they are considered to have disrupted a school.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I shall confine my remarks to agriculture. I am really surprised that there is no mention of the common agricultural policy or any other agricultural issues in this year's Queen's Speech. I wonder why that is. Is it because British agriculture is now heading for the worst financial crisis since the war and the Government are still not willing to listen to the producers' plea for help and understanding; or is it because the Agriculture Minister, Nick Brown, forecast a 27 per cent downward trend in farmers' incomes?
The Agriculture Minister said, rightly, that there were a number of factors involved in the fall, including pressure on prices for agricultural outputs caused by the strength of sterling against the euro; falls in prices for milk and cereals; and increased fuel and fertiliser costs. But why will not the Minister come clean and admit for once that the supermarkets have taken over full responsibilities for the Government's agricultural policies? Although I commend the rural White Paper, which contains some good points and recommends the introduction of some good measures, we are in a crisis. I refer again to the forecast 27 per cent fall in farmers' incomes in 12 months. We do not have time to wait for the recommendations in White Papers to be implemented.
Only last Friday at the Farmers' Union of Wales council meeting in Aberystwyth, President Bob Parry said:
"These figures are disgraceful and reflect the growing anxiety in the countryside over the very future of farming".
Although the final statistics will not be published until late January, this latest reduction will see the average farm income in Wales plunge from £4,500 in 1999—which is not a lot—to just over £3,000 in 2000. That is a shame. That is all I can say.
176
"How on earth can anyone live on £3,000 a year, let alone try and pay bills and invest in the farm".
said Mr Parry.
"These latest figures will shock the nation and must spur the Government into announcing further action to assist our struggling family farms".
Will the Minister inform the House whether producers can go on farming and producing food for the nation at less than the cost of production? The farming industry will not survive unless farmers obtain a realistic price for their products. If the Minister can answer that question tonight, I am sure that she will please all the farmers of Britain. However, I do not think that she will be able to give an honest and accurate answer to the question of when farmers will be able to farm at a profit. In my view, the crisis merits urgent, top level discussions at both Parliament and National Assembly level to see what else can be done to reverse this disturbing downward trend.
The average age of today's farmer is 58, and with current incomes at such pitiful levels it gives little heart to young people to continue the traditions of the family farm. The crisis has been further highlighted by a survey of the Farmers' Union of Wales which shows that major barriers stand in the way of young people looking to follow a career in the countryside. The findings clearly indicate that incentives are urgently needed to help to convince young people that agriculture has a future.
The lack of understanding and interest of the national Government in matters rural has reached critical proportions.
"We would not in any way criticise the Ministry of Agriculture",
said John Thorley, the chief executive of the National Sheep Association.
"It is doing its best under very difficult circumstances".
However, I am deeply concerned about the fact that there appears to be far more notice taken of the highly organised and well funded groups which proliferate on the fringes of farming. It is significant that they come under a grouping known as the Wildlife and Countryside Link, a coalition of some 35 organisations, with in excess of 6 million supporters.
Contrast this with the representations of farming and agriculture—the landowner, the farmers' unions and the sectoral interest organisations, with a total number between them of fewer than quarter of a million—and one begins to get a handle on why agriculture and farming are being sidelined by the Government. The latest figures, published on 30th November, show that total income from farming is forecast to have fallen by 72 per cent since its peak in 1995. That is a fall of 72 per cent in five years. I warn the Government that they have only a few months before the next election and unless they do something to redress these figures it will be a sad day for them. The results of this are crippling, with a lack of confidence, particularly in the sheep sector, resulting in a loss of some 25,000 producers in less than 10 years. This means that the ones who remain are working longer hours for fewer returns, with young people in

177
particular refusing to be part of what was once a fulfilling, positive and constructive lifestyle but which has now been relegated to a life of drudgery and penury.
It cannot he right for people to be treated this way. Government must realise that the continuance of a cheap food policy, with prices paid to primary producers well below actual costs of production, leads to disastrous consequences. These encompass the welfare of people, the welfare of animals, the environment and the entire rural structure. The Government must do something positive about it as a matter of the utmost priority. They should return the industry to conditions that contribute to the reasonably harmless development that has been a feature of farming since the war.
There is another important issue in Wales at the moment. I am very proud of our Assembly in Cardiff, but we must have the same powers as Scotland forthwith. That would improve the relationships between the Assembly and the Government in London. It is a great shame that the Office for National Statistics will not allow the people of Wales to say that they are Welsh in next year's census, while our friends in Scotland will have the opportunity to say that they are Scottish. I urge the Government to intervene forthwith to rectify the situation and ensure that a box for that is included. Please do not find excuses. We have heard enough. Listen to the views expressed and the decisions made in favour by Welsh politicians at the Assembly. The Minister has the choice to grant Welsh people their rights or to surrender to those stupid and determined civil servants whose views are currently entrenched against the Welsh. The Government must act now, before it is too late. Tomorrow, representatives of the Western Mail, the national newspaper of Wales, will take a petition to 10 Downing Street on behalf of those of us who are proud to say that we are Welsh to the core.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I find myself approaching the debate in an uncharacteristically negative mood, and not merely because a number of long-overdue important measures, such as the granting of citizenship to our overseas territories, are not included, although I was cheered by the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, the other day that the integrated child credit was a kind of citizen's income. That is at least a start on a major plank of Green Party policy. I was also cheered to learn, not from the Queen's Speech, but, I think, from Matthew Parris' column, which is often as entertaining, that at last bicycle bells will be made compulsory for all new bicycles. As a vice-president of the Pedestrians Association, I welcome that long-overdue measure.
My overall depression arises not merely because today's allocated subjects of education, the environment and agriculture are so badly catered for in the Speech. I understand why that is the case, although to understand is not necessarily to forgive. The environment has had a major Bill in the past year as well as a major White Paper. Agriculture, which is
178
a major disaster area, is probably no more amenable to a single ameliorating Bill than is flooding. That leaves us with education, on which the Government have one or two positive plans.
However, there is no apparent realisation of the immensity of the problems that confront this country and the world. The majority of thinking people have realised, at least superficially, that our present so-called civilisation in the West is consuming far too many of the earth's resources and excreting them far too quickly. And yet we are told without qualification that the Government will pursue the objective of high levels of growth. There is always room for the qualitative improvement of our life and for a fairer distribution of goods, but there is no room for quantitative growth. If there was, would it make us any happier? I am not just putting on a priest's hair shirt. I am talking about positive benefits for human beings, such as satisfaction and quality of life.
Opening my copy of that admirable publication The Week last Friday, I was struck by two stories. The first was entitled, "The dark underside of the American dream". It surveyed the rundown of that country's infrastructure due to the competition of the two main parties in establishing "lean government". A rundown infrastructure means that public schools have to rely on corporate help to survive and a child can he sent home for wearing a Pepsi Cola T-shirt to school on Coca-Cola day. Proctor and Gamble, which makes disposable nappies, furnishes schools with teaching materials that say that cutting down forests is no threat to the environment. The democratic machinery of government becomes a laughing stock, because, while America produces some of the best counting machines in the world, the public authorities cannot afford to buy them. I am talking about one of the richest countries in the world.
Are the people of America happier? They are not. The incidence of depression and the decline of the ties between people—social capital—are at their all-time worst level. What has happened to Uncle Sam's fabled generosity when he is prepared to do virtually nothing to combat global warming, as we have just seen in the world climate talks? We all know that generosity stems most frequently from happiness and self-confidence. The US at the moment has neither.
We are rapidly slipping down that road of the neglect of public infrastructure. Last month we had the appalling spectacle of the Government privatising air traffic control. I do not blame the Conservatives too much for not stopping that when they could have done, because they do not believe in nationalisation. I pay tribute to Labour Back-Benchers in another place who voted against that betrayal of their heritage. I blame the Government, as I blame them for not introducing in this Session a Bill to nationalise Railtrack. That would have been an election winner.
Is it left to the Green Party to be the only party that still believes that the people of this country are prepared to operate institutions for the public good and not just for the quick buck? I ask that particularly of those on the Labour Benches.

179
The second story in The Week that struck me was about Delhi. It said:
"Much of the city has been brought to a standstill by a wave of violent protests against government plans to shut down polluting factories.… Air pollution kills as many as 10,000 people in the city alone. … The Government has now backed down on its plans".
What does that say about the civilising influence of the West leading the third world down the capitalist path?
In my pursuit of Bills that the Government should introduce but have not done so, why is there not a Bill, or at least a promise of a Green Paper, on the steps that will need to be taken to combat the effects of climate change? The question may still be open as to whether this year's appalling weather in Britain is tied to world conditions, or whether it is simply a continuation of the weather that we have always masochistically prided ourselves on, as Fougasse used so entertainingly to point out in his cartoons. Virtually no one any longer believes that major world climatic change is not happening. It will lead to great change in the economics of nations and regions as, among other things, patterns of crop culture shift.
That brings me to agriculture. The Government clearly know what is happening—indeed, with the high rate of suicide among farmers, they could hardly not know. The cause is indisputable: free trade in agriculture. Global and national authorities should be encouraging small farmers throughout the world to provide food for local consumption. Small farms do that far more efficiently than large farms by any yardstick except the purely monetary. As the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, said, they produce more and better quality food per acre, they tend the environment better and they treat their animals better. Incidentally, when shall we have a Bill to give the codes of recommendations statutory backing, as advised by the Farm Animal Welfare Council? Small farms keep more people working on the farm, thereby creating rural populations that produce a demand for services, which leads to a happy and prosperous rural life, as the Government acknowledged in their admirable rural White Paper.
Instead, the Government offer restructuring. We all know what that means, whether it is offered by the World Bank to third world countries or by the doubtless well meaning Nick Brown to British farmers. It means making the rich richer—especially transnational corporations—and the poor poorer.
Admittedly, they are—or at least I hope they are, otherwise there will be hell to pay—trying to reform those international authorities. However, they should be facing up to the fact known to us all that free trade in agriculture is a con trick to buy cheap food for the urban poor by concealing all the real costs of that process which hit the rural population particularly hard. Some of your Lordships, especially on the Conservative Benches, will be aware of the wonderful account in Disraeli's Life of Lord George Bentinck of Peel sitting huddled on the Treasury Bench while the great mass of Tory squires files into the Lobby against his repeal of the Corn Laws to protect the farmers of England.
180
Again, in the same way as I ask the Labour Party whether it is only the Green Party which still believes in public ownership, I ask the Conservative Party whether it is only the Green Party which still believes that the countryside and the working farmers of Britain are worth preserving. I say "the countryside" because, when the small farmers go, the countryside will also go in the process known in America as "New Jersification". Therefore, why do not the Government at least embrace a form of modulation which helps the small farmers?
This Queen's Speech is almost entirely irrelevant to the real problems of the world and of Britain. Let us hope that whatever government are elected next May, they will do rather better.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I return to the subject of education. I was delighted that the rather short gracious Speech spoke in specific terms of the Government's intention to create more specialist schools. It really touched my old heart. We all have different aptitudes, skills and abilities and. of course, we all agree that it is crucial that education caters for this diversity of humanity. I believe that we must also all agree that it is hard for one school to deal adequately with all those demands; hence my support for the Government's desire for more specialist schools.
My main reason for rising to speak tonight is to make a particular point about education. We all agree with the concept of specialist schools. However, it is crucial that the right pupils go to the right schools; for example, I can barely repair a fuse and I depended on my late wife to deal with technology. I believe that it would be generally agreed by all my friends that I would not be a suitable candidate for a school specialising in technology; nor, in view of my previous educational record, would I be an ideal candidate for one specialising in mathematics or science. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that there needs to be a test of aptitude and ability so that pupils benefit from the specialisation that the new schools will offer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, knows better than I do that very sophisticated tests are now available that show where one's skills lie. The problem is that many people—although, I am sure, not the noble Baroness—still regard tests in the light of the old 11-plus examination; that is, a pass or fail. However, I want to emphasise that tests exist which would help specialist schools by showing whether a pupil would benefit from a specialisation in modern languages, mathematics, technology or whatever else. It is not a question of pass or fail.
Therefore, I hope that the Government, and particularly the Minister, will reject the dogmas of the past and allow the new specialist schools to experiment with and use some of those indicators to enable pupils to fulfil their potential in the best possible environment.
Further, when the Minister sums up, I should be interested to hear about the Government's plans for the financing of such schools. The problem, as I know

181
as an ex-headmaster, is that some types of specialisation are more expensive than others. Technology, for example, demands equipment and machinery which cost a lot of money; so do the laboratories which deal with pure science. However, I remind the Minister that when I was High Master of St Paul's, the budget for technology and design was twice that, for pure science. Such subjects cost a lot of money.
Further, as the Minister knows, mathematics and physics specialists are scarce—in the case of physics specialists, very scarce. Such specialists may need to be attracted, particularly to specialist science schools, by higher salaries. The Minister may have to consider that. In addition, if a variety of languages is to be taught in a specialist language school, some sets may be small and, in a technical sense, uneconomic and more expensive to maintain. There is also a need for foreign tours, with some support for the poorer pupils.
All that needs to be taken into account if, as mentioned in the gracious Speech, specialist schools are to fulfil their ideals. I repeat: it is a great idea, and it came from these Benches—although I shall not dwell on that tonight. All those details will require attention if the aim and hope of an item mentioned in the early sentences of the gracious Speech are to be realised. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating and in the detail.
Perhaps I may enter a number of postscripts. First, I should like the Minister to comment on the recent CPE pamphlet about the amount of money that local authorities are transferring to schools. I gather that there is a dispute. In his pamphlet, Nick Seaton suggests that at least 27 per cent of local authority money is being kept by the authorities. In the case of some authorities, I suggest that the figure is somewhat higher. However, I should like to hear from the horse's mouth, if I may say so in an agricultural metaphor, exactly what the amount will be.
I turn to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord from a sedentary position. However, as I know to my cost, the horse is not an agricultural animal in this country.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, it is true; I have never eaten a horse.
Perhaps I may turn to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I admired her strong rhetoric for educational standards. However, I believe that she picked from many apple trees. First, I agree with her that much should be done for vocational education. However, she never faced the problem of structure. The comprehensive system got rid of the technical schools, but the noble Baroness did not touch on that point.
Secondly, she criticised strongly Christopher Woodhead as Chief Inspector of Schools. In my opinion, he has done great works. My daughter teaches in Bethnal Green. Her school was placed under special measures. It underwent great hardship and that
182
was a burden to the teachers. However, the school has risen 166 places in the league tables. That is no mean achievement for a school, half of whose pupils are Bangladeshi. Therefore, we must admire Chris Woodhead, who achieved a great deal.
The third point that I wish to make about picking from various apple trees is that, as anyone knows, of course one needs more money for everything. However, again as I know as an ex-head teacher, throwing money at one problem does not solve the problem of inadequacy in other areas. In other words, one can put a penny on income tax—I do not know whether the Liberal Democrats are still of this opinion; I read different views in the papers—but if one does that, one has also to deal with the problem, with which Chris Woodhead had to deal, of inadequate schools.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may comment on two points raised by the noble Lord. First, he probably knows well that the average amount spent per pupil in private schools in this country is twice the amount spent in state schools. Roughly speaking, one is talking about £5,000 to £5,500 a year at secondary school level in private schools, and £2,500 a year in the state schools. Therefore, twice as much is being spent in private schools. That is probably the main reason that many people seek private education.
I am trying to remember the second point which the noble Lord made.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, it was about a penny on income tax.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, yes, we stick by that. We feel that more money is needed for education and, if necessary, we shall put an extra penny on income tax to produce that extra money.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, as a person who ran a budget for 18 years, I acknowledge that we spent money but, believe me, I never spent money on declining causes. The answer is that if you spend money, you should aim it right. That is where Mr Woodhead and his team came in. The noble Baroness condemned Mr Woodhead while at the same time asking for more money to be spent, and she did not allow for the great work that he had done.
I do not want to be ungracious. It is marvellous that specialist schools are to be established. It is rare that those on the Benches opposite learn from Members on these Benches, but at least we thought of the idea which I am sure the Government will implement with all the ideals and imagination which we should have applied to the same problem.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I rise from these Benches to talk briefly about the transport aspects mentioned in the gracious Speech. From these Benches, we welcome the proposed Bill to promote safety on the roads and railways, at sea and in the air, particularly in the light of the recent rail disasters and "Marchioness"

183
tragedy. One can only hope that such a wide-ranging Bill will not be as complex and contentious as the recent Transport Bill.
We have all suffered from the chaotic outcome of the situation on our railways following the Hatfield disaster. Therefore, we welcome the decision to implement such recommendations as may come from the inquiry of Lord Cullen into the Paddington accident. However, I remind the Government that many of the recommendations from such inquiries never seem to be implemented. I refer specifically to those arising from the inquiry into the aircraft fire at Manchester Airport some years ago. Some of those recommendations have yet to be implemented and I hope that that will not be the fate of the Ladbroke Grove and Slough inquiries.
We need to examine also procedures used to restore the railways to use after such an accident. To shut down for a fortnight is quite unacceptable. That never used to happen before privatisation. So what has changed? I believe that there is an over-involvement on the part of the police in carrying out their forensic tests. That is something which is better carried out by the health and safety authorities.
Safety is paramount, but at what cost? We see our railways in crisis. Is this not the time at which to reconsider the model on which our privatised railway system is based? There are clearly deep problems with the current structures and I should welcome a commitment by the Government to re-examine that structure. I fear for the results of its imposition on London Underground in the near future. In terms of speed and reliability, our railways compare highly unfavourably with France, Germany and Japan in particular.
This debate is also about education and I emphasise the need for our schools and universities to produce engineers and scientists. We require those to design and support the high-tech modern systems on which we all depend. We need engineers at all levels and a lack of them at the highest levels may well have a significance in relation to the recent disasters.
We note the intention to tackle drug and alcohol abuse among transport staff. Will the Minister give some indication of the size of that problem?
We look forward to the details of the road safety strategy in due course and I should be interested to know whether that is likely to include a reduction in the permitted blood-alcohol level for drivers, as was recommended in a recent European Union Select Committee report on the subject.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, what primarily drew me to today's debate was the forthcoming Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill which is well overdue and extremely welcome. A Minister came to speak to the all-party disability group at some point during the last Session and said that the Government were trying to squeeze in that legislation. It has obviously been ready for a while and it is one of those
184
Bills about which it can be said that it passes the curate's egg test: it is more than just good in parts; it is mainly good.
I have one or two quibbles with the Bill but they are only small. However, there is one exception to that. I believe that if someone is being discriminated against, he should surely have a right to some form of financial compensation. When that issue was raised with the Minister, arguments were put forward that that would take money away from the general budget. But it may be that a stick is needed to drive people on. We shall undoubtedly discuss that later.
We must bear in mind that we have been waiting for this legislation for a long time. I hope that the Government will tell us that the Bill will be given real priority. We do not expect to be still within this Parliament in the autumn. But this is one Bill which we might manage to pass. The Bill is starting in this House and it is traditional that most of the work is done on such Bills in this House. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, must take some credit for having set up that system which has allowed us to move on. But much of what is in this Bill, which is one of the few measures in the Queen's Speech which stands a chance of becoming law, has provided the meat and drink of countless discussions on education Bills.
It is one subject which, in fact, I have wished that we could stop debating because we went over the ground again and again. I hope that this Bill will place matters within the education structure and that we shall have sufficient planning and structure to deal with the issues.
One particular aspect of which I approve is that the Bill provides that parents shall be consulted. In meetings with Ministers, I have suggested that local authorities should be under a duty to make sure that parents understand all the options. That was greeted with laughter, not only by the Minister in question but also by the civil servants. About a year later, I was extremely pleased to find that my own party had adopted policies saying that parents should be given that guidance. Bodies dealing with special education spend most of their time giving advice about what is available and then how to drag it out of a local authority. I cannot believe those charities get some sort of masochistic pleasure from ploughing through all the red tape, and we should try to cut it. I am glad that we are trying to act upon that.
Many people involved have spent their lives desperately trying to get their children educated in the first place and have then helped others to do so afterwards. Once this Bill is passed, they will be able to breathe a sigh of relief and live their lives without effectively subsidising the Government's education system. That is what many of them are doing at present. That has been going on for at least as long as I have been a Member of this House and, indeed, I am reliably informed that it has been going on for longer than that.
As I said, this may well be one of the few pieces of legislation that we manage to get through both Houses of Parliament. Once the Bill is enacted, we shall

185
unfortunately be imposing a further workload on teachers. Teachers are often not properly equipped to spot the problems initially. We have raised the problems in relation to observing disabilities and awareness training. More has been done but it is still not enough. In-service training is certainly not sufficient at present. We must try to support teachers and help them with their ability to notice problems quickly.
If that is done, we may well be able to leave behind an entire area of debate. I doubt that we shall get it right but we may be able to leave some of it behind. I suggest that we should make a great effort to implement that one part of the Government's programme contained in the Queen's Speech. I hope that the Government will be open to listening to reasoned arguments. This Chamber has a record for putting forward sensible arguments and ideas which will 'work. I hope that if that is done, the Government will accept them and bring them forward. Nobody wishes to destroy the Bill or wreck it in any way. We merely want to improve it. I say that with sincerity. It does not often happen but on this occasion I hope that it will.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I join all noble Lords who have spoken on agriculture who have expressed concern that there was no specific mention of the subject in the gracious Speech. However, it is appropriate that we debate the issue now. There are many problems relating to agriculture and to the people who are involved in it.
Tackling the issue of regulations forms an important part of the Government's action plan that was launched in March. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, recognised that in her opening remarks. The government White Paper on rural affairs plays a prominent part in the move in agriculture from the policies that have pertained over the years to the situation that we shall face in the future.
I declare an interest as a farmer and as a past president of the National Farmers Union, followed by 20 years in the European Parliament where I was involved in the various changes that took place to the common agricultural policy.
Therefore, I find it difficult to accept the unpalatable truth that the agricultural industry in this country, as efficient as any in the world, is now under greater pressure than at any time since the 1930s. The facts are stark and many of them have been mentioned in this debate.
However, one fact that has not been mentioned is that 22,000 jobs were lost from farming during the past year. There is also the matter of the fall in incomes with which we are familiar. Put into farmers' language, there has been a fall from £350 a hectare in 1995 to £41 a hectare in the past year, so there could be an average loss of £4,000 per farm throughout the United Kingdom.
The recent crops and stock lost in the flooded areas add a further blow to many farming families who are suffering hardship through no fault of their own.
186
Her Majesty would surely have accepted, if she had mentioned agriculture in her gracious Speech, that the year had truly been an annus horribilis.
The psychological and sociological effects of that disastrous situation are immense and produce tragic results. The figures are familiar. This year alone, 56 farmers and managers and 21 farm workers have committed suicide and the Rural Stress Information Service—a self-help service—linked with other charities, including the Samaritans and the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, in which I am involved, has recently launched an action plan, Help at Hand, for country people in distress.
I strongly share the view of the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Hereford that one way of giving a little hope would be to introduce a retirement scheme. At least that would give farmers a lifeline and perhaps an opportunity for some young people to enter farming. As he so rightly said, other European countries support their farming communities in that way and we should concentrate on finding a way of doing that.
The general state of affairs in farming is not just a small farmer problem, as many believe, but good farmers at the top of the range—the really astute and those who do all the right things—are also suffering because of a situation which is outside their control. We talk about cost-cutting, but that is hardly an option when red diesel—the power used on most farms—has increased in price threefold over the past year, together with other input costs.
There is no single cause for the catastrophe; one problem has compounded another to create what appears to be an insoluble situation. We recognise the change, a change which is not just a national problem but an international problem. There is the weakness of the euro against sterling, the Asian crisis, falling world commodity prices, globalisation of supply, the increasing strength of the retailer, doctrinaire deregulation, and an increasing urban community demanding cheap food, with a government sympathetic to those demands.
Many noble Lords have mentioned the BSE crisis and swine fever which, unjustifiably, in my opinion, continue to cause doubts in relation to food safety. The irony is that following the slaughter of well over 5 million cattle that have been taken out of the food chain and fed into the incinerator, there is still no proof that beef is directly related to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. As reported, that evidence is still circumstantial.
Farmers know that there are no "white knights" on the horizon to bail them out of their difficulties. They also know that they cannot live in hope and that they have to look for advantages in the market-place. Naturally they question their further role and opportunities for alternative methods of income through rural development. They know that the real world has changed, but they refuse to accept the doomsayers' view that farming is heading the same way as the coal and steel industries.

187
The Deputy Prime Minister was so wrong when, at his party conference, he asked why we should support the farmers when they had no sympathy with the miners in their troubled time. I was born in a mining village and the miners and the farmers stood together in difficult times in the interests of protecting their village life.
I hope that the noble Baroness will expand on three issues concerning government responsibility in her reply, some of which have already been raised, and all of which were mentioned in the gracious Speech. The first is excessive bureaucracy and red tape. I am aware of the Action Plan for Farming launched on 30th March to which the noble Baroness referred and the three new task forces that will look at three areas: the cost of inputs, the milk industry, and the problems in hill areas. However, inspection charges are still crippling. I speak from some experience in that matter as I have watched it happen. Counting sheep's teeth and the employment of up to four qualified inspectors and enforcement personnel to watch one slaughterman is surely nonsense.
I could go on to detail such examples, but I ask the noble Baroness to update us on the progress of minimising the cost and bureaucratic burden on farmers in relation to achieving environmental and consumer safety objectives. The climate change levy, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred, is of direct concern to the farming community. The waste framework directive is another area of concern to the whole of the agricultural industry, as is the nitrate directive which may be a further tax burden on the farming community. Are we really making progress with the European Commission on the simplification of meat hygiene regulations? Those are areas of great concern. We will accept them if there is fair play across the whole Community.
The second matter that I hope that the noble Baroness will mention is that evidence shows that levels of crime—another area of concern mentioned in the gracious Speech—are lower in rural than in urban areas. However, the threat is growing and it is real. I witnessed that yesterday morning in my village. When I went to buy a newspaper, I found that all the glass in the shop had been broken. That indicates what can happen in a little village in an area where one does not expect such things to happen.
Greater isolation poses particular and serious problems for people living in the countryside. Can the Minister give an assurance that police officers will be more visible and effective on the ground, using modern technology in their information network? People want to know how their village shop is being protected and what is being done to fight crime.
Finally and briefly, while we are going through stormy times it is proposed to ban any form of country sport, particularly hunting with dogs—they are called "hounds" in my part of the world. I can assure the Minister that anyone who believes in freedom and tolerance in a society without prejudice and discrimination will rise up and defend their rights in a
188
way that this country has never previously seen. That will happen, whether the Government like it or not if they go ahead with what they are threatening the countryside with. We shall have another opportunity to debate that vexed question in the not-too-distant future, but I leave that with your Lordships because it is very real.
8.21 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I want to address my remarks to aspects of the gracious Speech which affect children and young people. First, perhaps I may express my support in principle for effective measures to improve the teaching of children in the early years of secondary education. While I look forward to seeing the detail of the Government's proposed measures, I cannot help thinking that the most effective measures to improve this area of education would be those which attract a sufficient number of high quality graduates to train as teachers in the secondary sector. Sadly, the Government failed to reach their targets in that area this year. It has to be said that simply increasing the size of the target for next year, as the Government announced last week, is no way to address the shortfall.
The Government need to go further. There is an enormous amount of competition to employ these talented young people and the DfEE must look at what other employers are doing if it is to win that competition. Paying high quality applicants a training wage is becoming common in the marketplace and the Government must pay attention to that. The evidence shows that the amount of the training grant currently being offered does not appear to be enough.
Secondly, we need to have measures which make the profession more attractive, such as cutting secondary class sizes and the bureaucracy which besets teachers, thereby allowing them to do what they are trained for; namely, teaching. As my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford said earlier in the debate, there used to be the phenomenon of teaching families. Parents in teaching would recommend the profession to their offspring as being a good and satisfying career. This is not happening today. So many teachers suffer from high levels of stress and demoralisation and do not recommend the profession to young people. That will have to change before we succeed in attracting the right number and the right quality of candidates into teaching.
Although secondary education is of great importance, I would now like to turn my attention to what I believe is more important; that is, nursery education. When a builder builds a house, he puts the foundations into place first. Without good foundations, the longevity of the building is put seriously at risk. A BBC period costume designer once told me that it is important to get the corsets right first. Education is similar in that the foundations are vital. That is why we as a country need to put a lot more resources into early years education. I very much welcome what the Government have done so far to increase the number of nursery places for three and

189
four year-olds. There are encouraging signs that Ministers are now turning their attention to the issue of quality. That is crucial.
Numerous research projects have shown that a high quality early years education can help all children to achieve more when they eventually move into formal education. It can also even out the life chances of children from a variety of backgrounds and reduce the negative effects of poverty and disadvantage. It is for the sake of the children themselves, to help them fulfil their potential and not just to enable their parents to go to work, that we on these Benches would put the maximum possible resources into high quality early years provision.
Of course, the early years sector is very variable in type: from maintained, to commercial, to voluntary non-profit provision; from childminders caring for very small numbers, to large nursery schools providing for hundreds of children. However, to be effective, they all have in common the need for staff to have the best possible training and a high level of understanding of the way children develop so that they can help them to develop not only intellectually but socially, emotionally and physically; and also so that they have the skills to involve the parents in their children's early education.
I know that the Government are turning their attention to ways in which the benefit of the advice of early years specialists can he spread throughout the country through the early years development and childcare partnership and the Sure Start programme. I wish those initiatives well and hope that the further measures, which were merely mentioned in the gracious Speech, might include plans to provide more resources for those schemes. Perhaps the Minister could tell us.
I also fervently hope that Ofsted will be successful in finding a highly respected early years expert to head its new nursery inspection unit. That new unit has a fresh opportunity to make a good start and gain the confidence and support of professionals in the early years sector. Indeed, it must do so if it is to make a major contribution to improving the quality of early years provision. Success in this sector should not be measured by the number of three year-olds who can be trained to write their own name but by the number of children who learn through play and who enter formal education with rich language, social and other appropriate skills, happy to learn and ready to benefit from what primary schools have to offer.
Finally, I want to say a few words about the measures announced in the gracious Speech to address the so-called "yob" culture. While of course our society should not tolerate such behaviour, the measures simply address the symptoms of a deeper malaise. They are like a doctor providing a headache pill to a patient requiring surgery to remove a brain tumour. Over recent years, under successive governments, the youth service has been starved of resources. Wonderful leisure centres have been built but the charges for using them put their use beyond the means of children from low income families.
190
While we must do everything possible to improve education, we must remember, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, rightly said, that young people do not spend all their time in school and college. I most heartily agree with her comments on the matter and echo her encouragement to the Government to put further resources and practical help behind the measures mentioned in the report which she highlighted. It is usually during leisure time that young people get up to mischief and, worse, even serious crime, as we saw tragically last week in Peckham.
I mentioned previously in your Lordships' House that the carrot is more effective than the stick. We on these Benches would have more sympathy with measures to address the phenomenon of youth crime if at the same time we were being informed about measures to provide young people with the means arid guidance to spend their leisure time fruitfully and profitably. Both young people and society as a whole would have benefited enormously from a different balance on these matters in the legislative programme that has been laid before us.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I was delighted to hear several references to education in the gracious Speech. This evening we have heard from many speakers about targets, standards, initiatives and challenges in education. I am concerned about all of those matters but particularly the crucial time of transfer from primary to secondary school. I welcome more research into that period when things can go badly wrong for children. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I was pleased that the gracious Speech made specific reference to teaching in the early years of secondary school, and I look forward to more details and an action plan from the Minister.
Today, I should like to discuss one particular initiative which I believe has proved to be a cornerstone for improvement in schools: the national healthy schools standard. I shall describe how research has shown it to influence both behaviour and academic performance in schools, and it deserves to be better known generally. I am one of those people who believe that state schools should be made irresistible. I taught for many years in London comprehensive schools and my children attended such schools. I am the governor of a London primary school. Since I taught and my children were in school many measures, to which reference has already been made, have been taken to improve them. I particularly welcome the emphasis on involving parents and numeracy and literacy standards.
Education impinges on other themes in the gracious Speech; for example, crime prevention and attitudes towards smoking. We know that education contributes significantly to a child's perception of the world and his or her attainment. The national healthy schools standard has been shown to foster such attainment. What is this standard? It is a joint initiative begun in 1999 between the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment which provides accreditation for schools that succeed

191
in creating an enjoyable, safe and productive learning environment. This involves work on drug misuse, personal and social services education, citizenship, sex and relationships education, physical exercise, safety, bullying and healthy eating. The initiative encourages pupil and staff wellbeing and involves parents, school governors and local communities, and it is intended to work across the whole curriculum. Schools can set their own priorities; for example, the improvement of the management of asthma in schools, safety education or the environment.
If my children attended schools today I would want those schools to have certain characteristics. Every child of whatever ability should be entitled to a broad education of high quality. That concerns every community as well as government, and I shall build on what my noble friend Lady Howells said earlier. I would want my child to be able to achieve academically with high standards of literacy and numeracy, to have the opportunity to participate in sport and the arts and to learn to love literature, music and the sciences. I would want a creative flame in the school. If he or she had particular abilities I would want them to be fostered. I would want my child to be given enthusiasm for learning, curiosity about people and the world, to develop interpersonal skills, to be able to form loving and caring relationships and to learn to respect discipline and to understand responsibility towards self and society. I would also want my child to develop self-discipline which came from self-esteem to make him or her confident, assertive and able to respect and support others. I would want my child to develop tolerance and to celebrate, not simply accept, diversity of race, culture, religion, ability and sexuality. I would want a safe environment for my child, with bullying of any kind tackled firmly and quickly. I would want teachers to have high expectations of academic achievement and behaviour, and the skills to foster that. As a parent I would also want to be empowered by the school to be a partner in my child's development. It is a lot to ask. Teachers have many demands made upon them and deserve thanks, recognition and support, and I hope that the Government will be loud and clear as to that.
How does the national healthy schools standard help to develop such qualities? Independent research, as well as individual school monitoring, has shown interesting and significant results which link academic achievement to a healthy school environment. Sir James Barrie school in Wandsworth, of which I am a governor, is an inner city school with 60 different nationalities and 70 per cent of children on free school meals. It is in every sense a healthy school thanks to a deliberate policy by the head teacher and staff to foster self-respect among the children, with the expectation of high standards of behaviour and work and emphasis on a calm learning environment in which the multicultural nature of the school is celebrated. It is a creative school with children's writing, science work, painting and projects on display in every classroom in every corridor. Praise is more evident than criticism. Guess what? Over the past five years academic
192
standards have steadily risen so that the school now ranks high not only locally but nationally. It is now a beacon school which has been accredited with the national healthy schools standard. Parents clamour to get their children into that school, and so would I.
Independent research into the impact of the national healthy schools standard indicates similar success. Case studies show improvement in general school ethos, less bullying, improved attendance rates, fewer exclusions and better academic performance. One school, Newall Green in Manchester, developed policy and good practice in school meal provision. Pupils and parents were consulted. As a result of the scheme, there was higher uptake of healthy food options, refurbished kitchens, a breakfast club and sports celebrities were invited to the school to talk about healthy diets. Researchers who evaluated the impact of the national healthy schools standard concluded that the schools involved thus far felt that they had benefited from the programmes in place. By 2002 it is hoped that every school will be involved, and I hope that that will be well publicised. Further development and evaluation is needed, but it seems clear that the NHSS encourages children's achievement. I look forward to a further positive impact and the continuing challenge to the Government to improve standards for all children.
8.37 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing today's debate and her noble friend on the Front Bench who is to respond to what has been a very wide area of discussion. My noble friend Lady Sharp spoke at some length about education, and therefore I can be brief on that subject. My noble friend is one of 10 Peers from these Benches to speak in this debate. The fact that we account for 10 out of 28 speakers indicates the importance that we attach to all the subjects that have been covered today. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, on what was rightly described by the noble Lord, Lord Layard, as an elegant speech.
The Minister began the debate with a number of statistics. Looking back, the noble Baroness's presentation supports the notion that this is very much a pre-election Queen's Speech. As the Minister introduced statistics, I shall mention just one. I take this opportunity to congratulate my own borough of Richmond-upon-Thames on its outstanding primary school test results. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, pointed out, I know that schools in the borough—I am a governor of one of them—are concerned with far more than simply test results. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, I suspect that it is the very fact they are concerned with so much more than simply test results which makes their results so good.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, my noble friend Lord Addington and others talked about special educational needs which is a hugely important area of work. On Friday I interviewed a prospective candidate for employment and asked him a question about equal opportunities. He gave a textbook answer which covered a whole range of areas of potential inequality,

193
until at the end he referred to what he called "normal people", as distinct from those he had previously described. There is a long way to go to celebrate the diversity to which the noble Baroness referred, and experience reminds me that this is not a discrete subject but is intrinsic to everything that we do. I shall make a slightly tenuous connection here and say that I found the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, very moving.
Education is the major responsibility of local government. I did not expect to hear much about local government in this debate, but this Session will see the introduction of regulations which will give effect to the provisions of the Local Government Act, with which we dealt at such length in the previous Session. Many of those regulations have been published in final or in draft form. Concern has been expressed to me by someone from the Local Government Association about the possible delay in publishing regulations. That will lead to delay in local authorities developing their proposals. Those are due by May or June of next year. Authorities will be hard pressed to meet the timetable if the regulations do not appear soon.
I hope that the regulations will reflect what we thought we had agreed during the passage of that legislation. There was some contention about small authorities at the end of the passage of the Bill. There is concern that the regulations may not give the freedom to small authorities for which we had hoped. For example, if there is the ability for small authorities to have only a limited number of committees leading to a compounding together of functions which do not fit easily together—we have had a micro-example of that today—it has been put to me that that will not contribute to the Government's aims of transparency, accountability and efficiency.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, talked about the centralising tendency of the Government with regard to local government. Perhaps my instinctive response of plus ça change would be better expressed as a comment that apparently this may be irresistible to any government.
There was a reference in the Queen's Speech to devolution. I hope that the prospect of moving towards regional government is still on the agenda, although the press have been suggesting that it is not. Like my noble friend Lord Geraint, I hope too that the Welsh Assembly will soon have more powers over its own affairs. I declare something of an interest being in the midst of London's regional government where it is said that the Government cannot afford for London's mayor to fail, but also they cannot afford for Ken Livingstone to succeed.
A major concern in London is the future of the Tube. That is a subject on which my noble friend Lord Ezra with great authority frequently speaks. I must take the opportunity to mention a poll recently carried out. No doubt like other noble Lords, I have a degree of scepticism about polling information, but I think that it helps in painting a picture. The poll showed that 53 per cent of Londoners questioned were against the PPP and only 23 per cent were in favour of it. Of
194
particular importance is that 42 per cent of those questioned think that the Tube would be less safe after partial privatisation and only 16 per cent feel that the PPP would be better value for money.
As noble Lords have said, we shall have a Bill or a draft Bill on safety which is an issue of concern as regards the Tube. I welcome that. But safety must to a huge extent depend on good management. If it requires regulation, and we do not have that regulation in place, how could the Government go ahead with NATS or indeed with the privatisation of the Tube?
There is to be another Bill, perhaps a draft Bill, on leasehold. Perhaps the Minister can clarify how leasehold and commonhold will be dealt with. I believe that this is an ideal subject for consideration of a draft Bill in a Select Committee and in public. It is a highly technical and complex subject. As my noble friend Lady Maddock said, there is great disappointment that the draft Bill published a few months does no more than tinker at the margins. I suspect that there is still confusion as to what the Bill will provide. When that confusion is cleared, it will add to the disappointment—for example, that commonhold will be available only for new developments.
As noble Lords must be aware from everyday examples and indeed press campaigns such as that run by the Evening Standard, there are real hardships which need to be addressed. It is sad that the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association, a leading campaigner, described the draft Bill as a
"smokescreen to obscure retention of the leasehold system".
An organisation which has done a lot to promote reform is clearly very disappointed indeed. I hope that we can make real progress on this matter.
Also in the area of property is conveyancing. Although I am a practising solicitor, I do not need to declare too much of an interest because no one ever taught me that. That was discovered when I was asked to do the conveyancing on Centrepoint in the 1970s. The matter was then handed on to someone else rather smartly.
The new system crucially depends on acceptance of the arrangements by lenders. Purchasers regard surveys conducted by building societies or other lenders as inadequate. Therefore, I believe that the purchase pack will have the same doubt hanging over it. I was surprised to find that it is proposed that it will be a criminal offence to market a property without a seller's pack. The purchase and sale of housing is an area where the parties are roughly equal in bargaining power. If we do not have criminal offences in the private rented sector where standards are low, it seems odd to be introducing it into that area.
My noble friend Lady Maddock questioned the adequacy of the pilot study. I ask whether technology, as it is moving so fast, will outstrip these proposals and we shall have other ways to deal with the matter. My noble friend also spoke forcefully about the question of housing provision and homelessness and about what some noble Lords would like to see to assist in the provision of more and better housing, including on the question of empty homes.

195
When we debated the question of priority for housing under the previous government, Labour Members (now the present Government) decided not to continue their opposition because if the matter was subject to regulations, when they took over the administration—as they did shortly after—they could then change the regulations quickly. However, a good deal of time has passed—a huge amount of time for the individuals who are affected. I look forward to restoring priority for housing by local authorities to groups whom we believe should not have lost it. I look forward to ensuring that settled accommodation is provided. I look forward to treating as in priority need everyone who is fleeing domestic violence because—I distinguish our position from that expressed in the Green Paper—I believe that everyone who is in that situation is vulnerable.
The question of affordable housing sadly remains high on the agenda of all of us. Coming up the agenda is the issue of housing for those who have moderate incomes as well as very low incomes. It seems to me that there has been a step-change in the urgency with which we need to address the issue. My noble friends Lady Sharp and Lady Maddock referred to classroom assistants and police perhaps not being available because they cannot find the housing which will enable them to be in place to do the job. That reminds us that this issue is important, not just for the individuals concerned but for the whole of our economy.
In London, we are looking at the problem in some detail. Perhaps I may put on record some of the dramatic and worrying comments that have been made to a group from the GLA. We have heard from head teachers that in the area of recruitment the cost and availability of housing overshadows everything else. We can attract younger teachers to the capital because they are prepared to live in bedsits or quite small accommodation. However, like everyone else, they have aspirations. They may want to raise a family but they cannot be accommodated. They then move out, with devastating effects on teacher numbers. Officers are leaving the Metropolitan Police because they cannot find housing. They know that there is a possibility of a better family life outside the capital. The Metropolitan Police had 3,300 section house bed spaces in 1992. It now has 1,000. In 1992 it had 5,000 quarters for married officers. It now has 500.
With regard to transport, road sweepers earn more than bus drivers. Tube drivers earn twice as much as bus drivers. London is short of between 1,500 and 2,000 bus drivers. More mileage is lost through that shortage than through congestion. In the health service, staff who have to work difficult shifts and travel long distances are in a similar position.
Several of my noble friends and other noble Lords referred to rural affairs and agriculture. They are far more qualified than I am to deal with those issues. I shall say nothing about the Hunting Bill but I want to refer to the logic of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. He said that foxes are vermin and then said that the Government do not have the intelligence of foxes. I assume that that means that the noble Lord does not
196
think that the Government are vermin, which is perhaps some progress towards consensus. I hope that I have interpreted the noble Lord correctly.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford reminded us of the importance of environmental issues to the whole of our lives. An acknowledgement of that in the Queen's Speech would have been welcome. The right reverent Prelate referred appropriately to targets and monitoring. We on these Benches will monitor the progress of legislation in this Session, however long or short it may be.
8.53 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, at the end of her speech my noble friend Lady Blatch reflected on the fact that parents and teachers would like to have welcomed in the gracious Speech a programme to free schools from bureaucratic control. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, also referred to that point. Indeed, as the debate has proceeded, many noble Lords have referred to it.
The Government say that they have plans for further improvement in education, especially at secondary level. Is the Minister satisfied with the way the previously announced initiatives are progressing? Is she satisfied that the implementation of the threshold had to be held up? Is she satisfied that the due date for setting head teacher performance targets has had to be moved from December through to the spring? Does she think it right that many governing bodies have sent off their pink forms to Cambridge Education Associates with a selection of dates for meetings with their performance advisers but have had no response before the last of the offered dates?
Does the Minister think it right that the Government have placed on governing bodies a series of instructions beginning with the word "must"? Those instructions are related to the duty of a totally voluntary, unpaid body of people to deliver the Government's promises on performance improvement. Will she clarify whether the governing body or a single governor unable to obey the word "must" will be liable in court for that failure? Is she further aware that increasing pressure on the volunteer governors has already resulted in a shortage? In fact, it was reported only a couple of months ago that in Leicestershire there are 700 school governor vacancies.
I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in his place. When my noble friend Lady Blatch opened the debate on behalf of these Benches she referred to the role played by the noble Lord in the establishment of the city technology college movement and in more recent times to his work in the City Academy. The noble Lord has also worked for the establishment of a community centre in the Peckham area. I know that noble Lords will join me in congratulating him on that work.
The noble Lord, Lord Morgan, is, sadly, not in his place. I am sure that all noble Lords enjoyed his excellent maiden speech and look forward to hearing from him again in the future.
The Government's intention to improve performance in our schools will perhaps be most keenly welcomed by our rural communities. They are

197
watching the steady decline of their traditional way of life and are beginning to be aware that there will be no future for any child who has not taken full advantage of education. Employment in agriculture, which used to offer many semi-skilled jobs, is falling fast, but so are other openings in rural areas. The Government have told the Post Office to prevent the closure of any more rural sub-post offices, an issue which we have debated in the House on previous occasions. This move shifts the consequences of the Government's new pension payments scheme from the Treasury to the Post Office. Can the Minister assure us that all the requirements for this new scheme to be successful are being met, on schedule and to budgeted cost?
The Government have now been in existence for three-and-a-half years and have finally produced the urban and rural White Papers, which were launched last month. We waited many months for them and we were all grateful to receive them. We have had three-and-a-half years of consultation after consultation, many of them proposing sound solutions in both urban and rural areas. There was the Pooley report, which looked at slaughterhouse regulations and meat hygiene rules, there was the Cowar report, which looked at the intervention system, and there was the Curry report, which looked at the IACS and inspections on farms. Can the Minister say how many of the reports' recommendations have been implemented, how many remain to be implemented and how many, sadly, will be ignored?
I spent the past weekend listening to farmers from Arundel and East Sussex. They are vehement in their opinion that there has been enough consultation and what is now needed is action. They pointed out that every week that goes by results in a few more hundred farmers going out of business. The figures for farmers' incomes were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, by my noble friend Lord Plumb and others. The reported incomes for farmers are soul-destroying. The position is dire. The crisis has not gone away.
This weekend the British consumer was assured that she has no need to worry about food shortages resulting from the weather as Europe has more than enough for everyone. Shortages of UK produce are, however, not due solely to the weather. Milk quotas are a case in point. Do we really want to cede to other countries our ability to feed ourselves? The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, touched on that point earlier in the debate.
The gracious Speech includes a regulatory reform Bill. l am sure that it will be very good news for all those whose farms have been regulated out of business, for the abattoir owners and their staff who have been regulated out of business as well, and for those left hovering on the brink of destruction, a point well made by my noble friend Lord Plumb and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. They are paying the price for the annual burden of £5 billion imposed by this Government on businesses throughout the United Kingdom. Can the Minister quantify the degree of regulatory reform they anticipate? Can businesses look forward to the removal of that £5 billion-worth a year of regulatory
198
costs, or will they trumpet savings in one area and promptly impose new regulations in line with European thinking?
The Government's interpretation of European directives has hit farming and small rural enterprises particularly hard. Drastic effects have already been felt in the pig industry, while poultry farmers await changes to the battery cage regulations in the certain knowledge that many will probably be forced to close down. In addition, the effects of the IPPC, the climate change levy and the possible pesticide tax surely can only add to the £5 billion already identified by the Institute of Directors.
I should like to turn to the environment. The gracious Speech does not refer specifically to the environment or to agriculture, and the Government programme does not include any specific reference to improvements to the environment. Unless the reduction of opportunities to dispose of stolen vehicles and to reduce the numbers of burnt out cars, predominantly and prominently abandoned mainly in our countryside, is addressed, this problem will continue. However, the Government have announced the establishment of the England rural development programme which implies that considerable increases in funding will be made available for agri-environment schemes. It states that £1.6 billion will be allocated over seven years. However, on closer examination, it is clear that, of the sum, £1 billion comprises the continuation of existing government spending. Of that, £0.3 billion comes from modulation, which effectively means removing money from farmers under one heading and disbursing it under another. The net increase to agri-environment schemes will be some £300 million which, over seven years, works out at just over £40 million a year. One of the farmers I spoke to over the weekend commented that, if that sum is divided among all farmers throughout the country, they had best apply quickly or the fund will be oversubscribed even before a start can be made to tackle the problems.
The verbal sleight of hand highlighted by the NFU in its briefing on the rural White Paper reflects some of the concerns of the countryside. As I pointed out earlier, the one thing that the Government cannot be accused of is lack of consultation. In the early stages, it was said clearly of the Government that they did not understand or accept the crisis taking place in the countryside. Indeed, the Prime Minister is on record as having said, "What crisis in the countryside?".
Perhaps I may turn to the rural White Paper. It highlights many of the Government's proposals and I shall refer to only a few of them: the future consultation paper on charging full council tax on second homes; a new government industry task force to look at input costs; a new joint task force to look at improving efficiencies in the milk and dairy supply chain; a forthcoming consultation on rate relief on diversification; a consultation on integrating farm inspections; a consultation paper to be published on issues surrounding planning obligations; and a consultation on the national noise strategy. I have mentioned only a few of the consultations. While we

199
do not object to such consultation, we wish to try to impress on the Government that it is important to move beyond the consultation stage and to implement some of the strategies that have been so clearly identified and recognised by the Government. However, we encounter only delay. Every week of delay in assistance puts more pressure on our farmers and on people living in rural communities. Some of the proposals being put forward by the Government will bring some help to some people at some stage in the future, but, in the meantime, farmers are in crisis and struggling beyond words.
I shall turn briefly to the matter of fox hunting. Members of another place are to be granted a free vote on the future of hunting with dogs. That is included in the pending legislation. The Government spokesperson made it quite clear that the Government expect approval for an outright ban.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way on that point? The Government have made it absolutely clear that they are neutral on this issue.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I appreciate the interjection made by the noble Baroness. That is not what is being reflected outside of this place. However, I understand what the noble Baroness has just said and I shall return to the matter shortly.
During the previous Session we dealt with the question of fur farming, which was banned. After the incident in Dunblane, when we were in government, handguns were banned. In both cases, those who were affected were compensated. When she comes to wind up the debate, I ask the Minister to tell the House whether the Government are thinking of providing compensation in any form, should a Bill to ban hunting with dogs be passed.
Noble Lords will remember the Prime Minister's words when we discussed the earlier fox hunting Bill sponsored by Michael Foster, MP. At the time, the Prime Minister said that he blamed the House of Lords. I hope that the Minister will accept that that was what was reported in the press. However, that was not a fair comment; indeed, I have put down in my notes that it was rather rich. We all know in this House that the Foster Bill never reached this place. Can the Minister confirm, if another places passes a Bill to ban hunting with dogs without offering us the options being given to the other place, that we shall be able to consider only the chosen option; namely, probably an outright ban? Alternatively, will this House be given an opportunity to debate and examine the question of the three options? I am not clear about the exact position. Perhaps the Minister can clarify this point in her comments.
I should like to turn briefly to the contributions made by my noble friends. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain rightly referred to an excellent presentation assembled and led by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, on the report of the Better Regulation Task Force. Some of the ideas contained in the report are excellent
200
and we welcome them. However, we also need to see action being taken on those recommendations sooner rather than later. I hope that the Minister has followed my line of thought on this point. It is becoming extremely urgent.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith referred to the rural White Paper, to the question of hunting and to the annual revenue support grant.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, in his particularly poignant—as always—contribution to our debate, touched on agriculture and the environment. He spoke about its continuing financial reliance and robustness. I agree with him that the countryside schemes are too inflexible. Many farmers say to me that there are too many and that they are not sure which ones to apply. He also rightly identified the problems of abattoirs and of small farmers and their organic produce being put at risk. Like us, he would like to see some form of retirement scheme. He ended with the whole question of the despair in the countryside.
My noble friend Lord Plumb, who is very experienced in these matters, reiterated many of the things to which the right reverend Prelate referred. There is huge concern out there. There will be even greater concern that the gracious Speech did not include the environment and agriculture. This will affect not only those directly involved in farming but also those involved in the supply trade—such as feed suppliers and others. My noble friend Lord Plumb gave examples of existing EU directives and those which are likely to come through in the future.
It has been said to me over and over—it was said again at the weekend—that our farmers are not asking for special treatment for special circumstances; they are asking to be able to compete fairly against others.
Finally, they are concerned about the whole question of country sports and the lack of freedom, of tolerance, that is presently being shown.
The debate has revolved around many issues. We have touched on climate change and housing. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. We have had debates before about the housing situation, particularly about empty and unused houses. The situation is a disgrace and needs seeing to very quickly.
Noble Lords on all sides of the House are urging the Government to go forward and take some major steps to support the rural economy and the environment. Some people said to me earlier that farmers are now getting paid for doing some of the environmental work. In the past, they would have made a profit and been able to do such work within that framework. It is not that I am knocking or ungrateful for environmental schemes, but it is a sad reflection that nowadays farmers need them to be profitable.
Two things have come through clearly: the burdening of our businesses and the bureaucracy with which they have to work. This affects farmers, horticulturists, everyone. They all have businesses and, sadly, some of them are going bust. We cannot wait. We have consulted enough. We need to reform the CAP urgently. The Leader of the House referred to

201
the need for "urgent action". I can push her further and say that we need "very urgent action". We cannot wait. We must push forward.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for opening the debate. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in response.
9.11 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, in my first speech from this Dispatch Box in May 1997, I learnt of the challenges inherent in replying to a day's debate on the gracious Speech. It is always extremely difficult. I preferred the word of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, when he said that the debate tended to be "kaleidoscopic", rather than the description of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, of "discontinuous". It is certainly challenging for anyone attempting to cover the range of issues referred to by noble Lords in speeches which, as ever, have been well informed, well expressed and always extremely stimulating. I shall do my best to cover the main areas. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if there are specific questions that I need to follow up in writing after the debate.
As I said, there have been many stimulating speeches—some extremely well informed and several which ensured that Wales had a proper hearing in your Lordships' House. The contribution of my noble friend Lord Morgan, in an outstanding maiden speech, illustrated all of those qualities. It was well informed, stimulating and reflected his experience in the Principality. I am sure that it made all of us want to hear more from him in the future.
I apologise to those noble Lords whom I did not hear when I had to leave the Chamber briefly. Listening to the debate, I was struck by how much of it concerned inclusion and exclusion—not only social inclusion and social exclusion, some of which I shall perhaps deal with later, but what was included in the Queen's Speech and what was excluded from it. You cannot get it right in a gracious Speech—if it is too long and over-full, we hear all the arguments as to how we are over-burdened with legislation; if it is too short, we are told that lots of pet themes have been left out.
The gracious Speech is basically about the Government's legislative programme. In this debate important issues have been mentioned: for example, those covered in the urban and rural White Papers. Recently, we heard Statements on the White Papers and the policies contained in them. Not all of those require legislation to take them forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, wanted such legislation. However, I listened also to the welcome given by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, to the Regulatory Reform Bill, and I have heard the same from the NFU. From my experience of talking to farmers, I understand that they want less legislation, not more. So I am not sure how much they would have welcomed great swathes of additional legislation in the gracious Speech.
Perhaps I may deal first with the inclusions and exclusions. In relation to the issue that is included in the Speech, the Bill on hunting with dogs, I should like
202
to make the Government's position absolutely clear from the Dispatch Box and not from any reports in newspapers. The Government are neutral on this issue.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise profusely to the noble Baroness, but the question asked by many noble Lords was: why is the measure urgent?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with that point in a moment.
The Government are neutral on the issue. It is a matter for a free vote; Members of this House will be able to exercise their individual conscience. I was asked specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, whether all three options that will be available in another place will be available in this House. The answer is yes, and we shall ensure that that is done. It will obviously have to be done by means of a procedure reinstating the ability to vote on those options that will have been determined by Members in another place.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, several noble Lords asked why we are bringing this measure forward now. There are many parallels with the issue of Sunday trading. My experience in another place and in this House goes back 25 years. In all that time this has been a contentious issue. We have seen continuous attempts to resolve it through Private Members' legislation. It is a matter on which many people, on both sides of the argument, feel passionately. It is the Government's view that it is appropriate to allow Parliament to debate and come to a resolution on an issue that is of such concern to so many people throughout the country. That is the reason for its inclusion in the gracious Speech. There have been 16 Private Members' Bills on the subject over 20 years. That evidences the strength of feeling on both sides.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. However, in view of the fact that there is to be a free vote, will she assure us that the Government will not use the Parliament Act in relation to this measure?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, what we ought to do is see how we proceed through both Houses and see whether we can reach a resolution without recourse to the Parliament Act. It would be foolish to pre-judge how the debate will take itself forward.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister and I shall stop shortly. but that is an ambivalent reply. Is she saying that the Parliament Act might be used or that it might not? May I have a specific answer?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord cannot have a specific answer to a hypothetical question. I have attempted to set out as clearly as possible the way in which the Government are approaching the issue. I am sure that in the debates dealing with home affairs and on the Bill itself these issues will be dealt with at great length.

203
As a Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, I understand the issues in relation to fallen stock mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, as regards the potential effects of a potential ban on hunting. There are other matters, as the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, will know, particularly in relation to waste directives, that impinge equally on that important issue. The Government will have to recognise those effects and look forward. Indeed, we have had discussions with some of the industry bodies about the disposal of fallen stock.
There was criticism that we did not specifically include the subject of agriculture in the Queen's Speech. A great deal has been done on agriculture over and above legislation. As I have said, legislation is not the be all and end all. I remind noble Lords that since May 1997 we have introduced, in addition to the £3 billion CAP payments that are made annually, a range of policy measures that have injected £670 million into the industry and that between 1997 and 2001 the Government will have paid £630 million in agri-monetary compensation.
As was made clear by my noble friend in her introduction to today's debate, we believe that we must have for the industry a long term vision that is not based simply on the status quo. Enormous changes are taking place world-wide. Those changes impose great pressures on agriculture and on other sections of industry. That is part of the reason why we believe that the rural development programme—£1.6 billion over the next seven years—is enormously important in some of the re-direction of expenditure and the re-framing of agriculture, bringing it nearer to its market, dealing with issues in potential new areas. The issue of biofuels, which could be very important for the future, was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer.
The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, is correct. The base line from which we work for the allocation of European Commission rural development funds for the United Kingdom is 3.5 per cent. That reflects a previous lack of uptake of rural development programmes, which is the reason for the low base from which we started.
Many noble Lords have stressed the terrible difficulties, of which I am aware, experienced by many sections of agriculture in this country. The resources that have been provided, the work that has been done on the rural development plan and the work that has been done to support organic conversion recognise the need to try to help people in the agricultural industry. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, as always, spoke movingly about the stress in rural communities and the need to support them, to recognise the value that we all gain from a farmed landscape and to ensure that the financial support for it delivers the goods that society wishes to purchase, rather than simply providing market support for crops.
That brings me to the need, clearly articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for a radical reform of the CAP and to continue that agenda. We have made
204
some progress, albeit not as much as we would like. We shall continue, through the Agenda 2000 mid-term reviews and strategic alliances with like-minded member states—
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness can help us. This afternoon we heard the Statement repeated by the Leader of the House. In the interests of the farmers, I should be grateful if she could tell us whether there exists any direction as to when we can start the negotiations.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I was trying to reach that point when I was talking about mid-term reviews and the fact that overall CAP reform in 2003, following the 2002 programme policy reviews, is looking like a real possibility. It is difficult to deliver on this kind of reform; indeed, I believe that the previous government were probably quite aware of the difficulties involved in CAP reform. It is something that we believe we achieve more effectively as effective partners, by obtaining strategic alliances with, for example, the agriculture Ministers of Sweden, Denmark, Italy and the Netherlands, whom my right honourable friend met recently in Capri. As I say, it is a difficult matter, but that does not mean that there are no issues upon which we can work effectively together, such as reform of the sugar regime. This is tremendously controversial and difficult but it cannot be put aside for ever. We need to tackle it in a way that recognises the difficulties of transition.
Several noble Lords recognised the additional help that we have offered through the £8.7 million recently announced to implement the recommendations of the Maclean report on charging for rural abattoirs. The issue of pithing is an enormously difficult one. I am grateful that the right reverend Prelate gave us a technical description of the process, which saved me from having to do so. I understand that the Food Standards Agency has recently completed an extensive consultation and will shortly be submitting its proposals to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. We shall have to consider those proposals most carefully, while recognising the potential difficulties for a very important sector of the abattoir area—
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the Minister for a moment. Can the noble Baroness tell me whether this ban will be implemented from 1st January or whether there is some hope of postponement? This is a most urgent matter and one of great concern to many people.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand that. The consultation document was proposed on the basis of our fulfilling our obligation—an obligation throughout the EU—to implement on 1st January. We shall consider most carefully the representations that have been made on that proposal. The FSA will, through the Department of Health, be referring to the results of that consultation.

205
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, reminded us that we should not neglect fisheries. She asked specifically about the report of the independent salmon and fresh water fisheries review group. I can tell the noble Baroness that we intend to respond to that shortly; indeed, I hope before Christmas. We welcome this wide-ranging and extensive report, which, as she pointed out, contains many important recommendations for the future conservation and well-being of salmon and fresh water fisheries.
During discussions regarding the crisis in farm incomes and the need for investment in countryside stewardship, I heard the plea for early retirement schemes. In the consultation on the rural development plan, I have to say that it was difficult to find proposals that were specifically acceptable on early retirement. We have had to make choices about areas of priority, some of which have led to disappointment in other areas. We have to return to the initial low allocation of funds from the EU. But, equally, we are looking at ways of providing a future for farmers that will not only allow them to compete in world markets but will also enable them to get nearer to their market in this country.
I should point out to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, the work that MAFF is carrying out in sponsoring the whole food chain. Indeed, milk is a particular area of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. The different parts of the food chain—the retailers, the wholesalers and the manufacturers, as well as the primary producers—understand the pressures on each other. In the long term, that is to the benefit of primary producers, the farmers, and will help to encourage a recognition of the need for a home-based, stable supply. In the rural development plan, we are helping farmers through training or marketing grants to get into some of those markets, with high quality food well recognised in its sourcing, for which there are real markets in the future.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, that we recognise the additional burdens that the recent disastrous weather has placed on farmers. We have announced that we shall do everything we can to ensure that farmers who have lost crops through flooding will not lose out on their subsidies. That includes the possibility of setting aside all eligible land and relaxing the requirements for green cover on that land. If the wet weather continues into the spring, we shall, if necessary, seek an extension of the sowing deadline. All those issues are being addressed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about the Better Regulation Taskforce and a rural ombudsman. A similar suggestion was made by the Better Regulation Taskforce in its report of 15th November. We are considering carefully that and other recommendations. We shall respond formally early in the new year.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, was eloquent, as ever, in his support for liquid biofuels. That need was recognised in the Chancellor's announcement of the green fuels challenge. Under that initiative industry
206
will be invited to submit bids for the most environmentally friendly fuels, which will receive substantial tax concessions. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will carry out the environmental assessment.
Many noble Lords recognise that the issues which affect those who live in the country and traditionally work in agriculture go beyond simple support measures for agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, referred to crime in rural areas. I hope that he will have welcomed the initiatives outlined in the rural White Paper and the £0.5 million support which the Government have made available through the rural stress action plan.
The issue of affordable housing was raised in relation to the rural economy and the encouragement of young people in rural areas to stay in their home areas. There is a great deal of support in the rural White Paper for affordable housing for those in rural areas and for increasing the amount of money available to the Housing Corporation, recognising the need to ensure that that housing stock remains available for local people who need it. That issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. Between 2000 and 2003, we are almost doubling the funding for the Housing Corporation to fund affordable homes through housing associations. The starter homes initiatives will also be available for rural areas with high demand. We recognise the need. We are putting in place the resources and necessary administrative and legislative basis. The ability to charge 100 per cent rating on second properties, recycling that money into affordable housing, is an important weapon.
Reference was also made to climate change. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford raised those issues, which are much in debate following the climate change discussions in The Hague. Many European countries agreed on the package of proposals negotiated at The Hague. As the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords know, we are keen to move forward in this area, where we have made much progress. In the end, however, we could not reach agreement because not all the EU countries agreed about the detail of the proposals. They were concerned that too many concessions had been made to the United States. However, we shall return to the negotiations early next year. We are hopeful of making progress.
The right reverend Prelate asked about carbon sinks. They were part of the Kyoto agreement. I believe that we should not try to reopen that deal. However, we recognise the concern about sinks. That is why our programme focuses on reversing the growth of manmade emissions of greenhouse gases. The Government lead the world in this area, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, highlighted in his speech. We shall have reduced our emissions to 23 per cent below the 1990 level by 2010.
I said that this debate has concerned exclusion and inclusion. The contributions on education illustrated that well. The Bill on special educational needs that

207
will soon be debated in your Lordships' House concerns those who have been excluded from access to mainstream education in the past. I should point out that the Bill on hunting is not the only Bill to have been published. Several Bills have been published, including that one. As I say, the measure will seek to end exclusion and increase inclusion. I welcome the support for that Bill. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, welcomed it and committed herself to constructive discussions on it. I am sure that there will be much to debate in your Lordships' House, but I believe that the welcome from all parts of the House will be conducive to valuable debates, which will result in a valuable piece of legislation.
However, exclusion from education goes far beyond simply straightforward segregation into special schools. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, pointed out that the lack of adult basic skills can exclude people from the jobs market. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, spoke of the exclusion of disadvantaged children who are not included in the ability to learn within the family and of the need for support for them.
My noble friend Lady Howells talked of the exclusion of black boys from mainstream education and the consequences that that can have for the future. We have put in place measures to address all of those issues and measures to deal with the need for a greater emphasis to be placed on vocational education through vocational A-levels, vocational GCSEs and foundation degrees to encourage wider participation by attracting many people who do not currently enter higher education.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed out in her comments on nursery education that early education and childcare are vitally important. The Government agree with that and that is why among many early years initiatives we have introduced foundation stage and early learning goals. For the first time this critical period of children's development has been recognised with its own distinct identity and language.
The need to reduce bureaucracy in schools was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. We want to cut out unnecessary paperwork. We are taking action to do that by rationalising the collection of data from schools and by issuing in January 2001 a code of practice which will specifically prohibit education authorities from duplicating communications and information demands.
However, we have to recognise that, in order to measure the progress of our young people throughout their school lives, we need an underlying structure to collect the relevant data. As ever in regulations, the issue is what is appropriate. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that parents wanted schools free from bureaucratic controls. As a parent of one child who is still in state education, I am not sure that that is my top priority; it is to put right the many long years of under-investment by the previous administration, which the noble Baroness pinpointed. We have done exactly that. Under the 2000 Comprehensive Spending Review, UK education spending is planned to increase
208
by one third in real terms between 1998–99 and 2003–04. That compares with a 31 per cent increase over the 19 years of the previous government. That gives a sense of the scale of the change that we have made.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, where does the Minister stand on local authorities taking 27 per cent?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord on that, because I want to deal with other issues that have been raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, asked about transport safety and asked for guarantees that the Cullen recommendations would be taken into account in the safety Bill. We are determined to learn the lessons of the recent tragic accidents. Safety is a high priority for the Government and we are committed to implementing the Cullen recommendations as soon as possible. That is why we have announced our intention to draft a Bill and earmarked £180 billion over 10 years to start to put right decades of under-funding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the public/private partnership for London Underground. One of the prime tests for whether it will go ahead is whether it will maintain and improve safety. The PPP will enable greater investment to improve safety and security on the Underground, as well as increased capacity and greater reliability.
The proposals on homelessness were welcomed during the debate. Having started my working life in 1969 working for Shelter, the National Campaign for the Homeless, I am particularly glad that the measures have been included in the Queen's Speech. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked about resources. We recognise that our proposal will entail some additional cost to enable local authorities to meet the strengthened homelessness duty. Increased provision of £8 million in each full year has already been included in the revenue support grant settlement. We shall review the adequacy of that provision. Significant additional resources are being made available to local authorities and registered social landlords under the 2000 spending review to improve the supply of affordable housing.
Some specific questions were asked about the home condition report proposals. I was asked whether buyers would trust a report commissioned by the seller of a property. We are proposing a number of safeguards to give the buyer confidence, including that only certified home condition report inspectors with professional indemnity insurance cover will do the surveys, that the inspector will be liable to the buyer as well as to the seller and that an independent home condition certification body will be established to ensure that reports are produced to consistent standards by suitably qualified and independent inspectors. Membership of the scheme will be compulsory for any inspector preparing a home condition report. The body will be charged with setting standards and acting as a safety net to ensure

209
consumer protection. I am sure that this is an issue on which there will be detailed debate in your Lordships' House and elsewhere.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, lamented that the Government were not offering a proper response to the proposals contained in the housing Green Paper. I can tell her that a Statement will be made later this week setting out our response to that consultation exercise. It will set out our plans for reform and will contain many measures which do not require legislation.
I return to the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can refer to the issue about which I was most concerned—the fact that there is no licensing for houses in multiple occupation.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall try to deal with that issue, but if I am unable to do so I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness. In the meantime, perhaps I may answer the question relating to leasehold reform. I recognise the frustration felt by those who want to know the exact timing of the legislation. The Bill has been given a slot in this Session but we cannot be certain about the specific date of its introduction. However, I hope that noble Lords will not have to wait too long to find out the details.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, will forgive me, but I fear that I shall have to write to her about the specific issue of multiple occupation. It frustrates me because I know that I have seen it mentioned in my papers. I have already spoken for 35 minutes and I believe that I should now finish.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness has been extraordinarily patient. However, I wonder whether she could answer my procedural question, which is now urgent. She helpfully told us why the Government believe that the hunting Bill is urgent. However, is it true that it will be pressed through the other place by Christmas by collapsing the normal timetables?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have not seen any details about that. Although there are new rules about timetabling legislation in another place, I have not seen anything that suggests that we would be dealing improperly with that issue. I wonder whether it would be helpful to the noble Baroness if I asked my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General to deal with that specific point when he sums up the whole debate on Wednesday?
As I said earlier, the debate has concerned inclusion and exclusion—
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am sorry to be a bore but I want to know about that 27 per cent. I have a feeling that the Minister will—
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I undertook to write to the noble Lord. I do not break that type of
210
undertaking and I shall write to him. I do not have the answer immediately to hand and I suspect that at this hour other noble Lords will forgive me for that.
The areas with which we have dealt today—education, the environment and agriculture—are not easy; they are all complex subjects. They all require specific measures—legislative and non-legislative—if we are to tackle the problems. The basis on which we shall do that is to ensure that access to employment, training, education, to the goods in the environment and to housing are opened up to more of our citizens than in the past. For those who complain that they did not get the legislation that they wanted in this Queen's Speech, I assure them that, with another term of office, there will be plenty more opportunities to introduce that legislation.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, I beg to move that the debate be now again adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now again adjourned until tomorrow.—(Lord Burlison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.

Alliance & Leicester Group Treasury plc (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that, pursuant to the resolution of 21st November, the Bill had been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments together with the declaration of the agent; the Bill was presented, read a first time, passed through all its remaining stages pro forma and sent to the Commons.
City of Newcastle upon Tyne Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that, pursuant to the resolution of 16th November, the Bill had been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments together with the declaration of the agent; the Bill was presented, read a first time, passed through all its remaining stages pro forma and sent to the Commons.

Colchester Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that, pursuant to the resolution of 6th November, the Bill had been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments together with the declaration of the agent; the Bill was presented, read a first time, read a second time pro forma and reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at ten minutes before ten o'clock.

  Globalisation
  Globalisation
  Benefit Fraud, Ealing: Report
  Benefit Fraud, Ealing: Report
  Benefit Fraud, Lewisham: Report
  Benefit Fraud, Lewisham: Report
  Benefit Fraud, Greenwich: Report
  Benefit Fraud, Greenwich: Report
  Benefit Fraud, Islington: Report
  Benefit Fraud, Islington: Report
  Prisoners: Health
  Prisoners: Health
  Electoral Procedures: Pilot Schemes
  Electoral Procedures: Pilot Schemes
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Annual Report
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Annual Report
  Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000: Implementation
  Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000: Implementation
  BSE in Continental Europe: Counter-measures
  BSE in Continental Europe: Counter-measures